Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Israel's 'We have the right to kill you' visa for Gaza
...
Israel's 'We have the right to kill you' visa for Gaza
Nigel Parry and Ali Abunimah, The Electronic Intifada, 10 May 2003
On 8 May 2003, the Electronic Intifada obtained and published the text of a document distributed by the Israeli military to foreign diplomatic representatives. The document, entitled "Form to be filled out and submitted to IDF authorities prior to entry to the Gaza Strip", is mandatory for all internationals to sign in exchange for passage into Gaza.
The document is primarily aimed at excluding foreign peace activists associated with the International Solidarity Movement, a group mentioned by name in the document, or any similar groups undertaking nonviolent direct action to thwart Israeli military violence against civilians and their property in the Gaza Strip.
The form requires activists to declare that they have "no association with the organization known as ISM (International Solidarity Movement) nor any other organization whose aim is to disrupt IDF operations," describing this activity as "criminal."
Seeking to sidestep Israeli legal responsibility for violence directed at activists who are confronting illegal Israeli actions in occupied Gaza, the document assumes the following responsibility onto the signer:
The new measure additionally aims to bar all internationals from key areas of Gaza. "The Military Installation Area along the border with Egypt," states the text, "is IDF administered territory and is strictly out of bounds to foreign nationals. Please note that this area has been the site of intense hostilities and is extremely dangerous."
The area described above is Rafah, a Palestinian city of 130,000 inhabitants on the southern border where the Gaza Strip meets Egypt. Surrounded by several refugee camps, Rafah is an area of extreme poverty and has borne the brunt of some of the harshest Israeli repression during the Intifada. To describe it as "the site of intense hostilities" is to imply there is a war being waged between two armies. The reality is far more one-sided, with Israel's nightly shelling of civilian homes which are also razed in regular bulldozing campaigns and instance after instance in which civilians have been shot and killed in situations where Israeli soldiers were not threatened or under attack.
Internationals have not been spared. Between March 16th and May 2nd -- a period of less than two months -- Israeli troops killed three foreign nationals. American ISM activist Rachel Corrie was crushed by an Israeli bulldozer in Rafah on March 16th. British ISM activist Tom Hurndall was left clinically dead after being shot in Rafah on April 12th. And British journalist James Miller was shot and killed in Rafah on May 2nd.
Israel claimed that the bulldozer driver did not see Rachel Corrie, an assertion rejected as ridiculous by eyewitnesses who noted that the bulldozers and a tank present left the scene after Corrie was crushed without offering any medical aid to her. Israel claimed that Hurndall and Miller were shot in "crossfire" accidents. Eyewitnesses noted that there was no concurrent Palestinian attack on Israeli troops on either occasion. Only Israel was shooting.
The effect of this sequence of clear instances of excessive and unlawful use of force involving internationals posing no threat to Israeli troops has been that eyes of the world have been opened to the impunity with which Israel acts in the occupied territories. This is something Israel clearly does not want to see continue, hence the new conditions on entry to Gaza.
The legality of the declaration
Declarations that violate fundamental human rights or attempt to abrogate them have no validity under international law, and are an illegal form of coercion. In this case, Articles 19 and 20 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights state that:
Additionally, the Fourth Geneva Convention mandates Israel, as the Occupying Power, to protect civilians and be solely responsible for the actions of its forces in the occupied territories. Human rights, as stated in the first sentence of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights are "inalienable", a key concept in international law. Webster's dictionary defines "inalienable" as "incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred to another; not alienable; as, in inalienable birthright." As such, regardless of what international visitors may sign, international law does not recognise these declarations as binding or in any way excusing Israel from its legal responsibilities.
A 9 May 2003 news release from Amnesty International after its delegates refused to sign the waver in order to enter Gaza stated:
Conclusions
It is hard to fathom what Israel thinks it can achieve by insisting that international visitors sign this bizarre and legalistic form in order to enter a geographic region where Israel itself has typically acted in utter violation of all commonly understood interpretations of international human rights law, to say nothing of universal notions of morality.
If Israel bulldozes another Rachel Corrie, will we accept her murder just because the next Rachel Corrie signed a declaration upon entry to Gaza that stated that she would not stand in front of bulldozers? When Israel shoots its next Tom Hurndall or James Miller, will we nod understandingly simply because point four on the declaration states that "Foreign nationals are strongly advised to stay well clear of military activity?"
Of course not.
In all civil rights movements in the past, there has come a point where both those struggling for freedom and those reporting on the struggle for the international media have confronted unjust laws. Trying to bar activists from the areas where they typically confront Israeli human rights violations is essentially asking for people to make a "loyalty declaration" to a system of military occupation that is the cause of untold misery for millions of Palestinians for over half a century. As a result, the document is fundamentally meaningless.
Instead of addressing any of the root causes that fuel the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, such as ending the violence of Israel's military occupation against Palestinian civilians, Israel prefers instead to remove more of the eyewitnesses who can give us an honest account of what life on the ground in southern Gaza is like.
On 20 March 2003, Israeli peace activist Billie Moskona-Lerman spent a night with two activists from the International Solidarity Movement who were acting as human shields in the home of a Palestinian family in Rafah:
Even as Israel has begun brazenly to shoot international peace workers, as it has for decades shot Palestinians, European and American governments continue to aid and abet the perpetrator by directly supplying both the murder weapons and the legal and political cover needed to allow the Israeli colonisation project to continue daily.
