Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Best hope for peace in Middle East: Total US disengagement, becoming an honest bystander
Imagine that the U.S. government were to announce that it was washing its hands of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict—that it would no longer give any military, economic or diplomatic aid or support to either side, and that it would not use its veto to block any U.N. Security Council resolution with respect to Israel/Palestine, even one imposing sanctions on either or both of the parties to the conflict. Having never been an "honest broker," the United States would at least become an honest bystander.
A Heretical Thought for Peace
By John V. Whitbeck
In early June, the respected Pew Research Center in the United States released the latest of its global opinion surveys, which polled more than 15,000 people in 21 countries in the wake of the invasion and conquest of Iraq. The results attracted considerable attention in the American press.
A primary focus of press reports was the surge of anti-American sentiment in the Muslim world. In traditionally pro-American Jordan, 97 percent of those polled opposed America's "war on terror," while, in NATO member Turkey, 83 percent expressed an unfavorable opinion of the United States. The selection of Osama bin Laden by the publics of five of theeight Muslim countries surveyed (Indonesia, Jordan, Morocco, Pakistan and Palestine) as one of the three political leaders they would most trust to "do the right thing" in world affairs did not go unnoticed.
Less noticed, but no less significant, were the responses to another question.Those polled were asked whether the United States is too supportive of Israel. In 20 of the 21 countries surveyed (notably including Israel),most of those polled said "yes." There is no prize for guessing the one country wheremost said "no."
Israeli support for this proposition, while extremely encouraging, should not come as a complete surprise. Israelis have to live in Israel/Palestine. While their existence since Ariel Sharon provoked the current intifada in September 2000 has not been the living hell experienced by Palestinians, their lives have still become unpleasant, insecure and stressful. Increasingly, the essential realization that occupation and security are mutually exclusive is sinking in.
American supporters of the occupation tend to be Christian fundamentalists concerned about being personally raptured up to heaven after the much-to-be-hoped-for Battle of Armageddon, Jews who feel personally guilty to be living prosperously and comfortably in America rather than having emigrated to Israel/Palestine,or politicians interested only in preserving or furthering their personal careers by not offending the other two groups.
Americans in these three groups, which are fundamental to the formulation of American Middle East policy, do not have to suffer the consequences of the occupation or the resistance to it, and their support forthe occupation rarely reflects any genuine concern for the best interests of Israelis (let alone Palestininians). Their militant "pro-Israel" activism is purely self-centered and selfish in its motivation. It is also the primary obstacle to peace.
Those Israelis who feel that America is too supportive of Israel presumably can see that America's involvementsince 1967 has not advanced the cause of peace but, rather, has blocked it, with Washington's periodic pretenses of peacemaking simply providing an "only game in town" cover behind which the occupation could be perpetuated, deepened and made more nearly irreversible. They presumably wish, for their own sakes, that America would "reform." (Perhaps the U.S. needs a prime minister.)
Now—a heretical thought. Virtually all governments and commentators agree, at least in their public pronouncements, that deeper engagement by the United States is essential if Israeli-Palestinian peace is ever to be achieved. Wrong. The best hope for peace would be total American disengagement—and the sooner the better.
Imagine that the U.S. government were to announce that it was washing its hands of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict—that it would no longer give any military, economic or diplomatic aid or support to either side, and that it would not use its veto to block any U.N. Security Council resolution with respect to Israel/Palestine, even one imposing sanctions on either or both of the parties to the conflict. Having never been an "honest broker," the United States would at least become an honest bystander.
Israeli politicians and American Christian fundamentalists would, of course, be appalled. However, if the Pew poll is to be believed, many Israelis would be relieved—and finally see light at the end of the tunnel. With the the U.S. out of the picture, the occupation would become, and be recognized to be, unsustainable. The great boulder blocking the road to peace would have rolled itself out of the way, and the road to peace (not to be confused with the "road map") could finally be open for travel.
As a hugely beneficial side-effect, U.S. disengagement would vastly—and quickly—diminish anti-American rage throughout the Muslim world and the consequent threat of further "terrorist" attacks on Americans and American interests. There no longer would be any need to continue the series of wars against Israel's (hence America's) enemies. American civil liberties could be restored, and hundreds of billions of dollars could be redirected in constructive ways that would actually enhance the quality of life of Americans. America might even become respected out of admiration, as it once was, rather than simply out of fear, as is now the case.
