Jewish Settler Violence in Occupied Palestine

[rachamim18]

Commodityfetish...

While I am most unqualified to comment on E.Timor and anything to do with the Indonesian Army, I am most qualified to offer my view [even my experiences] on IDF policy in the so called "Territories" as I personally served there. It has always been explicit policy NOT to fire on unless fired upon, or unless an imminent threat is perceived. Many times when street demonstrations kicked off the "militants" would use them for cover as they attacked IDF positions. If a group of kids started throwing rocks it was a safe bet that within 10 minutes the first gun shots and/or cocktails would go off. Ideally, combatants would not resort to using their neighbors as cover to get a few shots off but then things are never ideal, are they? Sadly, noncombatants get caught in the crossfire but it was never due to calculated action.

B'tzelem is no more representative of Israel than KACH is. Israel is a diverse nation with many different facets. I dare say that if I resorted to pigeonholing "Palestinians" as you have done with regards to the IDF and Israel in general, you'd accuse me of racism or ethnic bias. B'tzelem speaks for B'tzelem and nobody else, just like every other non governmental agency in the country.

"Flaws in the methodology." I am gald that you phrased it just such. Your inclusion of the State Department memo on alleged Israeli human rights violations in the so called "Territories" does the job for me very effectively. There is a little word called "context." In the context of the situation as it really is, you would have included the 60 odd State Department memos [for all of 1 refrencing Israel] regarding alleged "Palestinian" human rights abuses. Of course you only suggest that Israel is culpable, that Israel somehow deliberately targets and oppresses the "Palestinians." If you in fact provided the proper context the situation would then appear as if Israel isn't actually doing too bad.

That would still not deal with the issue raised in your referenced memo. Israel does not operate in a vacuum. It reacts to certain situations it has no say in. To a Westerner [an American for example like someone with the State Department] the demolition of houses is seen as collective punishment whereas to someone from a regional culture it represents something far different. Again, the operative word is context, cultural as well as factual.

One other little thing you might want to consider: The referenced memo deals primarily with Israeli extra judicial killings as an alleged human rights violation when Americans have [and continue today] engaged in the same exact actions.

 

[Fenian]

What a disgraceful post. Are you trolling or are you deliberately trying to stir up antipathy towards people in the Middle East by appearing so blasé about the slaughter of children? Because if you are, it will not work. We have documented Palestinian and Arabic sites? Absolutely. We are not guilty of casual race-hate that would decry anything from such a source.

When we have also cited sources as diverse as the US State Department, Israeli Peace organisations and Israeli media you put any willingness at all to dicuss the policy of child-murder down to willingness to discuss unpalatable facts in Israel. That’s not the point. The point is to stop such human rights abuses.

Last week an Israeli TV station broadcast a conversation between an Israeli officer and other troops in which the officer said, "Anything that is mobile, any thing that moves in the zone, even if it is a three-year-old, needs to be killed."

The Palestinian population in the territories occupied illegally is not informed of the existence of "death zones" such as in Gaza. It is believed that as many as 1400 Palestinian civilians, including some 570 children and minors, have been killed by Israeli soldiers during the past year.

Last week Israeli columnist Amos Harel, writing in the Israeli daily newspaper Haaretz, described the army's practice of shooting Palestinian children and then covering up the killing as "despicable and criminal".

Another commentator, Doron Rosenblum, writing in the same paper, said the Israeli military establishment was more interested in confronting the negative publicity stemming from the killings of Palestinian civilians than in taking responsibility for the crimes themselves.

The BBC has noted Israeli human rights abuses leading to the deaths of civilians.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2195155.stm

The use of Palestinian "human shields" became a particular issue during Israel's sweeping military operations in April 2002, when human rights organisations - including B'Tselem - petitioned the supreme court to order a stop to the practice.

The government did then outlaw it, but drew a distinction between "human shields" and what it called "neighbourhood procedure". This meant the deployment by IDF gangsters of civilians to help soldiers enter Palestinian homes, or to approach besieged Palestinians. B'Tselem said that procedure was as dangerous as the one which was banned.

However, Israeli government ministers told Israeli media the country was in a war situation, and sometimes the lives of Palestinian civilians had to be endangered to prevent attacks in Israel or to protect Israeli soldiers. Christian Aid partner, B'Tselem, an Israeli-Jewish human rights organisation, “has documented many examples of a disregard for its own rules of engagement and for the protection of innocent civilians”.
http://www.christian-aid.co.uk/middle_east/bt020516.htm

And again Haaretz dated Monday December 6 this year (link posted previously): “In the present intifada, 323 Palestinian children under the age of 14 have been killed by IDF fire.”

I am doubting more and more whether you are what you say you are. I think it likely that you are merely a racist determined to stoke up opposition to anyone from the Middle East. You will not succeed.

 

[Fenian]

One other little thing you might want to consider: The referenced memo deals primarily with Israeli extra judicial killings as an alleged human rights violation when Americans have [and continue today] engaged in the same exact actions.