At some point, enough people in the world will clue in to the obvious fact that there can only be so many "accidents" in occupied Palestine, and the critical mass will form to birth a movement equal or greater in size to that which the Anti-Apartheid Movement reached in the late 1980s, the period immediately before it defeated White South Africa.
Until that snowball starts to roll -- and let us recognise that moment is inevitable given the righteous anger of the millions of people on the earth who have become eyewitnesses-by-media to Israel's repression of the Palestinian uprising -- we should feel deep shame.
Nigel Parry and Ali Abunimah
Nigel Parry and Ali Abunimah are two of the co-founders of Electronic Intifada.
Nigel Parry and Ali Abunimah, The Electronic Intifada, 10 May 2003
On 8 May 2003, the Electronic Intifada obtained and published the text of a document distributed by the Israeli military to foreign diplomatic representatives. The document, entitled "Form to be filled out and submitted to IDF authorities prior to entry to the Gaza Strip", is mandatory for all internationals to sign in exchange for passage into Gaza.
The document is primarily aimed at excluding foreign peace activists associated with the International Solidarity Movement, a group mentioned by name in the document, or any similar groups undertaking nonviolent direct action to thwart Israeli military violence against civilians and their property in the Gaza Strip.
The form requires activists to declare that they have "no association with the organization known as ISM (International Solidarity Movement) nor any other organization whose aim is to disrupt IDF operations," describing this activity as "criminal."
Seeking to sidestep Israeli legal responsibility for violence directed at activists who are confronting illegal Israeli actions in occupied Gaza, the document assumes the following responsibility onto the signer:
"I am aware of the risks involved and accept that the Government of the State of Israel and its organs cannot be held responsible for death, injury and/or damage/loss of property which may be incurred as a result of military activity."In essence, the form represents an Israeli 'We have the right to kill you' visa for Gaza.
The new measure additionally aims to bar all internationals from key areas of Gaza. "The Military Installation Area along the border with Egypt," states the text, "is IDF administered territory and is strictly out of bounds to foreign nationals. Please note that this area has been the site of intense hostilities and is extremely dangerous."
The area described above is Rafah, a Palestinian city of 130,000 inhabitants on the southern border where the Gaza Strip meets Egypt. Surrounded by several refugee camps, Rafah is an area of extreme poverty and has borne the brunt of some of the harshest Israeli repression during the Intifada. To describe it as "the site of intense hostilities" is to imply there is a war being waged between two armies. The reality is far more one-sided, with Israel's nightly shelling of civilian homes which are also razed in regular bulldozing campaigns and instance after instance in which civilians have been shot and killed in situations where Israeli soldiers were not threatened or under attack.
Internationals have not been spared. Between March 16th and May 2nd -- a period of less than two months -- Israeli troops killed three foreign nationals. American ISM activist Rachel Corrie was crushed by an Israeli bulldozer in Rafah on March 16th. British ISM activist Tom Hurndall was left clinically dead after being shot in Rafah on April 12th. And British journalist James Miller was shot and killed in Rafah on May 2nd.
Israel claimed that the bulldozer driver did not see Rachel Corrie, an assertion rejected as ridiculous by eyewitnesses who noted that the bulldozers and a tank present left the scene after Corrie was crushed without offering any medical aid to her. Israel claimed that Hurndall and Miller were shot in "crossfire" accidents. Eyewitnesses noted that there was no concurrent Palestinian attack on Israeli troops on either occasion. Only Israel was shooting.
The effect of this sequence of clear instances of excessive and unlawful use of force involving internationals posing no threat to Israeli troops has been that eyes of the world have been opened to the impunity with which Israel acts in the occupied territories. This is something Israel clearly does not want to see continue, hence the new conditions on entry to Gaza.
The legality of the declaration
Declarations that violate fundamental human rights or attempt to abrogate them have no validity under international law, and are an illegal form of coercion. In this case, Articles 19 and 20 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights state that:
"Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers... Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association."This includes the right to associate oneself with the International Solidarity Movement, to visit their members, and to be an eyewitness -- one of the most immediate forms of "media" there is -- in Rafah.
Additionally, the Fourth Geneva Convention mandates Israel, as the Occupying Power, to protect civilians and be solely responsible for the actions of its forces in the occupied territories. Human rights, as stated in the first sentence of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights are "inalienable", a key concept in international law. Webster's dictionary defines "inalienable" as "incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred to another; not alienable; as, in inalienable birthright." As such, regardless of what international visitors may sign, international law does not recognise these declarations as binding or in any way excusing Israel from its legal responsibilities.
A 9 May 2003 news release from Amnesty International after its delegates refused to sign the waver in order to enter Gaza stated:
"The organization is categorically opposed to any attempt to get people to sign away their rights. The signing of 'waivers' does not absolve the Israeli army of its responsibility in any way, nor the Israeli authorities of their duties to ensure that armed forces respect human rights in all circumstances... The organization is concerned that one aim of these new and drastic restrictions is to prevent outside monitoring and scrutiny of the conduct of the Israeli army. It is also concerned that these restrictions will lead to more killings in Gaza and calls on the army to immediately end the use of excessive and unlawful force."