A dream?When, perhaps quite soon, the "road map" reaches the dead-end which its own terms appear designed to ensure (hopefully without first producing the Palestinian civil war which appears to be its primary, if undeclared, objective), what will be the better alternative?
John V. Whitbeck is an international lawyer who writes frequently on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
By John V. Whitbeck
In early June, the respected Pew Research Center in the United States released the latest of its global opinion surveys, which polled more than 15,000 people in 21 countries in the wake of the invasion and conquest of Iraq. The results attracted considerable attention in the American press.
A primary focus of press reports was the surge of anti-American sentiment in the Muslim world. In traditionally pro-American Jordan, 97 percent of those polled opposed America's "war on terror," while, in NATO member Turkey, 83 percent expressed an unfavorable opinion of the United States. The selection of Osama bin Laden by the publics of five of theeight Muslim countries surveyed (Indonesia, Jordan, Morocco, Pakistan and Palestine) as one of the three political leaders they would most trust to "do the right thing" in world affairs did not go unnoticed.
Less noticed, but no less significant, were the responses to another question.Those polled were asked whether the United States is too supportive of Israel. In 20 of the 21 countries surveyed (notably including Israel),most of those polled said "yes." There is no prize for guessing the one country wheremost said "no."
Israeli support for this proposition, while extremely encouraging, should not come as a complete surprise. Israelis have to live in Israel/Palestine. While their existence since Ariel Sharon provoked the current intifada in September 2000 has not been the living hell experienced by Palestinians, their lives have still become unpleasant, insecure and stressful. Increasingly, the essential realization that occupation and security are mutually exclusive is sinking in.
American supporters of the occupation tend to be Christian fundamentalists concerned about being personally raptured up to heaven after the much-to-be-hoped-for Battle of Armageddon, Jews who feel personally guilty to be living prosperously and comfortably in America rather than having emigrated to Israel/Palestine,or politicians interested only in preserving or furthering their personal careers by not offending the other two groups.
Americans in these three groups, which are fundamental to the formulation of American Middle East policy, do not have to suffer the consequences of the occupation or the resistance to it, and their support forthe occupation rarely reflects any genuine concern for the best interests of Israelis (let alone Palestininians). Their militant "pro-Israel" activism is purely self-centered and selfish in its motivation. It is also the primary obstacle to peace.
Those Israelis who feel that America is too supportive of Israel presumably can see that America's involvementsince 1967 has not advanced the cause of peace but, rather, has blocked it, with Washington's periodic pretenses of peacemaking simply providing an "only game in town" cover behind which the occupation could be perpetuated, deepened and made more nearly irreversible. They presumably wish, for their own sakes, that America would "reform." (Perhaps the U.S. needs a prime minister.)
Now—a heretical thought. Virtually all governments and commentators agree, at least in their public pronouncements, that deeper engagement by the United States is essential if Israeli-Palestinian peace is ever to be achieved. Wrong. The best hope for peace would be total American disengagement—and the sooner the better.
Imagine that the U.S. government were to announce that it was washing its hands of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict—that it would no longer give any military, economic or diplomatic aid or support to either side, and that it would not use its veto to block any U.N. Security Council resolution with respect to Israel/Palestine, even one imposing sanctions on either or both of the parties to the conflict. Having never been an "honest broker," the United States would at least become an honest bystander.
Israeli politicians and American Christian fundamentalists would, of course, be appalled. However, if the Pew poll is to be believed, many Israelis would be relieved—and finally see light at the end of the tunnel. With the the U.S. out of the picture, the occupation would become, and be recognized to be, unsustainable. The great boulder blocking the road to peace would have rolled itself out of the way, and the road to peace (not to be confused with the "road map") could finally be open for travel.
As a hugely beneficial side-effect, U.S. disengagement would vastly—and quickly—diminish anti-American rage throughout the Muslim world and the consequent threat of further "terrorist" attacks on Americans and American interests. There no longer would be any need to continue the series of wars against Israel's (hence America's) enemies. American civil liberties could be restored, and hundreds of billions of dollars could be redirected in constructive ways that would actually enhance the quality of life of Americans. America might even become respected out of admiration, as it once was, rather than simply out of fear, as is now the case.