Right. The US Government promotes human rights abuses, as does the Israeli Government. Your point is?

 

[invisibleplanet]

Invisible: Yes, an act of senseless violence is terrible, isn't it?

Spot the rhetoric. It's not 'senseless' it's premeditated and incited by hierarchal leaders of the land of isreal?

Too bad you only care about one side.

Says who? Says you? Quote me exactly.

What I love about your second excerpted article is that it displays the disparity that exists between the 2 sides. A group of Jewish terrorists ATTEMPT to blow up Arab children and are swiftly incarcerated. Weekly attacks take place against Israelis and the P.A. never saw fit to arrest just one participant...and yet you see nothing wrong with that. I wonder if you stopped to consider just what your many "examples" illustrate.

Yes I do stop and consider what the many examples illustrate.

Unlike the "Territories", extremism of any stripe is outlawed in Israel.

Then may I suggest that these Laws exist on paper, but not in practice.

If a Jewish extremist has a dual passport they are stripped of their Israeli citizenship and summarily deported.

Back to the USA mainly. Thuper. How many times is an actual conviction obtained? Rarely! How many of those sole settler murders are investigated within the settler group or committed within the settler group? Why the vengeance-style military action to what ought to be a civil judiciary process? F-16s against farmers? Snipers against water tanks? Stones against Olives groves? What of imprisoning those Religious leaders who incite the Jewish Settler's to violence? Similar successful prosecutions have been held in the UK, and so it's possible tp do the same in Israeli-funded Occupied Palestine. I don't think the Palestinians have any Court Buildings left standing to host the prosecution of such criminal acts, do you?

It pains me es tut mir vai to think how Israel's Leaders will react due to various sites of ancient religious and modern archeological importance to the writers of 'The Old Testament' and also being close-by or even at the many illegal settlements in the 'Hill-tops of Israel' in the Occupied Territories.
I'm certain that no-one in the world would deny that these Ancient Sites have religious, historical and even tourist value, however if the Jewish people would be custodians of these ancient sites, then there ought to be some Heritage Board which by now these admin-loving architects of occupation have no doubt assembled. It's a little too obvious to me that these 'illegal' settlements are at these sites, however, the press are more tied up with towing the official line, and reporting in Israel tends heavily to the right-wing, with

If the "Palestinians" even attempted to do something similar you would see a huge drop in the overall figures you are so fond of quoting.

It was the "Separation to provide a State" that created the problems in the first place. Israeli sewers vs. Palestinian sewers. New World technology vs Old World Craft.

You quote a Solidarity propaganda piece? No, noone could suggest in the least that you aren't openminded. The group claims to want peace yet they only want peace for Arabs, despite one of the founders being a N.Y. Jew...Wait! Aren't all N.Y. Jews "West Bank Extremists?"

Yes, that evil rich Jew Moskowitz decides to donate his legitimate money [aren't making moral judgements are we?] to causes he holds dear...Hmmm...And this is indicative of what? Like some Muslims do not support extremist linked "charities" [Gasp].

you said evil, not I, mocker!
We seem to hear far more about the Muslim side presently than we do the Jew, especially with all the Israeli-American views on the Arab world that flood the media. You want balance? Live with it. I'm 'taking it as read' that you're full of Al-Qaeda this, and Hamas that. You want balance? Then don't protest too much when i paste a linked page to Moskowitz Watch who trace his funds to Arming Settler Groups. I mention him because he's relevant. I mention the Gambling/Bingo because if money is being collected for a Moskowitz Charity in the UK by any of these US Gambling Groups which are attempting to make a business deal with the current Labour Govt., then the people of the United Kingdom, as a member State of the European Union would be honour bound to ensure that it's people weren't unknowingly donating their losses to an Armed Militia Group making planned strategic attacks on hundreds of years old villages from thousands of years old synagogue sites from the Hilltops of Occupied Palestine.

If Jews and Archeologists want to keep these Ancient Sites preserved and safe for the Millenia and generations to come, then at the very least, these well-funded militia groups have to be disarmed, and restrictions have to come into place legally to prevent monies being 'donated' for such vile causes on the Israeli side. If Israel believe they are Leaders, then they should LEAD!

 

[commodityfetish]

While I am most unqualified to comment on E.Timor and anything to do with the Indonesian Army, I am most qualified to offer my view [even my experiences] on IDF policy in the so called "Territories" as I personally served there. It has always been explicit policy NOT to fire on unless fired upon, or unless an imminent threat is perceived.

the point was that the culture of a military organization can bring about atrocities whether or not there is an explicit policy to commit atrocities. you may very well have served honorably in the occupied territories, but one man's experience does not constitute a statistically valid sample. that can only be done through the sort of investigative work as has been done by btselem and others.