Conclusions
It is hard to fathom what Israel thinks it can achieve by insisting that international visitors sign this bizarre and legalistic form in order to enter a geographic region where Israel itself has typically acted in utter violation of all commonly understood interpretations of international human rights law, to say nothing of universal notions of morality.
If Israel bulldozes another Rachel Corrie, will we accept her murder just because the next Rachel Corrie signed a declaration upon entry to Gaza that stated that she would not stand in front of bulldozers? When Israel shoots its next Tom Hurndall or James Miller, will we nod understandingly simply because point four on the declaration states that "Foreign nationals are strongly advised to stay well clear of military activity?"
Of course not.
In all civil rights movements in the past, there has come a point where both those struggling for freedom and those reporting on the struggle for the international media have confronted unjust laws. Trying to bar activists from the areas where they typically confront Israeli human rights violations is essentially asking for people to make a "loyalty declaration" to a system of military occupation that is the cause of untold misery for millions of Palestinians for over half a century. As a result, the document is fundamentally meaningless.
Instead of addressing any of the root causes that fuel the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, such as ending the violence of Israel's military occupation against Palestinian civilians, Israel prefers instead to remove more of the eyewitnesses who can give us an honest account of what life on the ground in southern Gaza is like.
On 20 March 2003, Israeli peace activist Billie Moskona-Lerman spent a night with two activists from the International Solidarity Movement who were acting as human shields in the home of a Palestinian family in Rafah:
"It was at 7.30 that I went with Laura and Joe to stay the night in the house of Muhammad Jamil Kushta, the first house fronting the IDF position on the Egyptian border, an ill-fated house... Rains of ammunition, bullets came down on us on that one single night. A single night, for me. The shooting went on continuously from 1.30 to 4.15, near the first light. Only then it calmed down."At one point during the night, Billie's host Muhammad notes, "You hear it so close, because they are shooting at the wall near us." Their subsequent exchange gives us a clear and disturbing picture of life for Palestinians in Rafah:
"So they never hit your house itself?" I ask him with an enormous burst of hope.The ridiculous document and its ongoing implementation concurrent with raids on the offices of peace activists in other areas of the occupied territories and the expulsion of activists from Gaza reveals an Israel desperate to pull the rug back over the hellish situation in southern Gaza and elsewhere that its recent clumsy killings of foreign activists and news professionals has uncovered.
"Oh, sometimes they do. Look at the bullet holes". I raise my head and look to the sides. The ceiling is fool of holes, the side walls are cut up. So is the kitchen wall near the tap, near the table, in the toilet, one centimetre from the children's beds. Some of the holes have been filled up. Every night, once the shooting ends, Jamil closes the bullet holes with white cement. The walls are patchwork, and if you dare approach the window you can see that Jamil and Nora's home is surrounded by ruins on all sides.
Source: "'I was a human shield': An Israeli visits ISM in Rafah",
Billie Moskona-Lerman, Live from Palestine/The Electronic Intifada, 1 May 2003
Even as Israel has begun brazenly to shoot international peace workers, as it has for decades shot Palestinians, European and American governments continue to aid and abet the perpetrator by directly supplying both the murder weapons and the legal and political cover needed to allow the Israeli colonisation project to continue daily.
At some point, enough people in the world will clue in to the obvious fact that there can only be so many "accidents" in occupied Palestine, and the critical mass will form to birth a movement equal or greater in size to that which the Anti-Apartheid Movement reached in the late 1980s, the period immediately before it defeated White South Africa.
Until that snowball starts to roll -- and let us recognise that moment is inevitable given the righteous anger of the millions of people on the earth who have become eyewitnesses-by-media to Israel's repression of the Palestinian uprising -- we should feel deep shame.
Nigel Parry and Ali Abunimah
Nigel Parry and Ali Abunimah are two of the co-founders of Electronic Intifada.
For more information:
http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article14...
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
Something is very wrong here... So does this mean if these Journalist and ISM workers are at a spot where the IDF are committing more of the atrocities, the IDF can just kill them so these atrocities can go unreported. Then the IDF can say the journalist signed a paper knowing they might be killed??????
God help us all if the World allows this and does nothing....
The only solution to this disaster is a Palestinian State today not in three to five years...
For Possible Solution where both sides win::::::
CLICK HERE > http://www.indybay.org/news/2003/04/1605768.php
God help us all if the World allows this and does nothing....
The only solution to this disaster is a Palestinian State today not in three to five years...
For Possible Solution where both sides win::::::
CLICK HERE > http://www.indybay.org/news/2003/04/1605768.php
What I, and I'm sure countless decent people world wide can't understand, is how this terrorist state is getting away with this kind of murderous behaviour for so long?
We don't have to look very far for a reason as to why the journalists and peace activists are being either murdered or forbidden to enter Gaza. It's for the same reason peacekeepers have not been allowed to observe the region despite pleas from the Palestinians to have them present.
Why? Because then the world would know what is really going on, wouldn't it, and all the propaganda would be shown for what it is - propaganda.
As I've said before, and I'll repeat, thank God there is a higher power.
We don't have to look very far for a reason as to why the journalists and peace activists are being either murdered or forbidden to enter Gaza. It's for the same reason peacekeepers have not been allowed to observe the region despite pleas from the Palestinians to have them present.
Why? Because then the world would know what is really going on, wouldn't it, and all the propaganda would be shown for what it is - propaganda.
