View article without comments
Report Back from Palestine Solidarity Demonstration
by elle / esther
Thursday, Nov. 18, 2004 at 11:52 AM
The general mood was determined
In Cleveland on Sunday November 14th about a dozen people gathered on Lakeside Avenue at the Free Stamp in Willard Park. The general mood was determined, strong, optimistic about future of Palestine in the light of Arafat's death, and respectful of the children on both sides whose names we read as we mourn their deaths.
There was no police interference, there was periodic monitoring of the group by police driving by and the policeman who spoke to us in the beginning was exceedingly polite; the policeman also notified the group that there had been a counterdemonstration against the Palestine Solidarity demo booked at free stamp from 12-2 but they never showed up.
Speakers over a sound system included, Esther Sassaman, Brian Fry of Inter Religious Task Force, Don Bryant of Greater Immigrant Support Network. Palestinian students from CSU and tri-C including Khaled Allabadi, spoke of their own experiences, being involved in protests and the situation with checkpoints, one student talked bout how his own family was involved in the first intifada.
Football fans were passing by before during and after the protest.
Mostly the fans were aggressive and angry, but a few were supportive and honked in support or waved. Some were very angry and threatening, one called us terrorists and one tried to whack and break the signs at the very beginning.
Thank you Esther for the report details
Palestine Solidarity Demonstration
by Don Bryant
Friday, Nov. 19, 2004 at 4:48 PM
The November 14th demonstration was also a time for us to read many names of the 700plus children who have been killed on both sides of the border since September, 2000 due to the U.S. funded Israeli occupation of Palestine. Roughly, six Palestinian children have been killed for every one Israeli child. See http://www.rememberthesechildren.org.
Interestingly, the officer who was so friendly to us at the demo was from the Intelligence Unit of the Cleveland Police Department, Lieutenant Brian Dunn. Hmmm?
Remember November 29 is the United for Peace and Justice Palestine Solidarity national action day. Our group is considering local activities. Any ideas? email firstname.lastname@example.org. We may call for a letters-to-the-editor blitz on various media that has a habit of ignoring our demonstrations. Contact us for programs or discussions with your group.
by Beslan and Moslems
Friday, Nov. 19, 2004 at 5:11 PM
"six Palestinian children have been killed for every one Israeli child.'
Damn!! It's not a game of checkers you know...
The differenc of course, is that Israeli children are TARGETED by the brave warriors of Islam....
Friday, Nov. 19, 2004 at 5:45 PM
You are stupid.
Sunday, Nov. 21, 2004 at 3:05 PM
Right, 'cause when you fire a missile into a populated apartment building that has children in it, you're not "targeting" children, you're "targeting" the apartment building?
Gimme a break. That's like saying the nuclear destruction of Hiroshima didn't "target" children. When you decide to kill at will, and you KNOW there's children around, you're targeting children.
Is it supposed to be comforting that, even though Israel has killed 5 times the number of children, they didn't "target" them?
The perpetrators of 9/11 may not have "targeted" children, but when you fly a plane into a populated building, knowing thousands will die, aren't they still responsible for every death, including children?
Is there any difference between saying, "I'm going to kill a child" and "I'm going to do something that will obviously result in the death of a child"?
Sunday, Nov. 21, 2004 at 5:47 PM
For all the complaining and protesting that takes place against Israel on here it still amazes me how so many of you turn a blind eye to the Palestinians doing the same thing and many times even worse. Israel fires a missle, it hits a building, people die. Of course this bad. Palestinian "leadership" train children from birth to be nothing more than terrorists, Fatah or Hezbollah ties a bomb onto the child, the child climbs onto a jewish bus, the bus explodes killing just as many innocent children. Of course this is just as bad and maybe even worse. It is hard to join you and protest against the Israeli government when you are supporting leadership on the other side who are absolutely no better and throughout history have purposely targeted children (Ma'alot for example).
Monday, Nov. 22, 2004 at 3:56 AM
"Just as many innocent children"
No, actually Israel has killed 5 times the number of Palestinian children, and that's just since 2000. If we go back to '48, that gap is far wider.
Israeli violence is a tool to maintain oppression. Palestinian violence is a response to oppression. I don't condone the murder of any children, but I definitely distinguish between an oppressed class lashing out (Pal) and the oppressor class maintaining dominance (Isr). Palestinians commit acts of violence because they feel they don't have any other options (i.e. they don't have the political power, military force, or money Israel does). Israel commits acts of violence as a rational, calculated act intended to maintain their dominance and land theft over the Palestinians.
Believe me, Israel would much prefer suicide bombers than a world where Palestine had the weapons/resources to do equivilant violence to Israel. Do you think Palestine shooting missiles or rolling tanks into Israel in the manner Israel does to Palestine would be better? Palestine bulldozing homes, destroying agriculture, roaming Israeli streets with AK-47's, withholding medical supplies, imposing curfews, destroying schools and hospitals, and constantly building new settlements that steal Israeli land? Would this be more "humane" than suicide bombers in your eyes?
In this country, 1st degree murder is a rational, calculated act while 2nd degree murder and manslaughter are less-calculated and more "responsive" or "reckless" acts.
This seems to suggest that, in this country, there is something about a cold, calculated act of murder that is worse than an act of passion or desperation. The more calculated and rational the murder, the worse it is.
There is no more rational and calculated form of violence than a military occupation that knowingly murders and oppresses a class of people. Israel has many other options besides a ruthless, militarily-enforced aparteid state that murders thousands and condemns millions to poverty. Palestinian violence is carried out as a response to Israeli violence, from a people who don't have any options to fight the oppression they've faced during the 20th century.
You cannot hold the acts of the oppressed and the acts of the oppressor to the same standard. Oppression occurs when one class of people, the oppressed (e.g. Palestinians), have an inferior class status, while another class of people, the oppressor (e.g. Israelis), benefits from the inferior status of the oppressed. For example, while Palestinians lose their land to Israeli theft (because of their inferior class status), Israelis benefit from this by gaining more land for themselves.
Mking, how would you compare:
1) black slaves in early 19th century US who, desperate for freedom, murdered white colonists
2) white people murdering black slaves (to set an example to other "unruly" slaves, perhaps).
You can't compare them because the black slave is commiting a murder in response to a desperate situation (i.e. slavery), while the white slaveowners' murder is part of a larger system of oppression; Theft of property, torture, starvation, rape, etc. etc. Yes, if the slave murdered a child this would be terrible, but it would be the understandably desperate act of someone who didn't feel like waiting around for slavery to end itself while she/he and her/his family are condemned to a life of poverty, servitude, and oppression.
Tell me, Mking, if (for example) Spain decided to take over the United States, expelling all US citizens by force (rape, murder, torture), and the US didn't have the military capabilities or political power to prevent it, what would you do in response?
What if Spain murdered your mother while "clearing out" Ohio, and you and your family are left impoverished refugees in Spanish "reservations" under military lockdown? Would you still have your "evolved sense of morality" than?
Something to think about.
Not a Moral Issue
Monday, Nov. 22, 2004 at 7:35 AM
This will be quick because I have to get to work. This isn't a "moral issue" to me. If anything it is more cause and effect. If Palestinian terrorist are going to continue blowing up buses, markets, schools, and check points Israeli tanks are going to continue plowing through Palestinian streets, simple as that. The West Bank and Gaza are harboring these terrorist. If buses quit blowing up in Israel tanks will stop rolling in Gaza. Unfortunately for the Palestinians they have gutless leadership who have allowed a terrorist wing of their political system to take over. As long as this wing continues to terrorize Israel and leaders with the Palestinain movement are too scared and intimidated to confront the terrorist within nothing will change. The best hope for the Palestinians is a revolution (I know all of you get turned on when you read that word) from within with new peace minded leadership emerging. Off to work!
Their own worst enemy
by Give Peace a Chance
Monday, Nov. 22, 2004 at 12:22 PM
"he best hope for the Palestinians is a revolution (I know all of you get turned on when you read that word) from within with new peace minded leadership emerging."
Right on mking!!! The palestinians need to RESIST the "resistence" and get on with the business of peace instead of eternal war...
Cart Before the Horse
Monday, Nov. 22, 2004 at 12:32 PM
It seems you've got things a little backwards, and I'd also like to hear responses to my questions above when you have the time.
The Israeli occupation of Palestine is not a response to Palestinian violence, palestinian violence is a response to Israeli occupation.
What you don't seem to understand is that, if the Palestinian violence stops, the Israeli violence will still continue. If the Palestinian violence stops, Israel would continue to steal land, destroy infrastructure, and maintain policies that oppress and comdemn millions of Palestinians to poverty. Why would Palestinian "terrorism" mean Israel has a right to steal land continuously since 1948? Why would Palestinian terrorism mean Israel has to bulldoze agriculture? Why would Palestinian terrorism mean Israel must build hundreds of settlements in whatever small terrority Palestine has left? It doesn't make sense.
The Israeli military occupation exists because Israel knows its been oppressing, murdering, and illegally stealing land from Palestine, and Israel EXPECTS a violent response. Who wouldn't respond violently when they see their country and people slowly and systematically being destroyed?
Israel has been far more violent and killed far more innocent people. Israeli violence began before Palestinian violence, namely the 1948 genocide. Israeli violence includes systematic oppression, including murder, humiliation, starvation, bulldozing, curfews, checkpoints, etc. Israeli violence claims far more innocent lives, and has a military force and resources to back it up. Meanwhile, the standard of living in Israel is far, far higher than in Palestine.
Every time in the past Palestinian violent groups have agreed to a "cease-fire", they did NOT see and end to Israeli terror. The bulldozing and settlements continued. The missiles continued. Economic policies starving and suffocating the Palestinian people continued. The Israeli aparteid state continued.