B'tzelem is no more representative of Israel than KACH is. Israel is a diverse nation with many different facets. I dare say that if I resorted to pigeonholing "Palestinians" as you have done with regards to the IDF and Israel in general, you'd accuse me of racism or ethnic bias. B'tzelem speaks for B'tzelem and nobody else, just like every other non governmental agency in the country.

where did i ever say that btselem (or any rightwing group) is representative of israel? in what was only have a joke i stated in the last post just why i think btselem is not representative of israel. i merely said that btselem is an israeli source. it is not insignificant that israelis are reporting all of those things.

now i do take the IDF to be representative of israel in a broad sense. it would obviously be overwrought to suggest that everything the IDF does represents every israeli, but it would be hard to argue that the IDF does not represent isarel as a totality. the IDF includes much of the male population and is controlled by a government elected by a people directly concerned with matters relevant to a military force. there is no "pigeonholing" here, merely a representation of israeli policy. contrast with hamas, who are in no way organized by a controlling governmental authority accountable to voters.

"Flaws in the methodology." I am gald that you phrased it just such.

you have been carping on about for quite some time about "partisan" sources without showing a single identifiable flaw with them (apart from the context, caught-in-the-crossfire argument which i will get to in a moment). now, would you like to treat us to an account of poor evidence gathering, flawed statistical sampling, reliance on hearsay, shoddy investigative work or anything of the sort? until you do, banging on about partisan sources rings hollow.

Your inclusion of the State Department memo on alleged Israeli human rights violations in the so called "Territories" does the job for me very effectively. There is a little word called "context."

That would still not deal with the issue raised in your referenced memo. Israel does not operate in a vacuum. It reacts to certain situations it has no say in.

One other little thing you might want to consider: The referenced memo deals primarily with Israeli extra judicial killings as an alleged human rights violation when Americans have [and continue today] engaged in the same exact actions.

now let us deal with the heart of the matter: context. your argument is essentially this: we are in a difficult situation facing an armed enemy who is in many if not most circumstances indistinguishable from the civilian population. what's more, this enemy is not shy about using the civialian population as cover for its operations and is quick to make hay or civilian casualties when it has been operating in a way that makes civilian casualties inevitable. thus because civilian casualties occur does not mean that we are deliberately trying to cause them.

a fair representation of your argument?

now let us look at some objections to the argument interms of its overall context

on a number of occasions you have placed the phrase "occupied territories" in quotes as if you think that this is a flawed designation. we ought to be calling them "judea and samaria" i suppose.

by what conceivable right can you possibly argue that israel has the right to be in the west bank, gaza and the golen? international law? hah! israel is an occupying power ruling a population that categorically rejects the legitimacy of its presence. this is a very straightforward matter established in international law. israel does not have one iota of right to be there!

now illegitimate occupiers ruling by coercion alone have quite a history of invoking the context argument when they commit civilian casualties. the argument you are invoking has been invoked numerous times in the last 150 years or so in the course of various conflicts:

the british in south africa, kenya, malaya

the US in the philippines, vietnam, iraq

the french in algeria, vietnam

the soviet union in afghanistan

the russians in chechnya, afghanistan

israel in lebanon, palestine

it is an argument invoked by occupiers and colonizers attempting to rationalize their rule. name just one military force that was operating legitimately in a country that has invoked that "we don't know combatant from civilian" argument. this argument is the sole province of colonialists and occupiers. you have no right be there are no one in the civilian population wants you there, thus it is inevitable that the whole population is going to be against you. this is the essence of the consequences of aggression.

2. atrocities that cannot be accounter for in terms of " caught in the crossfire"

these are legion. can you do anything to refute the "culture of impunity" evidence already posted here? basically, most israeli soldiers are on a rampage with next to nothing to fear as consequences for their crimes. you concede that there are extrajudicial killings but say that america does them as well as if america in iraq were an different from israel as occupiers.

 

[invisibleplanet]

What I love about your second excerpted article is that it displays the disparity that exists between the 2 sides. A group of Jewish terrorists ATTEMPT to blow up Arab children and are swiftly incarcerated. Weekly attacks take place against Israelis and the P.A. never saw fit to arrest just one participant...and yet you see nothing wrong with that. I wonder if you stopped to consider just what your many "examples" illustrate.

Again, YES, I do stop to think about what the examples illustrate.

The example you cite clearly illustrates that Israel applies Civil Law procedures applied only to those Israelis who are alleged to have committed a crime, yet when the same type of crime is committed by a Palestinian, Israelis use extra-judicial Martial Law, with this brute force often applied indiscriminately to a selected segment of the Palestinian Populace, often resulting in a military sortie into the town or village where the attacker came from, or the demolition of Palestinian Property close to the 'security fence' as 'retaliatory gestures'.

Other misapplications of Israeli Law such as the unbelievable hypocrisy from the Israeli Government who whilst making little or no attempt to denounce, prosecute and/or incarcerate it's own Political and Religious Leaders/Rabbis who incite racial hatred and inflame religious intolerance, are 'up in arms' with world-wide media coverage when some extremist Imam from a Mosque in an Arabian or European country makes an hate-speech about Israel's treatment of Palestinians.