As I've said before, and I'll repeat, thank God there is a higher power.
Sorry for not responding your last message.
So, I agree with some of the anger you express, but still your conclusions and the language used is full of hate and are completely of no relevance.
The only result from messages such as yours would be to further deepen the divides and hatred.
Regarding the facts:
I do not whish to take examples from anyone else’s war, but still, during the war in Iraq which lasted 4 weeks and that had a few hundreds of Journalists covering it large number of which were “embedded” with the American and British armies more than 13 Journalists were killed.
Do you have any Idea how many Journalists cover the Occupied territories?
Do not bother, the answer is thousands, thousands of journalists are covering the situations on a daily basis. Most of them are protected by none and are wandering around in areas, which are considered to be battle zones. How many journalists were killed during the last 2 and half years? 4.
I agree with you, 4 too many, far too many. But still your conclusions (terrorist state, ...journalists and peace activists are being either murdered or forbidden to enter Gaza... )cannot be further away from the truths, and yes I do know the ugly, poor and brutal, fate of Rachel Corrie, and I am terribly sorry and troubled by it.
But I am truly truly troubled by it, since I care for law and dislike killings of innocents, but I am not troubled by it for any Propaganda purposes.
Now, the only Journalists that are not allowed in to the territories are Israelis, their life are under a clear and constant threat, journalists and camera crews covering the conflict has to be none Israelis, so all major news agencies ant TV channels have to employ Palestinians or other foreign workers instead of their regular crews based in Israel to cover the occupied territories, this is the biggest threat for free press in the area, it is not even hidden. Foreign reporters are being constantly threat and the PA monitors their reports.
And to say that the media does not cover this area, is a flat lie for malicious propaganda purposes. With thousands of journalists’, cameraman and TV crews, over such a small territory this area is covered better than Vatican City in the days prior to Christmas. If anything this area is covered overtime, by mainly Journalists with either journalists with political agenda or Journalists frightened of the PA response in case they might air some story that is not to their taste.
Regarding the Area between Gaza and the Egyptian border to which the entry of Peace activists was forbidden.
This area is a very narrow strip of land that separates the Gaza strip from the border with Egypt. This area is under a complete Israeli control, and it is so as decided specifically by the famous Oslo agreements.
Now since day one of the Palestinian Authority this area was the target of some fierce fighting between IDF and Palestinian terrorists, and I can say Terrorists out loud because even the PA always refused to take responsibility for these attacks, we can argue if the attacks were controlled by the PA or not but officially the PA always condemned these attacks (even when the attackers were wearing the PA forces uniforms).
Now one can ask why is it that it is so important for the PA to actively attack or actively not prevent such attacks on IDF forces?
The answer is relatively simple this area is being used for weapons, explosives and man smuggling, from Egypt to PA controlled Gaza and Vice versa.
And you should not be wrong, these attacks started in 1995 when Labor government was in power, optimism was in the air diplomacy and negotiations still reigned over guns and military.
As I have already written, the situation is grave, anyway you approach and look at it, and there is absolutely no need to add lies on top.
Israel has no business staying in these territories.
But as everyone by now understood Israeli Army will leave only after an agreement is signed.
This day will once arrive, hopefully soon, reconciliation will anyway be long and hard, flat lies and half truths that are being spread by sites like this one will only prolong the process and longer the pain of the parties involved.
If you really want to help you should try and stick to the facts and promote good instead of spreading evil, there are also peace activities going on, even at this very moment, Palestinians and Israelis meet, to discuss possible ways to cooperate.
Israeli peace activists are right now helping Palestinian farmers cultivate their lands and are helping them to protect from some Settlers radicals.
There are ballaced fonts of information about the occupied territories that are telling us the Israelis flat to our face, how mean and injust we have become, but still painting a picture that is different to what you see, I will be glad to suggest one to you as well.
With Kind Regards,
Moshe
So, I agree with some of the anger you express, but still your conclusions and the language used is full of hate and are completely of no relevance.
The only result from messages such as yours would be to further deepen the divides and hatred.
Regarding the facts:
I do not whish to take examples from anyone else’s war, but still, during the war in Iraq which lasted 4 weeks and that had a few hundreds of Journalists covering it large number of which were “embedded” with the American and British armies more than 13 Journalists were killed.
Do you have any Idea how many Journalists cover the Occupied territories?
Do not bother, the answer is thousands, thousands of journalists are covering the situations on a daily basis. Most of them are protected by none and are wandering around in areas, which are considered to be battle zones. How many journalists were killed during the last 2 and half years? 4.
I agree with you, 4 too many, far too many. But still your conclusions (terrorist state, ...journalists and peace activists are being either murdered or forbidden to enter Gaza... )cannot be further away from the truths, and yes I do know the ugly, poor and brutal, fate of Rachel Corrie, and I am terribly sorry and troubled by it.
But I am truly truly troubled by it, since I care for law and dislike killings of innocents, but I am not troubled by it for any Propaganda purposes.
Now, the only Journalists that are not allowed in to the territories are Israelis, their life are under a clear and constant threat, journalists and camera crews covering the conflict has to be none Israelis, so all major news agencies ant TV channels have to employ Palestinians or other foreign workers instead of their regular crews based in Israel to cover the occupied territories, this is the biggest threat for free press in the area, it is not even hidden. Foreign reporters are being constantly threat and the PA monitors their reports.