So I ask you, why is it Palestine's obligation to maintain peace when Israel started the conflict, has been far more violent, has 100 times the money/resources as Palestine, and is the oppressor (as explained above)?
You keep assuming the playing field is even. It is not. Please re-read my above article.
If early 19th century American slaves had tried to resist violently, in the manner some Palestinians do, would you turn around and say, "Slavery is your own fault; if you weren't violent, we wouldn't have to enslave you."? Doesn't this seem like a rediculous statement? I mean, violent slave resistance may cause increased violence against slaves, but it's not the cause of the slavery. Just as in Palestine the slavery/oppression exists for political/economic reasons, not as a response to violence.
Would you claim the 1948 genocide of the Palestinians was a "response" to violence? Was the 1967 conflict between Egypt and Israel, where Israel stole another 10% of Palestinian land, somehow a "response" to violence in your eyes? How does this make any sense?
Mking, the hystory of the Israel/Pal conflict is NOT:
In 1948, Israel peacefully claimed a portion of unoccupied land, allowing 2 independent states (Isr and Pal), but were soon after attacked by wave-after-wave of anti-semetic violence which they've been coping with ever since.
Is this what you think?
by jew against occupation
Monday, Nov. 22, 2004 at 5:56 PM
Only someone who has never met a Palestinian would make racist assumptions that most Palestinians are anti-semetic or that millions of Palestinians bowing to Israeli theft and oppression is somehow "peace". I am a jew and have several Palestinian friends, who obviously are not pro-Israel, but are NOT anti-semetic. It's like saying anyone who disagrees with US policy is somehow prejudiced against all Christians.
Racism is the product of ignorance. It is only racism that would allow someone to ignore the terrible things Israel has done. It is only racism that allows people to call genocide "policy" and the response to genocide "murder". Anyone who sees Israelis and Palestinians as equally human would not condemn Pal radicals for killing children without the same outrage when Israel kills children.
How can people condemn a suicide bomer that kills 10 innocent people but not comdemn the 1948 genocide that massacred thousands? Or the 1982 S. Labanon slaughter that killed hundreds of innocents, including children? Or the recent Gaza incursion which killed over 100 Palestinians, over 25% of which were children under the age of 15? Or depriving Pal children of food, medicine, shelter, and education? Or the murders of peaceful internationals in cold blood, such as Rachel Corrie or Thomas Hurnsdale?
Mike's slavery analogy is appropriate. If your idea of "peace" is Palestinians allowing themselves to be slowly destroyed by Israel, land stolen, country destroyed, without fighting back somehow, that sounds alot more like complacent slavery than "peace".
Monday, Nov. 22, 2004 at 6:01 PM
Sorry Mike, but I'm in a bit of a hurry again so if I don't answer this to your satisfaction I'll try to again when I have more time. In a nut shell, you are comparing apples to oranges when it comes to the black slaves and Palestinians. Slaves fought for their freedom by attacking their masters and rightfully so. They didn't blow up buggies taking white woman and children to church on Sundays. They didn't take white school houses hostage and slaughter the children inside. They didn't kidnap white athletes at international sporting events and murder them. I don't know about you but as I touched on before I blame most of this conflict on horrible leadership. Yes, at times, from the Israeli side and throughout all of Arafats reign on the Palestinian side. This has never been more true than in the last decade. Y.A. had what he promised his people at his finger tips in 2000 and he turned it down because he couldn't go from being a terrorist to a head of state. As a result of this failure unfortunately the Palestinian people will probably never come close to getting what was offered in that deal. More to come when I have the time. Nice discussion Mike.
Nobody Kills Arabs like Arabs do
by And they get a free pass
Monday, Nov. 22, 2004 at 6:17 PM
" How can people condemn a suicide bomer that kills 10 innocent people but not comdemn the 1948 genocide that massacred thousands?"
What!!!??? There were 600,000 Israelis, who were attacked by 14 Arab Armies...the only genocide, was that attempted by the Arab nations as they invaded Israel....(and, they tried to invade Israel on 5 separate occasions- losing territory which each act of aggression)
If you're truly concerned about massacres, then you might review Black September...Jordan massacred 20,000 PLO in less then a month...then of course there was Hama...Syria massacred 25,000 Sunnis in LESS THEN TWO WEEKS!!! They fire bombed Hama, then sent in foot soldiers to take care of the surviors...with bullets in the backs of their heads...
then of course there was the PLO invasion of Lebanon and the subsequent civil war in which the PLO massacred thousands of unarmed Christian Arabs...
Huh? Hystory Lesson Time
Monday, Nov. 22, 2004 at 6:23 PM
You don't think there were slave revolts in the United States that killed innocent people, including children? C'mon, you know your HIStory better than that. Allow me to introduce you to ONE example, a man named Nat Turner who started a slave revolt in 1831 Virginia:
"Their gruesome killing spree began in the nearby village of Cross Keys, Virginia. Two hours after nightfall, the men went to the house of Joseph Travis, the slaveholder who held Nat Turner in bondage. Using hatchets, Turner's men murdered Travis, his wife, and three children in their sleep.
"As the small army moved silently through the countryside, forty other blacks joined them. These included four boys, five free men, and one woman. In the next thirty-six hours, they axed or beat to death fifty-nine white men, women and children in Southampton County.
"When news of the insurrection reached Washington, D.C., the Federal government sent 3,000 troops to Virginia. Cross Keys was near the North Carolina border. Fearful of more uprisings, the governor of North Carolina sent a state militia to Northampton County, North Carolina, just south of Cross Keys. The governor's guards killed forty innocent slaves and free blacks there."
Apples and oranges? Actually, this sounds strikingly similar to what happens in Palestine. Slaves were oppressed, Nat Turner and a FEW others decide to fight back with violence, and the US government (like Israel) responded by hanging dozens of innocent slaves.
Did you really not know these things happened during American slavery? Does it really surprise you?
And, more importantly,
Do you condemn slaves (like Nat Turner) who fought back violently against slavery in the same manner you condemn Palestinians? Do you think, instead of eliminating slavery, we should have responded by putting all black slaves in a small area, building a wall around it, and doing what Israel is doing (since, as Nat Turner "proved", all slaves are white-hating terrorists who have nothing but hate and destruction in their hearts?)
Monday, Nov. 22, 2004 at 6:46 PM
"Genocide" includes the forced relocation of a specific class of people based upon their designated class (i.e. Palestinian). In 1948, over a million Palestinians (the muslims living in what is now Israel) were forcibly removed, thousands slaughtered along the way (such as the Deir Yassin massacre). This is genocide.
And yes, Arab nations have does terrible things to the Palestinians as well. Your racist implication is that "arabs uniquely kill each other". This is a terrible argument. Christian Europeans have spent hundreds of years killing each other, as have Asian, Africans, and about any other broad class of "people". This does not excuse what Israel has done and is doing. Palestinians are not Iraqi, Iranian, or Syrian. You cannot comdemn an entire group of people (Arabs) for the actions of a select few of their leaders. That would be like blaming England for a French act of aggression since they're both "european christian" nations.
I condemn acts of oppression whether done by arab, christian, or martian armies. I criticize Israel uniquely because their oppression of over a million Palestinians (the largest group of refugees in the world) occurs with US funding and support. Without US support, the occupation could not continue. Without US support, Israel would not have illegally built nuclear weapons (the only WMD in the middle-east) which is a leading contributer of the region's instability. Also, the occupation and suffering of Palestinians continues today because of Israeli policy, not Jordanian policy.
600,000 Israelis? When are you talking about? In 1917, when the Balfour Declaration was adopted, what is Israel today was 90% muslim, less than 8% jewish. It wasn't until Weizman and the Zionist Movement persuaded jews fleeing to the United States and western Europe to (instead) flee to Israel that the jewish population exploded in Israel (and, of course, Weizman had promised that the land was unoccupied despite the millions of muslims that were living there).
Monday, Nov. 22, 2004 at 6:56 PM
Oh, and by the way, I'll bet if middle-eastern nations decided to declare Ohio an aparteid, strictly muslim nation, and sent military in to forcefully remove US residents from Ohio, the United States would attack this "country". And I'll bet you wouldn't argue with them, either.
Liars for Palestine
by Try the truth for a change
Monday, Nov. 22, 2004 at 7:00 PM
""Genocide" includes the forced relocation of a specific class of people based upon their designated class (i.e. Palestinian)"
No it doesn't ! Genocide is the systematic anihilation of a people based on religion or ethnic origin...like the Arabs in Sudan have been doing for the past several years...
Self defense in the face of invasion and subsequent war, is NOT genocide.
Islam Uber Alles
by Call to Prayer violates separation of Church
Monday, Nov. 22, 2004 at 7:05 PM
"Oh, and by the way, I'll bet if middle-eastern nations decided to declare Ohio an aparteid, strictly muslim nation"
Hold the phone...it may happen in Michigan...you can currently hear the call to prayer 5 times per day over loudspeakers in Hamtramic...
Monday, Nov. 22, 2004 at 7:19 PM
UNITED NATIONS GENOCIDE CONVENTION:
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately infliciting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
The UN has since declared that the forced relocation of a specific ethnic group, when that relocation includes murder and violence, violates (a), (b) and possibly (c). The occupation of Palestine since 1948 definitely violates (c), possibly (d).
"Genocide is the systematic anihilation of a people based on religion or ethnic origin...like the Arabs in Sudan have been doing for the past several years..."
Or like SE Asians did in East Timor, or like the US sponsors in Central America. But I've noticed you only like demonizing Arabs, right?
"Self defense in the face of invasion and subsequent war, is NOT genocide."
WTF are you talking about? Self-defense from what? When Israel was created as an exclusively jewish state, they forcefully relocated the million arabs already living there. It wasn't self-defense, they didn't even live there! What does clearing out over a million arabs and creating an aparteid state have to do with self-defense? Wow, people's ignorance never ceases to amaze me.