It doesn't look good.

 

[rachamim18]

Another disgraceful post.

Fenian:"Am I trolling or deliberately trying to stir up antipathy...?" Nope, merely offering my personal take on a contentious situation...How about you? This is a "Political Forum," right? The nature of politics is contentious by nature, factor in undercurrents of religion and a geographically sensitive region and you have the makings for a boisterous exchange of ideas. sadly though, many find it neccessary to resort to base finger pointing instead of bolstering their weak positions with actual facts as opposed to raw emotion.

"WE have documented sites...WE are not..." Are you referring to yourself in the third party or am I debating a society?

"Last week an Israeli station broadcast a conversation..." Funny, I wasn't aware that you were fluent in Hebrew. Not to mention that it is construed as misleading when people offer thirdhand quotes taken from partial transcripts and offered out of context.

"The 'Palestinian' population in "Occupied" areas is not informed of any such "Kill Zones [sic]." First, they are not referred to as "Kill Zones." They are "Security Zones" or more commonly "DMZ Zones." When such zones are established the IDF travels the general vicinity and by bullhorn and leaflet makes the effected population fully aware of such zones. Then signs are posted in Arabic, Hebrew, and English stating the fact. All buildings in the general vicinity are plastered with spray painted warnings in Arabic attesting to that fact as well. Your statement is patently false.

"Two Israeli columnists say something so it must be true..." Right, if you say so. On any day of the week I can pick up assorted periodicals or view selected media outlets and find dozens of talking heads who echo any viewpoint I randomly choose, it means absolutely nothing. Columnists offering viewpoints are nothing more than a waste of space in a "Political Forum."

"Human Shields." A deplorable and inhumane act that was remedied by the Israeli court system. Let's hear a similar admission about the use of minors as human bombs by so called "militant groups."

"What is my point about mentioning that the U.S. also engages in extra judicial executions of terrorists..." Simply to prove that your providing a U.S. State Dept. memo condemning the Israelis for doing so as part and parcel of your argument is meaningless since the accuser does the same [as if a memo from any foreign government could mean anything]. When the U.S. provides ammo [however weak it may be] for your arguments than it is quite acceptable but when someone turns your reference on its ear it is simply brushed off as,"So what?" Very adept at dodging those bullets, keep up the good work.

Invisible: You suggest that the Israeli government's laws against extremism of any stripe are only "on paper." You know, to deflate your argument I merely need to provide one example of a prosecution [based on the aforementioned law]. There have been many, safe to say that your comment is meaningless.

But wait! Then you contradict yourself by criticizing the Israeli government for deporting the people convicted under the law to the U.S. [as if they could be deported to any place other than the land of their birth]. Which is it? If the law is "only on paper" than why are people being stripped of their citizenship AFTER serving prison terms for simply belonging to groups that engage in extremist rhetoric? If only the P.A. engaged in similar surveillance and prosecution of extremists...

"Why don't the [Israeli] authorities prosecute the religious leaders who incite the extremists?" I think you neeed to go back and review the situation at length. you obviously haven't looked into it that much or you'd be well aware of Reb Kahane [senior and junior] as well as the 14 other rabbis that have been incarcerated under the law.

No offense, but the rest of that paticular post is disjointed at best and meandering...something about civil judiciary and archaeologists...If you have a point please try and reiterate it clearly and on the issue at hand.

"Israel uses extra judicial measures on Palestinian extremists but is hypocritical in not using them equally on Israeli extremists." Sorry, the "Palestinians" that Israel targets ALL have the blood of scores of non combatants where as the Israelis you allude to are accused of "planning" attacks." The odd "settler" that actually does have "Palestinian" blood on their hands is able to be brought to justice and prosecuted in a criminal court. "Palestinian" extremists are immune to Israeli prosecution and act with impunity. Israel has repeatedly offered names, addresse, m.o.s, and any other relevant information to the P.A. and international observers and NOT ONE was EVER arrested, let alone questioned. Israel's only avenue of action is to liquidate the threat.

CommodityFetish: You are quite correct when you state that my having served honorably in the so called "territories" is just my subjective experience and in no way indicative of anything [other than my experience]. You are wrong though to assume that the opposite scenario is any more plausible. If one man serving honorably is a statistacal anomaly, what does one man serving dishonorably prove? It proves nothing other than an act by one person is just an act by one person. There is no evidence of any institutional brutality so the point is moot.

"Investigative work of B'tzelem and others." B'tzelem is far from an objective observer. The group has consistently gotten itself involved in Israeli politics. At different times in its history it has forged alliances with various political parties. That is not the type of group that should be investigating anything [other than its conscious that is].