And to say that the media does not cover this area, is a flat lie for malicious propaganda purposes. With thousands of journalists’, cameraman and TV crews, over such a small territory this area is covered better than Vatican City in the days prior to Christmas. If anything this area is covered overtime, by mainly Journalists with either journalists with political agenda or Journalists frightened of the PA response in case they might air some story that is not to their taste.
Regarding the Area between Gaza and the Egyptian border to which the entry of Peace activists was forbidden.
This area is a very narrow strip of land that separates the Gaza strip from the border with Egypt. This area is under a complete Israeli control, and it is so as decided specifically by the famous Oslo agreements.
Now since day one of the Palestinian Authority this area was the target of some fierce fighting between IDF and Palestinian terrorists, and I can say Terrorists out loud because even the PA always refused to take responsibility for these attacks, we can argue if the attacks were controlled by the PA or not but officially the PA always condemned these attacks (even when the attackers were wearing the PA forces uniforms).
Now one can ask why is it that it is so important for the PA to actively attack or actively not prevent such attacks on IDF forces?
The answer is relatively simple this area is being used for weapons, explosives and man smuggling, from Egypt to PA controlled Gaza and Vice versa.
And you should not be wrong, these attacks started in 1995 when Labor government was in power, optimism was in the air diplomacy and negotiations still reigned over guns and military.
As I have already written, the situation is grave, anyway you approach and look at it, and there is absolutely no need to add lies on top.
Israel has no business staying in these territories.
But as everyone by now understood Israeli Army will leave only after an agreement is signed.
This day will once arrive, hopefully soon, reconciliation will anyway be long and hard, flat lies and half truths that are being spread by sites like this one will only prolong the process and longer the pain of the parties involved.
If you really want to help you should try and stick to the facts and promote good instead of spreading evil, there are also peace activities going on, even at this very moment, Palestinians and Israelis meet, to discuss possible ways to cooperate.
Israeli peace activists are right now helping Palestinian farmers cultivate their lands and are helping them to protect from some Settlers radicals.
There are ballaced fonts of information about the occupied territories that are telling us the Israelis flat to our face, how mean and injust we have become, but still painting a picture that is different to what you see, I will be glad to suggest one to you as well.
With Kind Regards,
Moshe
Hello, Moshe,
Hey, great! II was hoping to hear from you!. Thanks!..
But, hey, please, please, PLEASE don't say I am "full of hate". It is a baseless, unfounded assumption totally without merit. On the contrary, as I've stated before, I am a peace loving individual whose heart is overflowing with love for everyone but especially the underdog, the downtrodden, the hopeless..
Nor am I spreading "evil". Is that what you really think? Please, you're more intelliigent than that! I am simply voicing my total unhappiness with the plight of the Palestinian peoples.
Naively, perhaps, I thought you were above and beyond that nonsense. I expect to see it on this board (and God knows we do), but I had not expected it from you. I am rather distressed by it, actually..
We are all troubled by this conflict, Moshe, and nothing would give me greater joy than to see it end once and for all, with justice, and equality, and security for everyone not just Israel..
It would be happy to have a peaceful exchange of views on this topic without being branded as evil, or hateful, or - gasp - lying and having one's views dismissed as "of no relevance". Who establishes what's relevant or otherwise, hmm?.
Oh, and, Moshe, why do you call legitimate sources of information "propaganda"? I am intelligent enough to distinguish truth from fiction, and the people I mentioned to you in my earlier missive are world respected authors who have no earthly reason to indulge in fantasy.
However, my friend, the rest of your comments are very helpful, and I appreciate your response.
Incidentally, I am well aware that Israelis help Palestinians and offer them protection from the settlers.
I am not condemning, nor have I ever, condemned the people of Israel. I am condemning its government, and its military, and I will continue to do so until we see some justice and equality and hopeflly an end to this nightmare.
In any event, I am glad to hear from you, and wish you well.
Take special care,
Angie
PS What do you think would have happened had Labour won the last election? I'd like to get your comments on that item if I may.
Hey, great! II was hoping to hear from you!. Thanks!..
But, hey, please, please, PLEASE don't say I am "full of hate". It is a baseless, unfounded assumption totally without merit. On the contrary, as I've stated before, I am a peace loving individual whose heart is overflowing with love for everyone but especially the underdog, the downtrodden, the hopeless..
Nor am I spreading "evil". Is that what you really think? Please, you're more intelliigent than that! I am simply voicing my total unhappiness with the plight of the Palestinian peoples.
Naively, perhaps, I thought you were above and beyond that nonsense. I expect to see it on this board (and God knows we do), but I had not expected it from you. I am rather distressed by it, actually..
We are all troubled by this conflict, Moshe, and nothing would give me greater joy than to see it end once and for all, with justice, and equality, and security for everyone not just Israel..
It would be happy to have a peaceful exchange of views on this topic without being branded as evil, or hateful, or - gasp - lying and having one's views dismissed as "of no relevance". Who establishes what's relevant or otherwise, hmm?.
Oh, and, Moshe, why do you call legitimate sources of information "propaganda"? I am intelligent enough to distinguish truth from fiction, and the people I mentioned to you in my earlier missive are world respected authors who have no earthly reason to indulge in fantasy.