Monday, Nov. 22, 2004 at 7:32 PM
Thanks for the Michigan comment. It helps expose your true racism.
"Genocide?" Maybe. "Ethinic Cleansing?" Positively.
Monday, Nov. 22, 2004 at 7:54 PM
saw the debate; thought i'd chime in.
"Genocide is a common term referring to deliberate policies promoting mass killing. The term genocide also generally carries an ethnic connotation, though the delineation of ethnic groups is easier to frame as simply 'foreign' to the culprit party. Genocidal Massacre may refer to a single event which meets the criteria for genocide but stands alone, rather than being part of a sustained campaign."
"The term ethnic cleansing gained prominence in the Yugoslav wars of the 1990s, and now refers generally to displacement, deportation, and forced relocation of ethnic groups from a particular area. This is usually accompanied by destruction of the displaced group's property, and/or its seizure and redistribution to members of the displacing group."
Liberation of Jerusalem
by From Brutal Moslem Grip
Monday, Nov. 22, 2004 at 7:56 PM
" WTF are you talking about? Self-defense from what?"
Sixty years of Attacks from peaceloving arabs...Jordan and Egypt finally saw the light....
No matter how many times they tried, they couldn't anihilate Israel...Masha'allah!!!!
by Stand and Be Counted!!
Monday, Nov. 22, 2004 at 8:06 PM
LOL!!! That's why 20% of Israel's population is Arab...Meanwhile, no Jews are allowed to live in Arab lands...
Dumb and Dumber
Monday, Nov. 22, 2004 at 8:28 PM
No, genius, what was the "self-defense" excuse for the 1948 genocide. Also, since you don't seem to understanding, Jordan and Egypt are NOT Palestine. You're racism, however, lumps all arabs together. It's like blaming England for something France does, which you wouldn't do, because since you're not racist against white people you don't lump them into one large category.
"Ethinic cleansing" makes you laugh? Maybe you should re-read the definition of ethnic cleansing, and read SOMETHING about what happened in '48. I guess racism and ignorance really are bed-fellows.
There are ARABS in Israel, but PALESTINIANS are NOT allowed to be citizens. See how your racism confuses you? Believe it or not, there are DIFFERENT KINDS of arabs, with different religions and countries. Wow, just like white people! What a shock!
There is NO law preventing jews from living in Palestine. Prove it; show me documentation. I know jews living in Palestine (and they're actually treated very well by Palestinians).
There IS a law, however, preventing Palestinians the right to be Israeli citizens. In fact, if an Israeli Jew marries a Palestinian, they are NOT ALLOWED to live in Israel. This is not a secret; it was all over the newspapers. What does the Israeli Constitution guarenteeing basic rights say about this? Nothing. Israel doesn't have one.
I'm willing to have an educated debate based on fact. You have no idea what you're talking about, which is probably why you don't cite any sources to your "facts". Your racism simply generates whatever fabricated facts you like.
Thank you for your posts. It helps show people the ignorance of the pro-Israel argument (i.e. you can't make the argument without lies and racist assumptions).
Stand and be Counted!!
by Useful Idiots!!
Monday, Nov. 22, 2004 at 8:34 PM
"No, genius, what was the "self-defense" excuse for the 1948 genocide."
Monday, Nov. 22, 2004 at 9:28 PM
This thread really picked up while I was out! Mike, no I am not that stupid. Again, it was a quick response. Of course at times innocent people were killed during slave revolts, no history lesson needed. In my opinion, and obviously me and you look at certain times in history completely different, it doesn't compare at all. Palestinian terrorist target innocent Israelis all the time! It isn't as if they are trying to blow up a tank or a command center or troops and some innocent people get caught in the middle they are purposely targeted. I feel sorry for the innocent Palestinians who are killed, who live in poverty, and were used as pawns by Arafat and his corrupt bunch of thugs. I do not feel sorry for the terrorist, Arafat, or people who harbor and worship the terrorist and are killed.
I am encouraged, as I hope you are by recent events though. Fatah has nominated a moderate to take over for Arafat. A moderate who is against using terrorism and wants to talk peace for real. Today Powel was in Israel and there were no terrorist attacks. In the past a visit by a western diplomat was ALWAYS welcomed by a bombing or attack of some kind. I read an article today by a reporter who is currently in Israel and has been traveling around interviewing both jews and muslims about the chances for peace now and most finally seem confident. A Gaza business man summed it up best. He said now that the Father is dead the rest of the family is getting a chance to speak and the majority of the family wants peace.
Tuesday, Nov. 23, 2004 at 12:23 AM
Actually, during the majority of the past 1,500 years, especially during the Middle Ages, Arab nations were among the few who allowed Jews to take refuge from Christian persecution. Jews and Arabs have always been closer than Jews and Europeans until, coincidentally, their "homeland" provided a stronghold for the West in the Middle-East. You make it sound like Arabs perpetrated the holocaust, which (in case you forgot) was carried out by Germany with (until the late 30's) support from most of Europe and the United States (American businesses provided steel and coal for the Nazis; even financed the legendary Auschwitz). Throughout the past 2000 years, it has been white Europeans, NOT Arabs, that have been the primary persecutors of Jews.
Tuesday, Nov. 23, 2004 at 12:43 AM
I'm am not as "encouraged" by recent events. To you, "peace" is simply the end of Palestinian terrorist attacks. To me, "peace" would be the end of ALL violence, the establishment of an independent Palestinian state, either the return of all land taken/settled in the past 60 years OR financial restitution, and the refugee "right to return" promised by the U.N. when Israel was established.
The end of Palestinian violence with continued Israeli occupation and settlement building/land stealing is not peace. It is complacent oppression.
Also, you don't really make sense above. You say Palestinian violence is somehow different than slave violence because Palestinians target innocent people/children, but so did slaves. What's your point? Do you think slaves attacked the police and the military? No, probably because they'd be killed instantly. They wanted to create an actual THREAT, so the slaves killed innocent, random people. Attacking the military does not create a threat when they have big guns and you have small rocks.
Don't quote me on this, but I think the general idea was also, "their children will not live free so long as our children live in oppression." Sound similar to things violent Palestinians might say?
Tuesday, Nov. 23, 2004 at 2:21 AM
LOL? Interesting....you respond to my critique of "self-defense" with a self-defense mechanism....now that's funny.
Tuesday, Nov. 23, 2004 at 6:03 PM
Mike, your assumption on what peace means to me was wrong. We've never really discussed this topic so I wouldn't expect you to know. ;) We are very similar in our views on this.
"To me, "peace" would be the end of ALL violence, the establishment of an independent Palestinian state, either the return of all land taken/settled in the past 60 years OR financial restitution, and the refugee "right to return" promised by the U.N. when Israel was established. "
I agree with what you wrote. The sticking points will be right of return and the restitution or return of land both of which I believe the Palestinians should get. I don't see how you can have an independent Palestine yet tell Palestinians they can't return there. I believe the violence needs to stop on both sides. Until it does none of this will be possible. And this brings us back to the original point of all this. Both sides are committing the violence and in my opinion the Palestinian terrorist and Arafat should not be getting a free pass which they seem to get on the IMC.
by ...Aren't We Feeling Smug Today?
Saturday, Nov. 27, 2004 at 4:53 PM
Unless I'm mistaken, the Palestinians want a right of return to Israel as well as Palestine, insofar as any given Palestinian can establish his or her prior residence, or that of his or her parents or grandparents, in either case. The Israelis prefer to pretend that this is a negotiable issue which might be resolved through restitution or concessions to other unrelated Palestinian demands. Moreover, the Israelis continue to insist that any Jew anywhere in the world has the right to "return" to Israel.
As for the settlers' return to Israel, well, the last that option was even remotely considered by the Israeli leadership, it resulted in the assassination of Yitzak Rabin.
Jordan IS Palestine
by Occuppied by the Hashemites
Saturday, Nov. 27, 2004 at 5:29 PM
"Unless I'm mistaken, the Palestinians want a right of return to Israel as well as Palestine,"
Why would the "palestinians" want to return to Israel once they have their own state?
Does the "right to return" also include the Jews ethnically cleansed from Judea and Samaria, and East Jerusalem?
What about the 1/2 million palestinians ethnically cleansed from Kuwait in 1992? Can they return too?
Over 1 million Jews were ethnically cleansed from Arab nations...
They lost everything, but, the Israelis welcomed them to Israel...too bad their arab brothers NEVER welcomed the palestinians...
Sunday, Nov. 28, 2004 at 6:03 PM
"Arab vs. Jew" racist bullshit. Tired of repeating myself.
Return to where?
by No right of return
Sunday, Nov. 28, 2004 at 8:35 PM
What's BS? Why would Palestinians want ot return to Israel once they have their own state? Jobs? Democracy? Equal rights for women? Higer standards of living then among Arabs? Raising children without having to blow them up?
Return to the West Bank, Dummy.
by Where else?
Monday, Nov. 29, 2004 at 12:17 AM
I don't claim to speak for the Palestinians, Dexter. Just myself. You'll have to direct your queries to the people your Israeli compatriots expelled from Israel. Do a Google search.
Personally, I'd be satisfied to see the Palestinians returned to the West Bank, and the settlers returned to Israel, along with their IDF guardians. Let them defend Israel, for a change.
I do not support the expulsion of Israelis from Israel, despite your fervent convictions to the contrary, if only because the fascists among you would likely emigrate to the US. We've got enough of them here as it is.
Monday, Nov. 29, 2004 at 3:45 AM
I think the question is why WOULDN'T Palestinians who wish to return to Israel be allowed? Why wouldn't they be given the same rights as Jews, especially when it was promised to them when Israel was founded? C'mon. If you're gonna steal someone's land against their will, and one of the few pathetic compensations you give them is, "you can live here again asap", the least you could do is keep that promise.