"It is not insignificant that Israelis are reporting these things." I maintain the exact opposite. It means absolutely nothing that Israelis are reporting "these things." Israeli society is not a monolith incapable of dissent. the opposite is the norm. Dissention is a daily part of Israeli life. There is an old Jewish proverb: "2 Jews equal 3 opinions." B'tzelem offering their version of "truth" adds up to zero.

Trying to pigeonhole Israelis based on the fact that the IDF is a compulsory force is a stretch at best. The army is an institution upon itself. Although most Israeli men serve in it it would be rare to find an Israeli who feels defined by it. The army is viewed as an unfortunate necessity, something to value but not emulate. Of course, this is something that most Westerners find difficult to fathom.

"Partisan sources." To counter your point I merely have to say that any orginization that touts a "party line" cannot be relied on for objectivity under any circumstance. I do not form my opinions from Israeli or Zionist websites. I would not dream of offering them as a reference. The ideal way to research a subject is to gather as much evidence/sources as possible and then methodically sift through all the chaff. As to your argument that unless I find fault in these sources methodology,I should not discount them...A partisan group is not going to present evidence that refutes their mission statement. that is called common sense. For you to suggest that any group would place methodology over their stated cause betrays a certain naivete. Rather than debate this endlessly, why not simply aim for objectivity when shoring up your opinion? I can only imagine the reaction if I were to provide the ADL as a reference when arguing the subject of U.S. Aid to Israel.

You start by addressing a subject rationally, as when you started dissecting my position, and then melt into a puddle of tit for tats [again]. Should people use the terms "Judea and Samaria" when referring to the "West Bank?" That it of no consequence to me. The reason I apply apostrophes to the words "West Bank" is because contention surrounds the use of the word "West Bank." Obviously an English title is not used by the inhabitants of the region [Jewish,Arab, or otherwise]. Can we now get back to the point of this exchange?



In calling Israel a "coloniser" or "Occupier" you twist things. A coloniser in a land where the only independant country was that of the "Occupier?" The only nation to ever exist in "Judea" was Judea so you do not make any sense.

 

[nino_savatte]

Originally Posted by rachamim18
In calling Israel a "coloniser" or "Occupier" you twist things. A coloniser in a land where the only independant country was that of the "Occupier?" The only nation to ever exist in "Judea" was Judea so you do not make any sense.

How so? Is it not both? Aren't those living in the occupied territories not 'colonisers' since they live on land that was seized in a war?

I think by anyone's definiton they are but we are just playing with semantics here...aren't we?

 

[Fenian]

Earth calling rachamam...

Yep, definitely a troll.

The Israeli press and media have been quoted (and indeed links posted) detailing murders of civilians and children by the Israeli military.

Other Middle Eastern media have been quoted as saying the same thing - links given.

The international media have been cited - links posted.

Israeli Jewish human rights groups have been quoted and links posted detailing such murders and human rights abuses - also the policy of covering war crimes up.

International human rights groups, NGOs and Charities have been quoted and links posted.

Even the US State Department.

All these sources have been ignored or described as "partisan" by a racist trolling halfwit who claims to be a member of the (non-partisan I assume?) Israeli military. Who are serial child-murderers.

This troll is not entering into serious discourse but wasting people's energy - can anyone think of a good reason he should not go on ignore?

 

[nino_savatte]

Yep, definitely a troll.

The Israeli press and media have been quoted (and indeed links posted) detailing murders of civilians and children by the Israeli military.

Other Middle Eastern media have been quoted as saying the same thing - links given.

The international media have been cited - links posted.

Israeli Jewish human rights groups have been quoted and links posted detailing such murders and human rights abuses - also the policy of covering war crimes up.

International human rights groups, NGOs and Charities have been quoted and links posted.

Even the US State Department.

All these sources have been ignored or described as "partisan" by a racist trolling halfwit who claims to be a member of the (non-partisan I assume?) Israeli military. Who are serial child-murderers.

This troll is not entering into serious discourse but wasting people's energy - can anyone think of a good reason he should not go on ignore?

I've been saying this all along but a certain other poster has been rather quick to bring me to book for being dogged in my determination to uncover the truth.

Attempting to debate with rachamim is almost the same as attempting to argue with the likes of mears: utterly fruitless and ultimately pointless.

 

[rachamim18]

A troll answering...

Fenian: I have two things to say in response to your bigoted diatribe [serial child killers and all]: 1] Despite being so partisan and loathesome I have still managed to engage in discourse without the use of expletives and ad hominum attacks. If you find this behavior so reprehensible and troll like please look to #2. 2] You SHOULD follow your advice and put me on ignore. You DO seem to enjoy hearing yourself talk, far be it from me to interrupt your revelry...Until then I will continue to offer my opinion in a mature way and ATTEMPT a dialouge with people who put themselves on moral pedestals.