However, my friend, the rest of your comments are very helpful, and I appreciate your response.
Incidentally, I am well aware that Israelis help Palestinians and offer them protection from the settlers.
I am not condemning, nor have I ever, condemned the people of Israel. I am condemning its government, and its military, and I will continue to do so until we see some justice and equality and hopeflly an end to this nightmare.
In any event, I am glad to hear from you, and wish you well.
Take special care,
Angie
PS What do you think would have happened had Labour won the last election? I'd like to get your comments on that item if I may.
I do not think I have said you were evil. I do not condemning telling the story as you see it. I do not suggest ignoring the situation on the ground while sending roses and kisses to one another.
But I do believe that somehow the way people write and express their feelings on this board is just the opposite of everything they are preaching for: peace, love, understanding…most of the articles seem just like another form of violence, oral one. Just another form of militarism, without uniform and guns.
I do believe that there is a way to solve things, and it has to be peaceful, otherwise what is the difference, the ethnicity and religion of the oppressed would be the only thing that will change.
It is impossible to extinguish fire with fire or violence with violence, this is what a truly authentic peace movement should stand for.
Love peace and harmony are just like sound or sea waves, they do spread in circles wave shape, the ripple effect this is what a truly peaceful movement should aim for.
And if you will go back and read your recent postings you will see it is not so.
Regarding your question of the labor and the latest elections, I have to give it a thought, I think I have an answer but I would prefer to think it over.
But I do believe that somehow the way people write and express their feelings on this board is just the opposite of everything they are preaching for: peace, love, understanding…most of the articles seem just like another form of violence, oral one. Just another form of militarism, without uniform and guns.
I do believe that there is a way to solve things, and it has to be peaceful, otherwise what is the difference, the ethnicity and religion of the oppressed would be the only thing that will change.
It is impossible to extinguish fire with fire or violence with violence, this is what a truly authentic peace movement should stand for.
Love peace and harmony are just like sound or sea waves, they do spread in circles wave shape, the ripple effect this is what a truly peaceful movement should aim for.
And if you will go back and read your recent postings you will see it is not so.
Regarding your question of the labor and the latest elections, I have to give it a thought, I think I have an answer but I would prefer to think it over.
I've read my recent postings as you suggested, and I fail to see why you are offended. Compared to others on this board I am positively BENIGN. I do not call anyone names, attack the individual character of someone with a different view. How can I? I don't know these people nor they me.
In fact, my friend, if you read these boards regularly, you will see that I, myself, have been villified by people who think they are doing Israel a favour by attacking me. It's small-minded, totally unnecessary, and serves no useful purpose.
I believe Ariel Sharon to be a war criminal. I believe the Israeli army to be out of control. It's been stated over and over (not on this board either) by writers covering the Territories.
I believe the Israeil Government and the military are doing nothing to create peace or nuture understanding. I believe that the radical elements of the Palistinians are not helping any.. I do believe, however, that the Palestinians have a right to defend themselves, their homes as any other peoples would do. It's a bit difficulit without an army, however, isn't it?
Killing is such an atrocity, regardless of who carries it out. It is not justified, especially when so many civilians are the tragic victims. Sadly killing around the world today seems to be taken in stride by an indifferent humankind, a tragic reflection on all of us.
Ignore the facts on the ground? How can I? Daily we hear that another home was demolished, another two or three Palestinians slaughtered, etc., and it's treated by maintstream press as if it were just another incidental.
Yet a suicide bomber elicts all kinds of yelling and screaming and condemnation by this same press, politicians, and whoever can grab a mike. As I've stated before, murder is murder is murder.
I would llike to see Palestine have its own state if that is the best solution. Perhaps it isn't, but anything is better than this continued horror.
Yes, please. Think about the question I asked you. I'd like to get some ideas from you on that topic.
In the meantime, don't beat me up verbally!. I'm really not half as wicked as you seem to think I am. Au contraire.
Angie
In fact, my friend, if you read these boards regularly, you will see that I, myself, have been villified by people who think they are doing Israel a favour by attacking me. It's small-minded, totally unnecessary, and serves no useful purpose.
I believe Ariel Sharon to be a war criminal. I believe the Israeli army to be out of control. It's been stated over and over (not on this board either) by writers covering the Territories.
I believe the Israeil Government and the military are doing nothing to create peace or nuture understanding. I believe that the radical elements of the Palistinians are not helping any.. I do believe, however, that the Palestinians have a right to defend themselves, their homes as any other peoples would do. It's a bit difficulit without an army, however, isn't it?
Killing is such an atrocity, regardless of who carries it out. It is not justified, especially when so many civilians are the tragic victims. Sadly killing around the world today seems to be taken in stride by an indifferent humankind, a tragic reflection on all of us.
Ignore the facts on the ground? How can I? Daily we hear that another home was demolished, another two or three Palestinians slaughtered, etc., and it's treated by maintstream press as if it were just another incidental.
Yet a suicide bomber elicts all kinds of yelling and screaming and condemnation by this same press, politicians, and whoever can grab a mike. As I've stated before, murder is murder is murder.
I would llike to see Palestine have its own state if that is the best solution. Perhaps it isn't, but anything is better than this continued horror.
Yes, please. Think about the question I asked you. I'd like to get some ideas from you on that topic.