Palestine is Jordan
by Jordan is Palestine
Monday, Nov. 29, 2004 at 1:06 PM
"I think the question is why WOULDN'T Palestinians who wish to return to Israel be allowed? Why wouldn't they be given the same rights as Jews, especially when it was promised to them when Israel was founded?"
The answer is simple. Most hold Jordanian passports...those who don't hold passports from the other 21 Arab nations...Simply put, they're citizens of other nations who have never been asknowledged by those other nations. The majority of "palestinians" arrived in the region AFTER the establishment of Israel, searching for employment.
When the territories were OCCUPIED by Jordan and Egypt, the locals were put into "camps" to be maintained as perennial "refugees" for the sole purpose of destroying Israel.
The question remains, why would a "palestinian" want to lve in Israel once another palestinians state is formed. Jordan is currently 70% palestinian, in a land OCCUPIED by a Hashemite king.
Monday, Nov. 29, 2004 at 4:51 PM
Nice to see you haven't given up the Jew/Arab dichotomy, but nothing you've said answers the question. Your racism implies this is an "arab" issue, which seems to suggest Israel is in no way obligated to the people it expulsed from their homes/land, and has no obligations arising from 60+ years of theft, torture, murder, and oppression.
Cause either Israel OR all arab countries are blameless (according to your paradigm), right? One religion in bad, and the other one good, so to expect BOTH to respect Palestinian human rights is absurd, right? If any arab nation does anything oppressive, Palestinian refugees are responsible since they're the same religion? Gimme a break.
To deny Israel's crimes and obligations because Jordan has also committed crimes makes no sense, as racist-based arguments usually don't.
Palestinians-the ONLY refugees NEVER to be resettled
by Arabs built the "refugee" camps
Monday, Nov. 29, 2004 at 5:11 PM
" Your racism implies this is an "arab" issue, which seems to suggest Israel is in no way obligated to the people it expulsed from their homes/land, and has no obligations arising from 60+ years of theft, torture, murder, and oppression. "
It is an Arab issue. It was the Arabs afterall that convinced many other Arabs to flee the new nation of Israel, and promised them they would attack and anihilate the Jews...woops, they failed in ther efforts towrds extermination 5 times, losing territory with each aggresive war the started. What did the Arabs do with the "palestinians"? they locked them into "camps" to be used as pawns for 60 years. Meanwhile, a great many Arabs stayed in the New Nation of Israel, and today enjoy MORE rights then they would living among their Arab brothers...(an interesting aside- 2/3 of all murders in the West Bank, are honor killings. Male relatives murdering Arab women over perceived insults to the family)
The UN offered the Arabs partition (this, after the Brits gave 80% of the Mandate to the Hashemites-today's population in Jordan is stll at least 70% palestinian)
Where was all of this angst when the territories were OCCUPIED by Egypt and Jordan? Didn't the palestinians exist then?
Had Israel NOT won the Miraculous Six Day War...there would never be any hope for pali self determination.
Now, what makes the "palestinians" different from the other Arabs in the region? Absolutely nothing. Same religion, same language, asame culture...
Another interesting fact- 1/2 million palestinians were ethnically cleansed from Kuwait in 1992--just something for the "I hate Israel Crowd" to chew on.
Monday, Nov. 29, 2004 at 5:55 PM
"Now, what makes the 'palestinians' different from the other Arabs in the region? Absolutely nothing. Same religion, same language, asame culture..."
Exactly my point. If you don't understand why this statement oozes of racism you never will. This is one of the most absurd generalizations I've ever heard. Thank you for saying it; that way people reading this will see the mentality of zionism.
Although you don't seem to understand all your arguments are contingent on a jew vs. arab dichotomy, which you use to excuse Israel from its countless crimes, I have no doubt the readers of this string do understand. I have nothing else to say because your comments have been nonresponsive and keep reiterating the same racist, dichotomous nonsense. I won't even bother discrediting your "5 arab attacks" bullshit since you seem to have either a reading or comprehension problem.
Good luck condemning people based on religion. Hitler would have loved you.
So Many Facts...
by ...So Little Time.
Monday, Nov. 29, 2004 at 6:06 PM
United Nations "Partition Plan" to the Palestinians:
You are going to have 47% of the 100% which was originally yours.
Palestine = 47% of Palestine.
"Oslo Agreement" to the Palestinians:
You are going to have 22% of the 100% which was originally yours.
Palestine = 22% of Palestine.
Barak's "Generous Offer" to the Palestinians:
We are going to give you 80% of 22% of 100% of the land which was originally yours.
Palestine = 17% of Palestine.
Sharon's "Peace Plan" to the Palestinians in 2000:
We are going to give you 42% of 80% of 22% of 100% of the land which was originally yours, and this 42% will remain under continuous curfew.
Palestine = 7% of Palestine.
"American Zionists" to the Palestinians:
According to our version of the Bible you are entitled to 0% of 42% of 80% of 22% of 100% of the land which was originally yours.
Palestine = 0% of Palestine.
The "Road Map" to the Palestinians that Bush envisions:
* If you stop your resistance to the occupation (which we call terrorism), and
* your refugees give up their right of return to their ancestral homes, and
* you agree to only elect officials acceptable to Bush and Sharon, and
* you agree to lock up all your resistance fighters, and
* you agree to drive your cars only on roads that Sharon assigns for your use, and
* you do not object to the 'wall' that Sharon is building, and
* you agree not to claim Jerusalem as your capital, and
* you agree that your children's school curriculum only includes courses and books approved by the Israeli government, and
* you agree not to give birth to more than three children per family,
then Sharon might consider negotiating with you on the 42% of 80% of 22% of 100% of the land which was originally yours.
0% of Palestine < Palestine < 7% of Palestine.
Arabist numbers games
by Historical ignorance,? lying for Palestine?
Monday, Nov. 29, 2004 at 6:24 PM
" You are going to have 47% of the 100% which was originally yours.
Palestine = 47% of Palestine. "
Arabist numbers game...
Trans-Jordan was created on 80% of the Palestine Mandate. Israel was created on 10% of what remained...do the math...the Arabs would have had 90% of the Palestine Mandate, but they would settle for nothing less then 100%---Looks like they'll finally have to settle for 80%.
The "palestinains" didn't exist back then. TransJordan saw them as Arab Jordanians. Syria saw them as Syrians. Egypt saw them as Egyptians. Factually, there is no liguuistic or cultural difference between Arabs living in Jordan, Syria or Israel. (with the exception that the Arabs living in Israel enjoy greater freedoms.)
The victors feel victimized...
by ...by the victims of the victory.
Tuesday, Nov. 30, 2004 at 6:09 PM
It's not simply racism or fascism, Mike. The Zionists justify their theft of Palestinian territory by pitting not only themselves but all Israelis, indeed all Jews, against the "Arabs", which is their generic classification for all the millions of indigenous inhabitants of the Middle East who oppose the creation of a secular, Western parliamentary democracy populated by Jewish emigrants from Europe and the US. Within this context, its natural to feel "victimized" by the vast majority of the "Arabs" who are understandably angered by and retaliate against an occupation of their region and culture by Western European and American colonial emigrants.
Restricting the terms of debate to Zionists and Palestinians makes it that much harder for the thieves to justify the theft by claiming to be victimized by the people they themselves victimize. Calling Palestinians "Arabs" (when in fact they're no less Semitic than the Sephardic Jews who initially populated Palestine) allows them to ignore the terror they inflict upon people whose lives, homes and culture they destroy, and instead condemn the terror they suffer at the hands of those who resist them. In fact, much of the terror they feel is self-inflicted: it's called guilt.
Call a spade a spade
by Generic Arabs
Tuesday, Nov. 30, 2004 at 6:38 PM
"Calling Palestinians "Arabs" (when in fact they're no less Semitic than the Sephardic Jews who initially populated Palestine"
LOL!!!! They've been called Arabs since the Arabs invaded in the 7th century...they only became "palestinians" when the ARABS lost the Six Day War...
Some sephardic Jews are also Arabs, but many are not some mixed with Berbers (who were also invaded, occupied and colonized by Arabs...)
The victors are victimized...
by ...the victims of the victory.
Tuesday, Nov. 30, 2004 at 9:51 PM
Once again, it's the evil Arabs who threaten the brave Jewish settlers who venture into their ancestral homeland to reclaim the land promised to them by their Biblical prophets. What a crock of shit!
don't you just love when racism is this blatant
Wednesday, Dec. 01, 2004 at 9:19 AM
Anyone else notice that when the person who keeps posting this racist nonsense keep talking about how "Arabs living in Israel enjoy greater freedoms" then Arabs living in other states. Yes he never says that Arabs living in Israel enjoy equal freedoms to non-Arab Israeli citizens. One could only guess that he then thinks it is ok for people to be discriminated against based upon their ethnicity. This is why Israel is often called the new apartheid.
Jordan is Palestine
by Arab Nations Dictatorships and Monarchies
Wednesday, Dec. 01, 2004 at 12:59 PM
"Yes he never says that Arabs living in Israel enjoy equal freedoms to non-Arab Israeli citizens."
Arabs can vote and be represented in Israeli Parliament...There is not one Arab nation that permits this. Arab nations are Monarchies and or Dictatorships....Palestinians were ethnically cleansed from the Kingdom of Kuwait (1/2 million in 1992)...no angst over this?
Palestinians are personas non grata in every nation in the Arabian Peninsula.
Every Democratic Country Has Its Jews...
by ...The Palestinians Are The Jews of Israel,
Wednesday, Dec. 01, 2004 at 5:49 PM
The monarchies were instituted by British imperialism. The dictatorships were instituted by American imperialism. An, in any case, you appear to be implying that the Arabs are too primitive (tribal) to appreciate democracy, unlike their Israeli counterparts who, like their American and erstwhile European patrons, sustain their democratic traditions only at the expense of Israeli imperialism.