Nino: On the issue of semantics, Israel did gain administration of Gaza, Golan, and the "West Bank" from emerging victorius in armed conflict. However,2 of those lands [Gaza and "West Bank"] are traditionally Jewish lands. Jordan itself was created from land stolen from the so called "Palestinian Mandate." Gaza was stolen from the "Mandate" as well during the grab for land following Britain's evacuation of the land post WWII. Over the many years following dissolution of the last independant Jewish state, many nations have exerted control over the lands but there has never been a single case of an independant nation standing on that territory. If Israel could be accused of occupying any land it could be accused of occupying "Egyptian" and "Jordanian" land. Those 2 nations do not levy the claim because they recognize that they in fact stole the land themselves in the first place. They would rather let the Israelis have the apparent headache of administering them.

 

[nino_savatte]

Fenian: I have two things to say in response to your bigoted diatribe [serial child killers and all]: 1] Despite being so partisan and loathesome I have still managed to engage in discourse without the use of expletives and ad hominum attacks. If you find this behavior so reprehensible and troll like please look to #2. 2] You SHOULD follow your advice and put me on ignore. You DO seem to enjoy hearing yourself talk, far be it from me to interrupt your revelry...Until then I will continue to offer my opinion in a mature way and ATTEMPT a dialouge with people who put themselves on moral pedestals.

Nino: On the issue of semantics, Israel did gain administration of Gaza, Golan, and the "West Bank" from emerging victorius in armed conflict. However,2 of those lands [Gaza and "West Bank"] are traditionally Jewish lands. Jordan itself was created from land stolen from the so called "Palestinian Mandate." Gaza was stolen from the "Mandate" as well during the grab for land following Britain's evacuation of the land post WWII. Over the many years following dissolution of the last independant Jewish state, many nations have exerted control over the lands but there has never been a single case of an independant nation standing on that territory. If Israel could be accused of occupying any land it could be accused of occupying "Egyptian" and "Jordanian" land. Those 2 nations do not levy the claim because they recognize that they in fact stole the land themselves in the first place. They would rather let the Israelis have the apparent headache of administering them.

I keep hearing this "traditional Jewish lands" argument but frankly none of it washes with me. I already know about the Sykes-Picot agreement (I've quoted it often enough) so I am aware of the League of Nations mandate (also ultimately responsible for the Iraq mess and the long standing Kurdish homelands question - another fine mess/double cross by the imperialists). So your argument is: if there was no nation state there (there was, it was called the Ottoman Empire who had ruled it for over 500 years, before that it was part of the Byzantine Empire and the Roman before that) then it is perfectly acceptable to create one, regardless of those living there? I'm not saying the Ottomans were perfect, far from it.

Jordan is another example of a state created solely for military-expansionist purposes; as it allowed Britain an almost unbroken stretch of land and sea from India to Egypt. It is a non-entity of a state; a joke.

So what was the motivation on the part of Arthur Balfour to make his declaration? Charity? Hardly, ask the Kurds what they think about British charity.

 

[Fenian]

Fenian: I have two things to say in response to your bigoted diatribe [serial child killers and all]: 1] Despite being so partisan and loathesome I have still managed to engage in discourse without the use of expletives and ad hominum attacks. If you find this behavior so reprehensible and troll like please look to #2. 2] You SHOULD follow your advice and put me on ignore. You DO seem to enjoy hearing yourself talk, far be it from me to interrupt your revelry...Until then I will continue to offer my opinion in a mature way and ATTEMPT a dialouge with people who put themselves on moral pedestals.

That smarted did it rachamam? I can't say I'm worried. Bigoted diatribe? On the contrary, my statements were explicit and detailed in advancing empirical evidence that it was Israeli-Jewish sources, in addition to Middle Eastern and international sources, who were citing condemnations of Israel's war crimes against Palestinians.

Needless to say, I avoided expletives but backed up argument with credible sources - including as I've said (and as a cursory excamination of the thread will reveal) Israeli sources. Regarding the comment "serial child murderers", this is stated in the context that the Israeli military are murdering children, and doing so on a serial basis - and, as Israeli sources reveal, the policy is to cover it up.

As to your claim you have "engaged in discourse" - this is something you have very visibly not done. Instead you have made flip comments and avoided the evidence noted by international agencies (quoted above ad nauseum) and Israelis concerned with human rights.

I was so irritated by your refusal to engage in serious discourse that I questioned whether or not you should be placed on 'ignore'. I didn't realise the response would be so pathetic and weak.

 

[JWH]

Although I think the original post certainly qualifies as a "cut & paste odyssey", I would just like to mention my support for the Alternative Information Center (www.alternativenews.org), who are "good people". A friend of mine worked with/for them for a while and they're tip top. I wish someone could help them out with their website, though, it's so clunky!

 

[Fenian]

.....and in today's Guardian...

Chris McGreal in Jerusalem
Thursday December 16, 2004
The Guardian

"The Israeli soldier on trial for killing the British peace activist Tom Hurndall in the Gaza Strip has admitted he was lying when he said his victim was carrying a gun, but said he was under orders to open fire even on unarmed people."