A dream?When, perhaps quite soon, the "road map" reaches the dead-end which its own terms appear designed to ensure (hopefully without first producing the Palestinian civil war which appears to be its primary, if undeclared, objective), what will be the better alternative?
John V. Whitbeck is an international lawyer who writes frequently on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
For more information:
http://www.wrmea.com/archives/july_aug2003...
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
I absolutely agree with the above article.
It's way past time to cut the umbilical -- at the very least.
It would be better to slap sanctions on Israel till it obeys all the UN Resolutions of which it is currently in violation and verifiably disarms itself of all Weapons of Mass Destruction.
No more double standards. How does it look to lie about Iraq, prevent removal of sanctions, murder 10,000 of their civilians in an unprovoked invasion and then support Israel's "right" to do absolutely everything we accused Iraq of doing (Israel is in violation of far more UN Resolutions than Iraq ever was, Israel has all sorts of weapons of mass destruction as well as a plethora of delivery systems and they are all pointed at Arab civilian populations, Israel has used cluster bombs and phosphorous bombs on civilians in Lebanon killing over 20,000 civilians in its bombardment of Beirut and other Lebanese villages in the three month period of the summer of 1982, Israel has attacked its neighbors on numerous occasions).
All this yet we attack Iraq and actually subsidize and protect Israel from scrutiny, all the while Israel's supporters whine about "Israel being singled out" by everyone.
It's way past time to cut the umbilical -- at the very least.
It would be better to slap sanctions on Israel till it obeys all the UN Resolutions of which it is currently in violation and verifiably disarms itself of all Weapons of Mass Destruction.
No more double standards. How does it look to lie about Iraq, prevent removal of sanctions, murder 10,000 of their civilians in an unprovoked invasion and then support Israel's "right" to do absolutely everything we accused Iraq of doing (Israel is in violation of far more UN Resolutions than Iraq ever was, Israel has all sorts of weapons of mass destruction as well as a plethora of delivery systems and they are all pointed at Arab civilian populations, Israel has used cluster bombs and phosphorous bombs on civilians in Lebanon killing over 20,000 civilians in its bombardment of Beirut and other Lebanese villages in the three month period of the summer of 1982, Israel has attacked its neighbors on numerous occasions).
All this yet we attack Iraq and actually subsidize and protect Israel from scrutiny, all the while Israel's supporters whine about "Israel being singled out" by everyone.
Well, gee:
The UN has held only two special emergency sessions since 1982. No session was ever convened to condemn China's occupation of Tibet, Syria's occupation of Lebanon, the Indonesian occupation of East Timor, or the slaughters in Rwanda, the disappearances in Zaire, or any other global horror. Only Israel was so targeted - twice.
At the UN's urging, only one member state has ever been brought before the Geneva Convention. Not Cambodia for its genocide, Russia for its brutal repression of Chechnya or Sudan for its atrocities. Again, it was Israel.
The UN General Assembly, driven by a coalition of Arab, Muslim and other dictatorships, has passed more resolutions condemning Israel than any other nation on Earth. But it has never censured Israel's assailants for their three wars of aggression in 1948, 1967 and 1973.
The UN Commission on Human Rights (UNCHR) passes at least five resolutions a year condemning Israel (last year it was seven) and spends about 30% of its time solely on the Jewish state. In contrast, as Beichman notes, each of the following countries or regions has been the subject of one resolution - Iraq, Iran, Russia/Chechnya, Afghanistan, Burundi, Congo, Cuba, Myanmar, Sierra Leone, Southeast Europe and Sudan. Manuel Prutschi of the Canadian Jewish Congress notes this double standard is compounded by the fact the UNCHR devotes one agenda item to focusing solely on Israel. All other nations are lumped together under a separate item.
Despite this, Israel, the only Mideast democracy, is not allowed to join the UNCHR, or the Security Council, while many of the world's worst dictatorships - Syria, Libya, Sudan, Saudi Arabia - can and do. As David Goldberg of the Canada-Israel Committee explains, membership on major UN bodies is conditional upon belonging to one of the UN's five regional groups. Israel is the only UN member excluded from this system because it has been prevented from joining its regional group - Asia - by an ongoing Arab boycott. Thus, it cannot even get a delegate appointed to the 53-nation UNCHR to defend itself from unfair attacks. Due to efforts by the U.S. and, to its credit, Canada, Israel now has partial membership in the "Western European and Others Group."