The inference, of itself, is blatantly racist.
and yet again
Wednesday, Dec. 01, 2004 at 6:22 PM
You forgot to address the point I brought up, oh nameless racist one. Do Palestinians living within Israel enjoy the same rights as Israelis? Hell, do the different ethinic groups that make up the Israelis enjoy the same rights?
Name one country where palestinians can vote...
by Answer: Israel
Wednesday, Dec. 01, 2004 at 7:02 PM
Certainly you won't accept the veracity of this link, because it has the word "Jewish" in it...but, perhaps it could answer some of your questions...
Regardless, Arabs living in Israel ejoy more rights then arabs living in ANY Arab nation (outside the Royal families of course).
There is a reason that 20% of Israel's population is Arab, and they CHOOSE to remain living there instead of migrating to a nation ruled by their Arab brothers.
Thursday, Dec. 02, 2004 at 4:24 AM
First of all, I'M Jewish, asshole.
Second of all, PALESTINIANS do NOT enjoy equal rights in Israel. There are different kinds of Arabs who enjoy different rights in Israel. What part of that don't you understand, you ignorant fuck? Sorry for the profanity, but I've said this at least 5 times already, but you seem to be at a loss of words every time I mention the inherently ignorant, meaningless, and racist assumptions you embrace when you categorize every "arab" into a single group.
Finally, I can cite JEWISH-ISRAELI sources to support EVERYTHING we're saying, so I'm afraid you won't be able to pull the anti-zionist/anti-semetic racist switcheroo. A large number of acivists fighting the occupation in Palestine are also Israeli-Jews.
Sorry the world doesn't fit into your racist black/white categories.
Maybe, just maybe, it's NOT ethnicity OR religion that's the problem. Maybe it's RACISM and INTOLERANCE that permits governments to commit heinous acts. In this case, it's not all Jews OR all Arabs that are assholes, it's racists!
You have yet to respond to repeated arguments that grouping all Arabs together is racist and moronic.
You have yet to respond to repeated arguments that acts committed by other governments DOES NOT EXCUSE the horrendous things Israel has done over the years and continues to do today.
You have yet to respond to repeated arguments that whatever conflict Israel had with foreign middle-eastern governments DOES NOT EXCUSE the consistent theft of Palestinian land, who are NOT the people Israel had the conflict with in '67 (when they "preemptively" attacked Egypt), nor the 60 other odd years of land stealing.
You say WE don't look at things equally, however we've acknowledged crimes Jordan and others have committed. YOU have yet to admit a single fault of Israel. We also have given specific reasons for our current criticisms of Israel in particular, e.g., US funding/tax dollars, occupation, nuclear arsenal, etc. that you HAVE NOT RESPONDED TO.
You sound like a broken record ("arabs evil, jews good! arabs evil, jews good!"), and the more we develop our position the more you regress into the same 2-D, racist, reductionist, shallow paradigm which renders you INCAPABLE of responding to our arguments.
That's why you ignore them (hoping they'll go away) and resort to cowardly "lol's" and redundant sarcastic/racist ad homs. You have failed to defend your argument miserably. I mean, not even close. Read more, come up with some better applications of your racism (preferably RESPONSIVE ones), and get back to us.
Once again, Hitler would have loved you. As a Jew, you disgust me and I thank you for the hate-crimes and stereotypes of intolerance used against Jews which you are facilitating.
And to everyone else, please understand that many, many Jews are not racist fucks like this asshole (who may or may not even be jewish).
Read Your Own Crap Site
Thursday, Dec. 02, 2004 at 4:41 AM
BTW, the site you linked to does NOT claim ANYWHERE that PALESTINIANS have rights in Israel.
Also, this website is pathetic. It provides zero citations for the "facts" it espouses, and has no actual content.
Is this the best you can come up with? Some zionist blog is your resource? Really, REALLY pathetic. I can list you 15 ISRAELI-JEWISH run media sources, organizations, and websites that are anti-occupation and make "jewishvirtuallibrary" look like a joke..
C'mon, dumbass. Get better sources. This website is ADMITTEDLY designed to promote PR between the US and Israel, and has major money behind it. According to you (and ONLY a blind racist), it's more credible than Amnesty International, the Associated Press, the UN, think tanks, etc.
No wonder you're getting your ass kicked. Your research skills suck ass. No wonder your arguments are so sorry and unresponsive. I see where you're getting them corn-fed from!
Asshole, and proud of it
by Just as We thought
Thursday, Dec. 02, 2004 at 11:52 AM
"First of all, I'M Jewish, asshole."
So, you're a Jewish asshole...big shiite!
They're all assholes!!!
The victors feel victimized...
by ...the victims of the victory.
Thursday, Dec. 02, 2004 at 12:46 PM
"Regardless, Arabs living in Israel ejoy more rights then arabs living in ANY Arab nation (outside the Royal families of course).
"There is a reason that 20% of Israel's population is Arab, and they CHOOSE to remain living there instead of migrating to a nation ruled by their Arab brothers."
The Palestinians who currently live in Israel pre-date the establishment of the state of Israel. In other words, their parents and grandparents lived in Palestine long before most of the Jews who currently reside in Israel emigrated to the Middle East. In other words, they refused to be expelled from their homeland by the Zionists, unlike the majority of Palestinians who were. In other words, why would they choose to live anywhere else, other than their homes?
by Dhimmis for Dummies
Thursday, Dec. 02, 2004 at 1:30 PM
" The Palestinians who currently live in Israel pre-date the establishment of the state of Israel."
That's true for some of them. Many of the Arabs living in Israel are Christians who have immigrated to avoid being forced to live under the institutionalized apartheid system of Muslim dhimmitude.
The victors continue to feel victimized,,,
by ...the victims of the European holocaust.
Thursday, Dec. 02, 2004 at 8:10 PM
You're probably right. I would hardly expect the racists who rule Israel to allow too many Palestinians to remain in Israel, and least of all the moslems.
A Modern Democracy Sustained...
by ...the Tribal Animosity It Exploits.
Friday, Dec. 03, 2004 at 12:55 AM
It's called Zionism, and when the Arabs examine themselves from the reflection of Palestinian refugee camps scattered throughout the Middle East, they respond in kind.
Sooner or later, the Israelis - the sane ones - will understand that the perpetual destabilization of the Middle East can only defer indefinitely the process of its modernization.
Hopefully, they'll figure it out before their paranoid Orthodox brethren destroy the entire region, including Israel.
Nobody destabilizes the middle East like Arabs
by Talk about tribal...
Friday, Dec. 03, 2004 at 11:42 AM
" will understand that the perpetual destabilization of the Middle East can only defer indefinitely the process of its modernization. "
Please review history...even without Jews to kick around in the Middle East, the region is perpetually in a state of destabilization.
400 years of Ottomon Occupation kept things in line...given the opportunity however, Arabs will kill each other as they always have in the past.
They did fine when they were busy invading, occupying and colonizing others (from India to North Africa)...once that stage ended, and they were repulsed by the Europeans in Spain, Kosovo, Austria and Malta, they turned on each other...the only thing which has temporarily unified them is the advent of Israel...but still, the concept of Arab unity is fleeting at best. Alliances shift with the sand.
Nobody destabilizes the Middle East like Israel.
by A truly tribal state.
Friday, Dec. 03, 2004 at 1:12 PM
I notice you ignored the reference to "sane Israelis", or "their paranoid Orthodox brethren".
Moreover, you appear to understand the relationship between inperialism and "domestic tranquility".
Given the opportunity, the "Arabs" will become as pacific as their "Jewish" brothers.
Unfortunately, Israel and the US refuse to extend the opportunity.
Nobody Kills Arabs like Arabs do
by Black September...
Friday, Dec. 03, 2004 at 2:13 PM
" Given the opportunity, the "Arabs" will become as pacific as their "Jewish" brothers. '
LOL!!!! Just like the pacifists in Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen ad nauseum...
The Pacifists of 5 aggressive wars of anihilation, Black September, Hama and Damour...
The Pacification of the Middle East.
by Hearts and Minds Set in Stone.
Friday, Dec. 03, 2004 at 6:05 PM
The pacifists in Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, et al., saw what happened to the pacifists of Palestine, even as earlier the pacifists of Europe and the United States witnessed the fate of the pacifists in Germany, Poland, the Ukraine, ad nauseum, and all of them act according to their pacific principles.
The pacifists of the Middle East at least defend their territory. whereas the pacifists of Europe and the United States do not. Unless, of course, you believe (as I'm sure you do) that a two thousand year absence is just another Biblical triviality.
Geologically speaking, you would be right.
Arab pacifists Attack
by and lose EVERY battle they've started
Friday, Dec. 03, 2004 at 7:53 PM
"The pacifists in Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, et al., saw what happened to the pacifists of Palestine,"
LOL!!! The "pacifists" attacked the new nation of Israel. They captured territory which would have belonged to the palesetinians, and locked the locals into "camps"...the pasifists lost five aggressivley passive wars of anihilation against Israel, along with more territory which would have belonged to the palis had they passively accepted partition...
Arabs are notorious for shooting themselves in the foot...Useful idiots are notorious for defending these murderers!@
Talking to a Wall
Saturday, Dec. 04, 2004 at 3:56 PM
LOL!!! Actually he was referring to the pacifists living in arab nations such as Syria, Jordan, etc. Because there's different kinds of people in different countries, ya racist moron. Just because the United States acts aggressively doesn't mean there isn't a pacifict in the whole country! Are you an idiot?
But, of course, you group every arab together in a singular, racist image of "violent animals" who "kill each other" at every opportunity. Instead of arabs being different individuals, you group them all together and ascribe them universal, "bad" traits.