Chris McGreal in the Guardian continues: "Sergeant Idier Wahid Taysir is charged with manslaughter for shooting Mr Hurndall, 22, as he tried to shelter children on the edge of Rafah from Israeli army gunfire in April last year. He died of his injuries in January....

"The army has already been accused of carrying out an unwritten policy of shooting unarmed civilians who enter a closed security zone in Rafah, which led to the killing of a 13-year-old girl."

QED - serial child killers. Sergeant Taysir said in his trial:

'They tell us all the time to fire; that there is approval. All the troops [in Rafah] fire without approval at anyone who crosses a red line.' Mr Hurndall's mother, Jocelyn, welcomed the soldier's testimony, saying it confirmed the family's belief that Sgt Taysir was not a rogue element but operating under a military policy that permitted the shooting of unarmed civilians.

 

[invisibleplanet]

Fierce fighting in Gaza at Nissanit this week in the Gush Katif settlement bloc with a youth club in Nissanit being shelled. Also this week, 11 New families moved to Nissanit despite the increased fighting and shelling.


This article on tourism promotion in the Illeglly Occupied Territories is a real eye-opener.

 

[nino_savatte]

Is this not a settler industry?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,644324,00.html

It looks that way to me.

 

[rachamim18]

Nino makes sense...I better buy a lottery ticket...

Nino: Balfour served only to play one segment against another. It essentially promised the same thing to both Jew and Arab.

Fenian: Discourse has nothing to do with accepting someone's views. It does however, have everything to do with listening [or its cyber equivalent] patiently and then offering a rebuttal...without expletives, etc. I did not invent the concept but do subscribe to it. If you continue to feel that I am pathetic and weak I would encourage you to exercise your right to ignore me. It makes no difference.

JWH: "Good people" not with standing, sites such as that are a good jumping off point to examine complex issues. They should only be used though as a source of topics, to be fully researched by a variety of sources. Relying on a site like that to form opinions is just as bad as relying on an IDF site for a clear view on happenings in Gaza.

Nino:Well, if you consider a proposed "visitor center" and "promenade" on a war torn stretch of desert beach than so be it. In the first place it does not exist [it is in the talking stages]. Secondly, even if it goes past talking ,Israel is "Disengaging" from the area, it will be turned over to the P.A.

 

[Fenian]

Fenianiscourse has nothing to do with accepting someone's views. It does however, have everything to do with listening [or its cyber equivalent] patiently and then offering a rebuttal...without expletives, etc. I did not invent the concept but do subscribe to it. If you continue to feel that I am pathetic and weak I would encourage you to exercise your right to ignore me. It makes no difference.

Er...no it doesn't. Discourse is essentially about a rational interchange of views and ideas, testing each idea for its worth - not about "listening patiently" (you don't have much choice on a bulletin board) then "offering a rebuttal" without attempt at true learning.

1 archaic : the capacity of orderly thought or procedure : RATIONALITY
2 : verbal interchange of ideas; especially : CONVERSATION
3 a : formal and orderly and usually extended expression of thought on a subject b : connected speech or writing c : a linguistic unit (as a conversation or a story) larger than a sentence
4 obsolete : social familiarity

But this is what you have done, as I've stated; ignored consideration of Israeli-Jewish, Middle Eastern, international and NGO evidnce and documentation of human rights abuses - including from the mouths of members of the Israeli military - and parrotted your evidence-free "rebuttals".

As I said - pathetic and weak.

 

[rachamim18]

Fenian's supposed "points"...

Fenian: Despite your individualised definition of "discourse" the fact remains: Parroting rhetoric does not equal the exchange of ideas nor does condemning others to the rubbish heap because you deem them worthless. "Ignoring" one thing while providing equally acceptable points [your side maintains one viewpoint while the other offers quite another] is exactly what discourse encompasses. Discourse has nothing to do with "testing" a concept's worth. It is simply a "meeting of minds" [or at the very least an attempt at it]. You offer quotes, I offer quotes, what takes place is a waste of space. Offer FACTS. Present statistics and I will gladly dissect most of them. A person can argue against a subjective quote until they are blue in the face...nothing will come of it.

You claim to be after "true learning" yet summarily dismiss ANYTHING that clashes in the slightest with your "convictions." True learning requires an open mind, one that does not deal in absolutes. Try it, you might like it.

Because I reject your summary dismissal does not mean I have not [or continue to] considered your points many times over. I do not enjoy engaging faceless people in heated exchanges for the sake of it. On the contrary, I'd much rather join the status quo and be a "part of the crowd." Sadly, my knowledge in Israeli/"Palestinian" relations does not allow me to blindly condemn the actions of an army whose purpose I agree with. When there is a clear case of wrong doing I acknowledge it as such, can you honestly say the same for the bombers targeting Israeli non combatants?

 

[vimto]

Blaah fucking blaah

Not saying too much are we pal.

Come on you can do better than this soldier!

 

[rachamim18]

Vimto...

You have attributed something to me that I have not said. You made a mistake.