In the meantime, don't beat me up verbally!. I'm really not half as wicked as you seem to think I am. Au contraire.
Angie
The reason Israel can get away with all the things it does is the United States(no if's, and's or but's about it). The politicians dare not say any thing for theire political carrer will be ruined. The US has vetoed more UN resolutions then there were againts Iraq( could it be one of the reasons that the US is soo hated?). The jews call them self's God's choosen, well they have another thing coming, I don't think God would approve of shooting children in the head( notice how all the so called accidents seem to be head shoots?).hmmm
I once heard the sentence that every people get the kind of leadership he deserves; I do not know if this is right or wrong, it is certainly a generalization.
Still I think that both Israelis and Palestinians deserve their leadership, the same way Arafat deserves Sharon and vice versa.
We can also blame each other for our own leaders and this would have some truths in it as well.
Palestinians got Arafat because Israeli stubbornness over the territories and Israelis got shorn because of Palestinian stubbornness over right of return and refugee issues.
Sharon came to power after Barak. I can say many bad things about the way Barak and Clinton conducted the Camp David negotiations with Arafat, but I am sure we will both agree that they were genuine in their belief that an agreement is at hand and that they could present Arafat with an offer he will sign. The same is not true about Arafat. The moment was bigger than the size of his figure in Palestinian history.
The planned failure of the Camp David negotiations was the trigger for the events that followed and that resulted in the current crisis. Today it is known that the Palestinian leadership, namely Arafat, planned these events, for him violence is just an additional negotiation tool.
Arafat has miscalculated, Barak as an ex soldier for whom integrity and “word of honor” counted the most (Pulling out of Lebanon on schedule, only to keep his word and his promise to his voters can prove this point), saw the violence as a treason not only on the national level, but as a personal one as well. Barak bet his very short political career on that move and virtually on Arafat’s integrity. And indeed this bet cost him the elections.
Barak’s response to the violence was a mixture of a “betrayed lover” and inexperienced leader, Palestinian attacks were met with fire power never experienced by the Palestinians before, for the first time since 1967 Gaza was bombed by F16s fighter jets.
Ariel Sharon has arrived to the scene as a joke of history, he would have never, in his wildest dreams, even dreamt of becoming the prime minister of Israel. To the right wing he appeared to be as the savior, the experienced unbeaten General, who already showed Arafat the way out of Middle eastern political scene< radical and strong enough to take on the Palestinians. To the left and the center he sold himself as an experienced white haired grandfather, that unlike his predecessors (Netanyahu and Barak) will know how to negotiate and bring about peace. The right were enthusiastic about their newly born leader, and the left too tired and depressed to go and vote.
Now inlight of this description, I do believe that In this area of the middle east signs of weakness will turn the wolves against you, simple law of nature. Historical process such as the Israeli Palestinian reconciliation has its own tempo, there is no turning back of the wheel, there will be peace and there will be some sort of a Palestinian state, (the strange thing is that even voting for Sharon the vast majority of Israelis (78%) believe in this, 2 states solution). It will take some more months or years, but it is never the less around the corner. Strangely enough but as things in this place usually are, it might be that Sharon has some better chances of signing this deal, and even me and my friends, will than praise him for doing so.
Still I think that both Israelis and Palestinians deserve their leadership, the same way Arafat deserves Sharon and vice versa.
We can also blame each other for our own leaders and this would have some truths in it as well.
Palestinians got Arafat because Israeli stubbornness over the territories and Israelis got shorn because of Palestinian stubbornness over right of return and refugee issues.
Sharon came to power after Barak. I can say many bad things about the way Barak and Clinton conducted the Camp David negotiations with Arafat, but I am sure we will both agree that they were genuine in their belief that an agreement is at hand and that they could present Arafat with an offer he will sign. The same is not true about Arafat. The moment was bigger than the size of his figure in Palestinian history.
The planned failure of the Camp David negotiations was the trigger for the events that followed and that resulted in the current crisis. Today it is known that the Palestinian leadership, namely Arafat, planned these events, for him violence is just an additional negotiation tool.
Arafat has miscalculated, Barak as an ex soldier for whom integrity and “word of honor” counted the most (Pulling out of Lebanon on schedule, only to keep his word and his promise to his voters can prove this point), saw the violence as a treason not only on the national level, but as a personal one as well. Barak bet his very short political career on that move and virtually on Arafat’s integrity. And indeed this bet cost him the elections.
Barak’s response to the violence was a mixture of a “betrayed lover” and inexperienced leader, Palestinian attacks were met with fire power never experienced by the Palestinians before, for the first time since 1967 Gaza was bombed by F16s fighter jets.
Ariel Sharon has arrived to the scene as a joke of history, he would have never, in his wildest dreams, even dreamt of becoming the prime minister of Israel. To the right wing he appeared to be as the savior, the experienced unbeaten General, who already showed Arafat the way out of Middle eastern political scene< radical and strong enough to take on the Palestinians. To the left and the center he sold himself as an experienced white haired grandfather, that unlike his predecessors (Netanyahu and Barak) will know how to negotiate and bring about peace. The right were enthusiastic about their newly born leader, and the left too tired and depressed to go and vote.