Hitler did the same thing to the Jews. Watch "Triumph of the Will" sometime; they use the same language and racist classifications as you do! Hitler needed you!
By the way, CHRISTIAN nations have been "killing each other" and "destabilized" for over 1,500 years. So have Asian nations. But you, being a racist piece of shit, only apply your "violent animals" standard to Arabs.
Once again, your statements are completely non-responsive, ignorant, reductionist, bigoted crap. You can't respond to our arguments, so you ignore them and hide (like a coward) being empty, racist ad homs and sarcasm.
Disagree but Agree
Saturday, Dec. 04, 2004 at 5:00 PM
After jumping head first into this debate a week or so ago I've spent the last week reading from the sidelines. While I still feel the same and disagree with Mike and some of the others about Palestinian "leadership's" part in the current conflict and I do not agree with the IMC giving Arafat and Palestinian movement a completely free pass on all the violence I do agree with Mike and the others who have taken part in the debate that lumping all "Arabs" into one group and labeling them as blood thirsty terrorist is extremely ignorant. If in any of my past posts it came off as I was doing this (lumping everyone into one group) I do apologize to any of my muslim friends out there. It was not my intention at all!
People like Arafat, Bin Laden, and Saddam have given Islam a bad face but they do not represnt the religion or the people as a whole. Islam, at its core, is a very peaceful religion. Don't buy the crap Pat Roberston tells you on The 700 Club. Take the time to talk to some people and learn for yourself. I'm fortunate to have a very good friend who is originally from Bangladesh and now lives in London. She is very open about her Islamic faith and is always willing to talk and explain things to a 'Yank' like me. To the person who keeps making the anti-Arab post I suggest you do the same. Talk to someone who knows and I think some of your opinions may change.
Also keep in mind there isn't one religion in the world that doesn't have some bad apples and we all know in just about any aspect in life it only takes a few idiots to ruin something great for everyone. Some pretty fucked up things have happened throughout history in the name of religion, ALL religions. Christianity has its own group of nuts and so does the Jewish faith. If you lived in this area in the late 80's early 90's then you have probaly heard of the Jeffery Lundgren murders that happened in Kirtland. He was a Mormon who was kicked out of the church, started his own cult, and killed a family because he said God told him to. Does this mean all Mormons are murderers or monsters who can't be trusted? Hell no.
Have your debate but have an open mind as well.
Israelis fighting the Occupation
Sunday, Dec. 05, 2004 at 4:41 PM
A trial against two anti-wall activists that were arrested in Budrus at Jerusalem Magistrate Court (6 Hishin st.), judge Shulamit Dotan's court room. On Thursday 9.12 the trial of two members of Anarchists against the wall will begin at the magistrate court in Jerusalem. The two, Kobi Snitz and Yonatan Pollak were arrested on 21.9.04 at a demonstration against the wall at the Palestinian village of Budrus. They are accused of being in a closed military zone and causing a disturbance. Adv. Gaby Laski who represents the two, will challenge the legitimacy of closed military zones and the court's jurisdiction. The right to protest extends to the occupied territories as well and closed military zones are not protest-prevention zones.
The real offence the defendants are accused of is participation in non-violent resistance to the wall and the occupation. The aggravating circumstance are the fact that this resistance has been successful and the defendants and their comrades collaborate with a popular movement which acts democratically and non violently.
The fact that these activists are put on trial while the soldiers who shot at them with live ammunition from close range and the officers who ordered the shooting are allowed to continue to shoot at demonstrators illustrates the corrupt repressive policies of "the only democracy in the middle east".
This trial follows administrative detention of Palestinian anti wall activists, who do not even get the benefit of a trial, and the violent repression of the protests. This is a clear attempt at silencing legitimate protest. Those who repress non-violent popular resistance are guilty of fueling the violence.
It was said that the hottest places in hell are reserved for those who, in times of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality. Not the policy of repression, the violence or the legal persecution will deter us from the struggle against occupation and repression and for justice, equality and liberty for all living being. We will be grateful to anyone who could come and show support at court.
Saving lives is good thing
by moral crisi indeed!!
Monday, Dec. 06, 2004 at 1:15 PM
"It was said that the hottest places in hell are reserved for those who, in times of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality. "
Moral crisis...that's a good one. The "wall" has significantly cut down the number of suicide bombings targeting innocent women and children...The "wall" saves lives on both sides...
The hottest place in hell right now...
by ...is in Israel.
Monday, Dec. 06, 2004 at 9:12 PM
You may be right, Lolli. The wall - the Great Wall of Israel - has indeed reduced the number of retaliatory bombings by the people whose lives your people have destroyed. But, as you well know, their hatred for you, for the humiliation you force upon them, will not diminish. You can build your wall, and cover it with a dome if you wish (using the Star of David as an architectural prototype: a double geodesic dome), but the barbaric hordes will continue to evade your obstacles, and the atrocities and counter-atrocities will continue.
You've squandered whatever goodwill the world may have conferred upon you, for your survival from the Holocaust. You're no longer the Secular Saints of the Twentieth Century. (You never were, by the way. But, for a while, the world - and you yourself - believed your own propoganda.) That's not necessarilly such a terrible outcome, incidentally. That hallowed aura of moral superiority tends to stink up the atmosphere. Now you can join the rest of us, as moral equals, as you hack and pillage your way to national sovereignty. Welcome to the human race.
Antisemites worst nightmare
by Well armed Jews, defending themselves!
Monday, Dec. 06, 2004 at 10:34 PM
" You've squandered whatever goodwill the world may have conferred upon you,"
LOL!!! Israel should have let the Arabs anihilate the nation and it's people...then you'd be happier...
NewFlash...Jews don't sit back and allow themselves to be murdered any longer...the good old days are gone for you boys...
The bent back were all murdered...the remnant is well armed and willing to fight...an anti-semites worst nightmare!!
In the shit...
by ...and of the shit.
Monday, Dec. 06, 2004 at 11:50 PM
Israel should have let the Palestinians share their territory and your good fortune. But you pissed it away for a Jewish state that holds both Palestinians and Israelis hostage to another half century of mutual hostility. The sorrow and the pity of it all is implicit in your militaristic pride.
by Invasion, OCCUPATION and Colonization
Tuesday, Dec. 07, 2004 at 12:48 PM
"Israel should have let the Palestinians share their territory and your good fortune."
Pssst.... 20% of Israel's population is Arab...Partition would have given the palestinians their own state, in addition to Jordan which is 80% of the Palestine mandate with a majority palestinian population. In other words, if the Arabs had accepted the UN partition plan, the Arabs would now have 90% of the Mandate, two palestinians states, and peace for 60 years...
Jordan and Egypt should have let the palestinians share their territory, however history shows quite a different story, because Arab Occupation of palestinian lands has nothing to do with pali self determination.
Pssst....your history sucks.
Tuesday, Dec. 07, 2004 at 5:14 PM
The Zionists declared their independance in 1948, knowing that Egypt, Jordan and Syria would attack them for creating a Jewish state in a predominantly Moslem region, because they weren't willing to allow the UN to establish a bi-national parliamentary democracy, one which preserved the rights of both Palestinians and Jews -the reason Benadotte was assassinated. They gambled and won, and used the war to justify the expulsion of one million Palestinians from the conquered territiory.
Learn your own history, asshole.
Suicide Bombers for Peace
by Nobody cleanses palestinians like Arabs do
Tuesday, Dec. 07, 2004 at 9:36 PM
"used the war to justify the expulsion of one million Palestinians
You're confusing the Kuwaiti ethnic cleansing (1992) with the attack on the new nation of Israel by 14 Arab armies...Now that's history
Right...David and Goliath, Take 2000...
by ...Another Recitation of the Biblical Myth.
Wednesday, Dec. 08, 2004 at 12:53 AM
by Benny Morris
On November 2, 1948, an Israel Defense Forces (IDF) patrol visited the campsite of a small Bedouin subtribe, Arab al Mawasa, just west of the Sea of Galilee in northern Israel. The area, along with the rest of upper central Galilee, had been conquered by the IDF three to four days before in an armored offensive code-named Operation Hiram.
The patrol, in search of arms, scoured the area. On nearby "Hill 213" the troops found the decapitated remains of two Israeli soldiers who had been missing since a skirmish one month before. According to the 103rd Battalionís patrol report, "The men [then] torched the Arabsí homes [tents?]. The men returned to base with 19 Arab males. At the base the males were sorted out and those who had taken part in enemy operations against our army were identified and then taken under Haim [Hayun]ís command to a designated place and there 14 of them were liquidated. The rest are being transferred to a prisoner of war camp."1
Few such documents have surfaced in Israelís archives during the past fifty years, partly because soldiers and officers who committed atrocities rarely left written descriptions behind, partly because those that do exist are mostly deposited in the IDF Archive, where internal censors make sure that documents explicitly pertaining to massacres or expulsions never see the light of day. But occasionally slips occur.
We now know, on the basis of United Nations, American, and British documents and a handful that surfaced in Israelís civilian archives (the Israel State Archive, party political archives, private papers collections, etc.) during the 1980s and 1990s, of more than a dozen massacres of Arabs by Jewish troops in the course of the first Arab-Israeli war of 1948. These range in size from the shooting of a handful or several dozen civilians arbitrarily selected and lined up against a village wall after its conquest (as occurred, for example, in Majd al Kurum, Biína and Dir al Assad, Ilaboun, Jish, Saliha, Safsaf, and Sasa during Hiram) to the slaughter of some 250 civilians and detainees during a firefight in the town of Lydda, southeast of Tel Aviv, on the afternoon of July 12, 1948.