 

[vimto]

You have attributed something to me that I have not said. You made a mistake.

Have I...

What's your point then?

 

[nino_savatte]

Nino: Balfour served only to play one segment against another. It essentially promised the same thing to both Jew and Arab.

Fenian: Discourse has nothing to do with accepting someone's views. It does however, have everything to do with listening [or its cyber equivalent] patiently and then offering a rebuttal...without expletives, etc. I did not invent the concept but do subscribe to it. If you continue to feel that I am pathetic and weak I would encourage you to exercise your right to ignore me. It makes no difference.

JWH: "Good people" not with standing, sites such as that are a good jumping off point to examine complex issues. They should only be used though as a source of topics, to be fully researched by a variety of sources. Relying on a site like that to form opinions is just as bad as relying on an IDF site for a clear view on happenings in Gaza.

Nino:Well, if you consider a proposed "visitor center" and "promenade" on a war torn stretch of desert beach than so be it. In the first place it does not exist [it is in the talking stages]. Secondly, even if it goes past talking ,Israel is "Disengaging" from the area, it will be turned over to the P.A.

Playing with words again rachamim? By anyone's definition, tourism, is a form of industry.

As for Balfour, British charity was never going to materialise without certain conditions as the Kurds found to their cost after Sykes-Picot; anything else was secondary to the wider aims of the British Empire in the Middle East.

You'd better go out and get your lottery ticket.

 

[cemertyone]

You have attributed something to me that I have not said. You made a mistake.

Fuck of and keep killing the kids....that all you and your kind are good for......

 

[rachamim18]

Vimto, Cemerty, and Nino...

Nino: The "tourism" you allude to is just in the dreaming stages so it is not an industry. Even if it were somehow constructed in spite of Israel pulling out of the area I do not imagine that any Israeli run concession in the general vicinity would ever have the slightest chance at turning a profit or even merely breaking even.


Your comments about "British charity" are amazingly astute. I do think that I'll chance that ticket after all.

Vimto:If you have something to say than say it, otherwise you are just taking up space.It takes alot more than "blahblah" or stupid riddles to antagonize me, keep trying.

Cemerty: You need a hobby [or at least a thesaurus].

 

[Fenian]

Ah the racist revisionist and apologist for child murder returns. I've not a great deal of time to waste on rachamam atm, just to note that in spite of your ramblings you've offered not facts but opinion and evasion, whereas many posters on this thread - including myself - have offered evidence from Israeli-Jewish and international sources to our positions.

It's really a question of morality, among other things. Obviously a racist who refers to "Palestinian" in parentheses (viz. denial of a people and the goal of seeking maximum lebensraum in a land free of its inhabitants?) and adopts a revisionist position faced with evidence of the Israeli military carrying out child murder would take a different position from, say, those who on general principle oppose child murder. rachamam's revisionism persists even when the evidence of Israeli military war crimes is from Israeli-Jewish sources, and the Israeli media. Sickening, really.

 

[rachamim18]

Fenian indeed has ALOT of time to waste...

Fenian: As I have stated in other threads I use parentheses around many words when I either want to stress them [as in referring to certain "Walls" or "Barriers"] or when their use is contentious. The term you refer to was not even in use by the "Palestinians" themselves [other than a very few intellectuals] until the ealy 60s. If you bother to study the issue at length [didn't you claim to have visited the land?] you would know that many refused any ssuch apellation as it conflicted with Pan Arabism. In addition the land in question was merely named Syria during the 500 [round about] years of the Ottoman Empire. Before condemning someone as a racist you should at least pretend to know about the subject you claim so much interest in.

Your offensive claim that I condone "child murder" [damn! there go those prejudicial parentheses again!] would only be valid if the fact that child murder had in fact been carried out and even then I'd still have to accept that fact. It hasn't and I most certainly do not. No court of law has pronounced any guilty verdict whatsoever so therefore you, as usual, are out of gas [actually you may very well be full of it but I do not care to find out].

The "Israeli/Jewish" [which by the way is a prejudiced statement in itself in that it assumes that an Israeli periodical and/or organization is automatically Jewish because it is Israeli] papers and organizations that you refer to do not offer any facts, merely opinions. I can easily provide 10 that counter every one that you scrounge up but the endeavour is pointless. I do not deal in opinions of media pundits or political action groups. If I did I could merely look towards the ADL or even Likud for data and soundbites. that is a mentally weak person's attempt at discourse.

 

[laptop]

• (parenthesis)
• "quotation marks"
• "scare quotes" editors' term for quotation marks being abused by a lazy author to indicate that the words inside, or the feature of the world to which they refer, are being denied their proper or usual meaning or existence. Almost all style manuals insist that editors remove them and make the author's intention explicit.

 

[rachamim18]

laptop...

If I suddenly decide to take up journalism upon my retirement I'll keep it in mind. Until then, I won't call you on your lack of manners or immaturity so don't worry about my poor form with "over emphasis."