Israel, Beichman notes, is the only country to which the UNCHR assigns a special "rapporteur" to investigate human rights "violations." In other nations, rapporteurs investigate "situations." The reports by Israel's rapporteur are always one-sided because his mandate prohibits investigating Palestinian actions in addition to Israel's, even if they occur in the same area. The Israeli rapporteur's mandate is the only one not periodically reviewed by the UNCHR.
Each year on Nov. 29, the UN holds a United Nations Day of International Solidarity with the Palestinian People. The day is always a vicious diatribe against Israel. There is no UN Day of International Solidarity With the Victims of Palestinian Terrorism. No other "people" on Earth, no matter how brutally oppressed, receive a similar day of UN solidarity.
While the anti-Semitic ravings aimed at Jews at the infamous UN conference ostensibly against racism held in Durban, South Africa in 2001 are well-known, Israel is also the only UN state to have been subjected to two blood libels. In 1991, the Syrian delegate to the UNCHR accused Israel of murdering Christian children to use their blood to make matzo, an ancient anti-Semitic canard. In 1997, the Palestinian delegate accused Israel of injecting 300 Palestinian children with HIV-infected blood. Neither of these lies was immediately denounced by the UN. From 1975-91, in what even UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan has called a "low point" in its history, a General Assembly resolution equating Zionism with racism stayed on the books until it was finally repealed due to a campaign by the U.S. By contrast, in 1997, the mere mention of an allegedly blasphemous reference to Islam by a UN expert from an academic source, was instantly rebuffed by the UNCHR and deleted from the record.
No fair-minded person argues Israel should be above scrutiny by the UN. No fair-minded person dismisses the suffering of the Palestinians in the Disputed Territories and the human rights abuses committed by Israel, albeit in the context of responding to the constant threat of terrorism.
But to pretend, as the UN does, year after year, that Israel is the world's worst human rights violator, or even remotely close to holding that title, is not only sheer nonsense, it is a suggestion fueled by anti-Semitism. The liberal media around the world has taken up the task of demonizing almost every aspect of Israel's existence, while apoligizing for past wars and current terrorism made against it. Hamas terrorists have made it clear that they'll keep on attacking Israel regardless of whether Israel leaves the West bank and Gaza Strip or not. They say this and they act on it. Yet, the left repeats over and over in newspapers around the world that terrorism against Israel would cease if only Israel would leave the "occupied" territories. Of course, this doesn't explain why Israel was a constant victim of terrorism before they "occupied" any territories, nor why their leader, Yasser Arafat, spent 30 years waging terrorist attacks on Israel, and this doens't explain why since Palestinians began their most recent terrorist intifada, every time Israel has withdrawn from "Palestinian land," terrorist attacks taking place inside Israel's proper borders increased.
The UN has held only two special emergency sessions since 1982. No session was ever convened to condemn China's occupation of Tibet, Syria's occupation of Lebanon, the Indonesian occupation of East Timor, or the slaughters in Rwanda, the disappearances in Zaire, or any other global horror. Only Israel was so targeted - twice.
At the UN's urging, only one member state has ever been brought before the Geneva Convention. Not Cambodia for its genocide, Russia for its brutal repression of Chechnya or Sudan for its atrocities. Again, it was Israel.
The UN General Assembly, driven by a coalition of Arab, Muslim and other dictatorships, has passed more resolutions condemning Israel than any other nation on Earth. But it has never censured Israel's assailants for their three wars of aggression in 1948, 1967 and 1973.
The UN Commission on Human Rights (UNCHR) passes at least five resolutions a year condemning Israel (last year it was seven) and spends about 30% of its time solely on the Jewish state. In contrast, as Beichman notes, each of the following countries or regions has been the subject of one resolution - Iraq, Iran, Russia/Chechnya, Afghanistan, Burundi, Congo, Cuba, Myanmar, Sierra Leone, Southeast Europe and Sudan. Manuel Prutschi of the Canadian Jewish Congress notes this double standard is compounded by the fact the UNCHR devotes one agenda item to focusing solely on Israel. All other nations are lumped together under a separate item.