Over the years, the release of new documents and newspaper interviews with witnesses and participants has uncovered Israeli massacres of Arab civilians and prisoners of war in the subsequent wars of 1956, 1967, 1973, and 1982. The revelations came as a shock to much of the Israeli public, which was nurtured on a belief in its own moral superiority and on a doctrine of "purity of arms." Jewish troops, it was believed, in the mainstream Jewish underground, the Haganah, before 1948, and in the IDF since then, had been trained not to sully their arms by committing atrocities. When an atrocity nonetheless came to light, it was always dismissed as a rare exception, a unique occurrence.
The truth is otherwise - and not surprisingly. Underlying the series of Arab-Israeli wars has been a deep hatred by each side of the other and deep existential fears, both among Israeli Jews and Palestinian Arabs. Moreover, the wars have been at least partly fought in areas crowded with civilians (the whole of Palestine in 1948, the Gaza Strip in 1956 and 1967, the West Bank and Golan Heights in 1967, and southern Lebanon and Beirut in 1982). Almost inevitably, civilians were hurt and killed, sometimes deliberately, more often unintentionally.
The bloodiest and most atrocity-ridden of these wars was, without doubt, the 1948 war of independence, which began, from November 1947 to May 1948, as a civil/guerrilla war between Palestineís thoroughly intermixed Arab and Jewish communities, but ended, from May 1948 to January 1949, as a conventional war between the invading Arab Statesí armies and the newborn State of Israel. The fact that the Arabs had launched the war - the Palestinian Arabs in November-December 1947 and the Arab States in May 1948 - and that the war was protracted and extremely costly for the Jews (who lost six thousand dead, or 1 percent of a total population of 650,000) only exacerbated anger toward the Arabs and heightened the propensity to commit atrocities. The willingness to commit atrocities on each side was also fed by reports - sometimes accurate, sometimes fantastic - of atrocities committed by the other side; retaliation was a frequent motive for Arabs and Israelis alike.
Two out of the three massacres committed by Arabs against Jews during the 1948 war were triggered by Jewish atrocities against Arabs. On December 30, 1947, Irgun Zvai Leumi (National Military Organization, or IZL) terrorists threw a bomb at an Arab bus stop at the entrance to the Haifa Oil Refinery outside Haifa. Half a dozen Arabs were killed, and more were injured. The Arab workers inside the refinery immediately retaliated by turning on their Jewish coworkers with knives, crowbars, and sticks, killing thirty-nine of them. (In turn, the Haganah responded on the night of December 31 by raiding the nearby Arab village of Balad ash Sheikh, where many of the workers lived, blowing up several dozen houses and killing about sixty Arabs.)
Similarly, the Arab irregularsí attack on the convoy of doctors, nurses, students, and Haganah militiamen making its way through East Jerusalem to Mount Scopus (the Mount Scopus Convoy) on April 13 was also a retaliation for the assault by Jewish (IZL-Lehi-Haganah) troops on the Arab village of Deir Yassin, just west of Jerusalem, on April 9, 1948, in which about one hundred villagers were killed during the fighting or just afterward.
The third and largest Arab atrocity of the war, the massacre by irregulars of dozens of surrendering Haganah troops, including some twenty women, at Kfar Etzion in the Etzion Bloc of settlements just north of Hebron, on May 13, was unprovoked by any immediate Jewish attack or atrocity.
But overall, the Jewish forces - Haganah, IZL, Lehi (Lohamei Herut Yisrael, or Freedom Fighters of Israel, or "Stern Gang," as the British authorities called them), and IDF - committed far more atrocities in 1948 than did Arab forces, if only because they were in a far better position to do so.
The Haganah, and subsequently the IDF, overran large Arab-populated areas - some four hundred villages and towns - whereas Arab forces conquered or overran fewer than a dozen Jewish settlements in the course of the war. To this must be added the fact that the civil war in Palestine, which ended in mid-May 1948, raged in a country nominally ruled by a British administration. Neither Jews nor Arabs could legally hold prisoners and, for months, neither had facilities to hold large numbers, so prisoners either were not taken or were shot.
Massacres apart, 1948 was characterized by a great deal of random killing by Jewish troops of Arab civilians. Patrols and ambushes would randomly kill civilians scavenging for food or trying to cross the front lines for other reasons.
From the available evidence, it would appear that not one Jewish soldier or officer was ever punished in connection with these atrocities. Similarly, so far as the evidence allows, no Arab irregular or regular soldier was ever tried or punished for murdering Israelis.
The atrocities did not stop at killings; many Arab villagers and townspeople were expelled from their homes by conquering Jewish units. The largest of these expulsions took place in the towns of Lydda and Ramle on July 12 and 13, when upward of fifty thousand people were dispatched onto roads eastward. In retrospect, it is clear that what occurred in 1948 in Palestine was a variety of ethnic cleansing of Arab areas by Jews. It is impossible to say how many of the 700,000 or so Palestinians who became refugees in 1948 were physically expelled, as distinct from simply fleeing a combat zone. What is certain is that almost all were barred by the Israeli government decision of June 1948 and, consequently, by IDF fire, from returning to their homes or areas. Similarly, almost all of the four hundred
or so Arab villages overrun and depopulated by Israel were in the course of 1948 or immediately thereafter razed to the ground, partly in order to prevent the refugees from returning. No Jewish soldier or commander was ever tried or punished for expelling an Arab community or destroying an Arab village (though as far as the evidence allows, neither was any Jewish soldier or official ever tried or punished for not expelling Arabs or for not destroying an Arab village or urban neighborhood).
In the course of the war Arab soldiers or irregulars expelled a handful of Jewish communities. Indeed, Arabs expelled Jewish communities from every site they overran, but there were less than a dozen such sites. These included the Jewish Quarter of the Old City of Jerusalem, most of whose buildings were subsequently razed; the Etzion Bloc of settlements - Kfar Etzion, Massuíot Yitzhak, Revadim, and Ein Tzurim (again, the buildings were razed to the ground by their looters-conquerors); and Kfar Darom, in the Gaza Strip. (All these sites were resettled by Jews after Israel conquered the West Bank and Gaza Strip in the 1967 war. On the other hand, the hundreds of sites from which Arabs were driven out in 1948, and the buildings razed, remained uninhabited or were resettled with Jews.)
Following 1948, IDF discipline and ethics gradually improved. There-after, in each subsequent war, and in the interregnum between wars, there were progressively fewer atrocities, a point Gen. Rafael Eitan, the IDF chief of general staff, went out of his way to make when assailed for his troopsí behavior during the 1982 invasion of Lebanon.
In October-November 1956, the IDF overran the Gaza Strip, where it remained in control until March 1957. During the battle for this heavily populated zone and during the first weeks of occupation, the IDF killed some five hundred civilians, either in actual combat or in a subsequent series of massacres. Elsewhere during the Sinai-Suez War, IDF troops reportedly killed fleeing, and often unarmed, Egyptian troops by the hundreds and, occasionally, Egyptian prisoners of war. For example, at the end of October 1956, the IDF Paratroop Brigade killed some three dozen POWs near the Mitle Pass. Revelation of this affair in 1995 prompted Egyptian protests to Jerusalem and a demand for an investigation (whose results were never made public).
During the 1967 Six-Day and October 1973 wars, there were cases of IDF troops killing fleeing, and often unarmed, Arab troops and murdering POWs. Again, the victorious Israelis had greater opportunity to commit atrocities than their Arab foes, but there is evidence also that Arab troops, when given the chance, killed off surrendering Israelis and POWs. Such incidents occurred in the 1973 warís first days, when the Syrians overran part of the Golan Heights and the Egyptians overran the IDFís Bar-Lev Line along the east bank of the Suez Canal. Arab civilians and security forces also killed downed Israeli pilots on both fronts.
On the other hand, in the aftermath of these two wars there were almost no reports of atrocities by IDF troops vis-ŗ-vis Arab civilians. Indeed, both the 1967 war (when the IDF overran crowded cities in the West Bank and Gaza Strip) and the 1973 war (when the IDF conquered the populated west bank of the Suez Canal) were marked by almost no civilian casualties. However, in the immediate wake of the June 1967 war, the IDF destroyed more than half a dozen Arab villages in the West Bank (Imwas, Yalu, Beit Nuba, Khirbet Beit Mirsim, Nabi Samwil, etc.) and expelled their inhabitants. The area of the first three villages was subsequently turned into a nature reserve, Park Canada, which remains to this day a favorite Israeli picnic spot.
Altogether, during and in the immediate aftermath of the 1967 war some 200,000 to 300,000 Palestinians left the West Bank and Gaza Strip for Jordan, many of them refugees for the second time, having moved to the West Bank in 1948 from areas that had become Israeli. In addition, fifty thousand to ninety thousand Syrian civilians (the exact number is disputed) fled their homes or were driven out of the Golan Heights during the IDF conquest. As in 1948, very few of these refugees, from the West Bank, Gaza, and the Golan, were allowed back by Israel, and most still live in camps in Jordan and Syria.
In 1982, as well, the IDF troops who overran southern Lebanon, including Beirut and much of the Beirut-Damascus road, committed few deliberate atrocities, despite the fact that the war was waged in a heavily populated area in which there were more than half a dozen Palestinian refugee camps that stiffly resisted the invaders.
Nonetheless, thousands of Palestinian and Lebanese civilians were killed by Israeli airmen, guns, and tanks as the invading force slowly pushed northward, laying down before it a curtain of fire in order to soften resistance and keep down IDF casualties. The exact number of Arab civilians killed is a matter of dispute (Israeli officials spoke of "hundreds"; the Lebanese and Palestinians of "thousands," and even, in one report, of as many as eighteen thousand). What is not disputed is that whole streets and blocks of Lebanese cities - Tyre, Sidon, and Beirut - were destroyed and a number of refugee camps were largely demolished (Rashidiye near Tyre, Ein al Hilwe near Sidon, and others) during the fighting.