Now inlight of this description, I do believe that In this area of the middle east signs of weakness will turn the wolves against you, simple law of nature. Historical process such as the Israeli Palestinian reconciliation has its own tempo, there is no turning back of the wheel, there will be peace and there will be some sort of a Palestinian state, (the strange thing is that even voting for Sharon the vast majority of Israelis (78%) believe in this, 2 states solution). It will take some more months or years, but it is never the less around the corner. Strangely enough but as things in this place usually are, it might be that Sharon has some better chances of signing this deal, and even me and my friends, will than praise him for doing so.
the reason countries are opposed to it is Islam.. no ifs and buts about it...
Lots of Islamic countries in the UN and only one jewish country.. guess how votes on a religiously charged issue will go? oh and most of the other countries have islamic constituancies that are bigger than their jewish constituancy. Hell they have Nazi constituancies bigger than their jewish constituancy.
It is called the tyrany of the majority.
Lots of Islamic countries in the UN and only one jewish country.. guess how votes on a religiously charged issue will go? oh and most of the other countries have islamic constituancies that are bigger than their jewish constituancy. Hell they have Nazi constituancies bigger than their jewish constituancy.
It is called the tyrany of the majority.
Man you need to pull your head out of your ass, before you choke to death on your own shit, moron...
I, as well agree that God (if indeed exists) would not approve of shooting children in the head, I also agree to the remark about US veto in the UN: “The US has vetoed more UN resolutions then there were against Iraq”
Nevertheless it does seem to me that your argument tastes of Racism.
Moshe
Nevertheless it does seem to me that your argument tastes of Racism.
Moshe
Thanks for your comments. I agree with some, disagree with others, but that is as it should be.
However, I should have been more specific. I was actually referring to the 2003 election and Labour leader, Amran Mitzna. He had been quoted in the Jerusalem Post as stating:
"We have to see how to persuade people that the
the current sitution, the bad economy, and the
problems inside Israel are directly connected to
the fact that we control 3.5 million Palestinians
against their will, and we can't do it forever".
His platform (as I am sure you are aware) was if negotiations for a peaceful settlement failed, he would allow the division of Jerusalem to provide a Palestinian state with a capital; take unilateral action to secure borders for Israel, shut down most of the Jewish settlements in the Occupied Territories and all settlements in Gaza.
The "right" in Israeli politics were horrified and branded him "the most dangerous politician in Israel".
I note he has since stepped down as leader of the Labour Party.
Any comments on what, if any, solutions to the ongoing conflict his ideas might have had? Or is there some literature re this issue that you might direct me to? Thanks.
All the best,
Angie
However, I should have been more specific. I was actually referring to the 2003 election and Labour leader, Amran Mitzna. He had been quoted in the Jerusalem Post as stating:
"We have to see how to persuade people that the
the current sitution, the bad economy, and the
problems inside Israel are directly connected to
the fact that we control 3.5 million Palestinians
against their will, and we can't do it forever".
His platform (as I am sure you are aware) was if negotiations for a peaceful settlement failed, he would allow the division of Jerusalem to provide a Palestinian state with a capital; take unilateral action to secure borders for Israel, shut down most of the Jewish settlements in the Occupied Territories and all settlements in Gaza.
The "right" in Israeli politics were horrified and branded him "the most dangerous politician in Israel".
I note he has since stepped down as leader of the Labour Party.
Any comments on what, if any, solutions to the ongoing conflict his ideas might have had? Or is there some literature re this issue that you might direct me to? Thanks.
All the best,
Angie
If telling the truth means being a Racist, well I guess that's what I am, let me tell you the kind of people I hate, I hate those who kill for theire own greed, selfishness, for political statements, all people have a right to live without being blown up, shot, bulldozed, or have some goverment tell another country how they may live, and I realy hate those people that tell others that they should strap on bombs so they can kill people all for the name of alha,god,buta, or who ever you believe in, I guess your right, I hate a whole lot of people, but a racist I am not...
What part of my post do you think is wrong?
does it not make sense politically that the world would be opposed to israel because many o the countries are islamicand it is a religious issue?
does it not make sense politically that the world would be opposed to israel because many o the countries are islamicand it is a religious issue?
How many countries are commiting illegal occupations in the middle east?, one and only one, if a country invaded yours, and did the shit that those fuckers do, how far would you go to try to get rid of them?. The jews are immigrants, that is a historic fact, not a biblical opinion, that is why they dont want the jews there, and the US forcing those people under the jewish jackboot....
Syria occupies Lebanon and Anglo-America occupies Iraq.
You are clearly not one of the parties involved and as such your opinion is irelevant.
For the partuies involved the ownership of the land is a DEEPLY religious issue.
therefore it is all a biblical opinion.
how far would you go to try to get rid of them?
- not as far as you apparently
For the partuies involved the ownership of the land is a DEEPLY religious issue.
therefore it is all a biblical opinion.
how far would you go to try to get rid of them?
- not as far as you apparently
It is not a religious issue.
if it was , neturei kurta would be welcomed in Israel not ostracized
if it was , neturei kurta would be welcomed in Israel not ostracized
Arabs occupy Assyrian land in North Iraq,Morroco has occupied Western Sahara since 1975,Syria occupies lebanon,Arabs occupy land of Cushitic people in Sudan,Arabs have occupied Egypt for more than 1300 years[They even tried to destroy the Pyramids],Arabs occupy Berber land in North Africa.
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$215.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network