Israelís invasion of Lebanon, according to Israeli government spokesmen, was caused or provoked by Palestinian "terrorism" against Israeli targets from southern Lebanon. In fact, during the years between July 1981 and June 1982, when the invasion was launched, there had been practically no terrorist attacks from Lebanon against Israel. But between 1969 and 1981, southern Lebanon had served as a base for Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) attacks against Israeli targets, the most famous of which was the Coast Road Raid of March 1978, when seaborne Palestinian terrorists from Lebanon commandeered an Israeli bus on the road between Tel Aviv and Haifa and killed more than thirty of its passengers.
In September 1982, the largest deliberate atrocity of the Lebanon War took place, the massacre of several hundred Palestinian refugees (again the exact number is disputed, though apparently some five hundred died) in the Sabra and Shatilla camps or neighborhoods of southern Beirut at the hands of Lebanese Christian militiamen of the Phalange Party. While these militiamen, who were Israelís allies, had been let or sent into the camps by the occupying Israeli troops, the Israelis had not intended or planned the massacre, though Israelís defense minister, Ariel Sharon, was subsequently removed from his post on the recommendation of a commission of inquiry. The Kahan Commission found him "negligent" and indirectly responsible for what had happened. The massacre, and the previous destruction of the refugee camps in the south, had meshed with Sharonís policy of pushing the refugee communities as far northward and away from Israelís border as possible, and with the Phalange desire to rid Lebanon altogether of its (largely Muslim) Palestinian population.
In the years since, reports of only two deliberate atrocities, in which a handful of Lebanese villagers and Palestinians died, have surfaced in the Israeli press, and it is doubtful whether many more actually occurred. But during the years 1982-1985, as Israelís security forces struggled unsuccessfully to suppress the Shiite resistance campaign against their occupation of southern Lebanon, Shiite militants were occasionally executed by Israeli security men, thousands of suspects were detained without trial, torture was used systematically against suspects, and houses of resistance fighters were occasionally demolished.
The Arab-Israeli wars also gave rise, of course, to Israelís control of a foreign-populated territory (whether or not technically regarded as occupation of enemy territory in the West Bank and Gaza), resulting in resistance to that presence and Israeli efforts to suppress it.
From 1967 until 1995, Israel occupied and governed the Palestinian-populated West Bank and Gaza Strip, with the population increasing in number during this period from about 1 million to 2 million.
Periodically, groups of local inhabitants banded together to resist the occupation, occasionally using nonviolent political measures (strikes, school closures, demonstrations), at other times employing violence - which the Palestinians called "armed resistance" and the Israelis "terrorism." These acts, both within the occupied territories and in Israel proper, as well as along Israelís borders with Jordan and Lebanon, often involved deliberate attacks on civilians, which would qualify as terrorism on any ordinary definition. For example, in the bouts of Palestinian Islamic fundamentalist terrorism during 1994-1996, suicide bombers destroyed Israeli buses in the centers of Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, killing dozens of Israeli civilians.
Israel responded to both forms of activism, violent and nonviolent, with a range of measures, many of which violated international law and human rights conventions. Over the decades, for example, Israel has expelled without trial from the territories hundreds of political activists, some of whom were suspected of links to "terrorism"; others were merely suspected of political "agitation" and "incitement."
Severe punishments were usually reserved for persons suspected of what Israeli authorities characterized as terrorism or abetting terrorism. In the course of 1967-1981, the Israeli authorities demolished or sealed some thirteen hundred homes, usually of suspected terrorists. Another seven hundred or so homes were destroyed or sealed off during the Intifada, the semiviolent Palestinian uprising of 1987-1993. The homes in question generally also housed brothers and sisters, parents, and children of the suspects, rendering the measure a limited form of collective punishment. Usually, the families were not allowed to rebuild their homes. The homes were usually demolished before the suspect was brought to trial or convicted of any crime.
By far the most common antiresistance measure was arrest. During the thirty years of occupation more than fifty thousand Palestinians passed through the Israeli prison system, most of them during the Intifada years. Thousands more were detained on administrative orders, meaning that they were never tried or convicted by any court of law. The military authorities have the power to detain persons for six months without trial, renewable with a judgeís permission. Israelís jails still hold more than one hundred administrative detainees, a few of whom have spent years in prison without ever having stood trial.
But most of the prisoners - Israelís prisons today hold about five thousand Palestinian prisoners - were tried by military courts. The courts freed very few suspects, and sentences have often been criticized as being unreasonably severe. A boy of fifteen could spend a year or two in jail for throwing a stone at a car. On the other hand, Israeli military and civilian courts have tended to be extremely lenient toward Israeli soldiers or civilians who killed Palestinians, often making do with suspended sentences or orders to do community service. Israelís General Security Service (and, less frequently, IDF and police units) has systematically employed various forms of torture, such as sleep deprivation, beatings, cold showers, and painful postures, against terrorist suspects over the years.2
In the course of the Intifada, IDF troops killed with regular and plastic-coated bullets about one thousand Palestinians, many of them minors. Most were killed during clashes between soldiers and stone-throwing rioters.
During the Intifada, dozens of suspected terrorists were killed by Israeli military and police undercover units who were often accused of acting like death squads. Israeli spokesmen countered that the peculiar conditions of operation of such units - small squads dressed as Arabs operating in the middle of Arab towns and without close support of regular troops - made haste with the trigger finger an imperative of survival. But over the six years of the Intifada, only a handful of such undercover troops were ever killed or injured by Arabs, raising questions as to whether they were typically in great peril during their operations.
Apart from specific action against suspected terrorists and their supporters, IDF troops frequently resorted to wholesale collective measures in order to suppress rebelliousness among the West Bank and Gaza populations. Often, twenty-four-hour or dusk-to-dawn curfews were imposed on whole cities or villages - preventing the inhabitants from going to work or otherwise living a normal life for days on end. Occasionally - such as during or after a nationally motivated strike - the authorities would close down schools, universities, or businesses. Sometimes the troops would cut off water, electricity, or telephone lines to specific localities as a form of punishment. Lastly, the security forces often arrested, and subjected to interrogation, family members of suspected terrorists in order to discover the suspectsí whereabouts.
Israelís administration of the occupied territories has been a target of criticism, in part because Israel claims that it is not legally obliged to implement provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention relating to the occupation of territory. Israel is a party to all four Geneva Conventions but did not sign the two Additional Protocols of 1977.
The Government says in actual practice it applies what it calls the "humanitarian provisions" of the Fourth Convention to the territories, without specifying which provisions are "humanitarian." The position has been assailed by Palestinians and the Arab States and is not accepted by Israelís principal ally, the United States, or any other major power.
One reason that Israel refused to apply the Fourth Geneva Convention as a matter of law, is that the Labor government in power in 1967 feared that by applying the convention, whose second article refers to "all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party," it would effectively acknowledge Jordan as the previous sovereign. Israel viewed Jordan as a belligerent occupier that had unlawfully invaded and illegally annexed the West Bank.
In common practice, Israeli courts, guided by Supreme Court guidelines, operate in light of accepted international customary law and those international conventions adopted into internal Israeli law. Thus there is something of a dichotomy between Israelís official public position in international forums and legal practice vis-ŗ-vis the territories.
In summation, the Arab-Israeli wars, like most wars, have resulted in atrocities, mostly committed by the winning side or the side in a position to commit such atrocities, both against soldiers and civilians. The number and frequency of the atrocities has diminished over the years, in part because the wars have been shorter (the 1948 war lasted a full year, the 1967 war a bare six days), in part because of greater discipline among the Israeli troops. On the other hand, the increased firepower in Israeli hands has meant that troops, when advancing through built-up areas, as in 1982, have tended to lay down curtains of fire that have resulted in large numbers of civilian casualties, something that did not occur in the previous wars, when the IDF had less firepower or was not engaged in built-up areas.
At the same time, the decades of Israeli occupation of the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and Golan Heights has resulted in the systematic deployment of a variety of measures that are contrary to international humanitarian law, including torture of suspected terrorists, house demolitions, administrative detention without due process, and deportations.
1. "C Company," 103rd Battalion report, signature illegible, November 2, 1948, IDF Archive 109649\65.
2. BíTselem, The Interrogation of Palestinians during the Intifada, 1991, Jerusalem; also BíTselem, Routine Torture: Interrogation Methods of the General Security Service, Jerusalem, 1998.
In a WAR
by Both sides get to shoot
Wednesday, Dec. 08, 2004 at 10:52 AM
" The third and largest Arab atrocity of the war, the massacre by irregulars of dozens of surrendering Haganah troops, including some twenty women, at Kfar Etzion in the Etzion Bloc of settlements just north of Hebron, on May 13, was unprovoked by any immediate Jewish attack or atrocity"
War is Hell
Wednesday, Dec. 08, 2004 at 6:20 PM
I won't sit here and trade tales of atrocity and degradation with you. There's no point to it, other than to reinforce our respective animosity for one another. The article speaks for itself, a remarkably objective account of the conflict written by an Israeli historian who at least is not afraid to admit that Israeli soldiers and paramilitary had and continue to commit war crimes, and that the standard justifications for those crimes were less than adequate. You may reply that the Palestinians did the same, but the Palestinians - and the Arabs in general - were defending their homeland, and the Western Jewish Zionist immigrants were attacking and expelling them from their homes and villages and occupying the territory for future generations of Jewish immigrants. You and the useless idiots who rule you had the opportunity to build a bi-cultural nationality which laid the foundation for eventual peace between you and your adversaries - by sharing their land and resources with your capital and skills - but you and they (the useless idiots) continue to provoke the predictable animosity of your adversaries in order to justify your repressive rejection of their justifiable claims.
What's even more pathetic than your blatant attempts to justify the occupation and exploitation of a conquered people is your expectation that the rest of us should continue to sympathize with you. Any and all objections to the "civilized" brutality which you invoke upon the people you've dispossessed is countered with impassioned accusations of anti-semitism.