Despite this, Israel, the only Mideast democracy, is not allowed to join the UNCHR, or the Security Council, while many of the world's worst dictatorships - Syria, Libya, Sudan, Saudi Arabia - can and do. As David Goldberg of the Canada-Israel Committee explains, membership on major UN bodies is conditional upon belonging to one of the UN's five regional groups. Israel is the only UN member excluded from this system because it has been prevented from joining its regional group - Asia - by an ongoing Arab boycott. Thus, it cannot even get a delegate appointed to the 53-nation UNCHR to defend itself from unfair attacks. Due to efforts by the U.S. and, to its credit, Canada, Israel now has partial membership in the "Western European and Others Group."
Israel, Beichman notes, is the only country to which the UNCHR assigns a special "rapporteur" to investigate human rights "violations." In other nations, rapporteurs investigate "situations." The reports by Israel's rapporteur are always one-sided because his mandate prohibits investigating Palestinian actions in addition to Israel's, even if they occur in the same area. The Israeli rapporteur's mandate is the only one not periodically reviewed by the UNCHR.
Each year on Nov. 29, the UN holds a United Nations Day of International Solidarity with the Palestinian People. The day is always a vicious diatribe against Israel. There is no UN Day of International Solidarity With the Victims of Palestinian Terrorism. No other "people" on Earth, no matter how brutally oppressed, receive a similar day of UN solidarity.
While the anti-Semitic ravings aimed at Jews at the infamous UN conference ostensibly against racism held in Durban, South Africa in 2001 are well-known, Israel is also the only UN state to have been subjected to two blood libels. In 1991, the Syrian delegate to the UNCHR accused Israel of murdering Christian children to use their blood to make matzo, an ancient anti-Semitic canard. In 1997, the Palestinian delegate accused Israel of injecting 300 Palestinian children with HIV-infected blood. Neither of these lies was immediately denounced by the UN. From 1975-91, in what even UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan has called a "low point" in its history, a General Assembly resolution equating Zionism with racism stayed on the books until it was finally repealed due to a campaign by the U.S. By contrast, in 1997, the mere mention of an allegedly blasphemous reference to Islam by a UN expert from an academic source, was instantly rebuffed by the UNCHR and deleted from the record.
No fair-minded person argues Israel should be above scrutiny by the UN. No fair-minded person dismisses the suffering of the Palestinians in the Disputed Territories and the human rights abuses committed by Israel, albeit in the context of responding to the constant threat of terrorism.
But to pretend, as the UN does, year after year, that Israel is the world's worst human rights violator, or even remotely close to holding that title, is not only sheer nonsense, it is a suggestion fueled by anti-Semitism. The liberal media around the world has taken up the task of demonizing almost every aspect of Israel's existence, while apoligizing for past wars and current terrorism made against it. Hamas terrorists have made it clear that they'll keep on attacking Israel regardless of whether Israel leaves the West bank and Gaza Strip or not. They say this and they act on it. Yet, the left repeats over and over in newspapers around the world that terrorism against Israel would cease if only Israel would leave the "occupied" territories. Of course, this doesn't explain why Israel was a constant victim of terrorism before they "occupied" any territories, nor why their leader, Yasser Arafat, spent 30 years waging terrorist attacks on Israel, and this doens't explain why since Palestinians began their most recent terrorist intifada, every time Israel has withdrawn from "Palestinian land," terrorist attacks taking place inside Israel's proper borders increased.
Another Israeli whinefest straight from the ADL archives.
Notice how the article accuses the Arabs of attacking Israel in 1967 -- the war in which Israel attacked its neighbors, not the other way around as Israel's apologists love to claim.
I don't take anything these people have to say at face value. They have no qualms whatsoever of fabricating "facts."
Notice how the article accuses the Arabs of attacking Israel in 1967 -- the war in which Israel attacked its neighbors, not the other way around as Israel's apologists love to claim.
I don't take anything these people have to say at face value. They have no qualms whatsoever of fabricating "facts."
One of the hallmarks of a bullshitter is that s/he claims something like "straight from the ADL archives" providing no backup whatsoever for this argument.
Israel's neighboring Arab states were on the verge of attacking Israel in 1967, but Israel decided to defend itself from annihilation by launching a preemptive attack. Had Israel not done so, the Arab armies would have attacked Israel any moment.
The following are indisputable facts:
1. On May 7, the New York Times reported Syria had shelled the Israeli village of Ein Gev.
2. On May 17, the New York Times reported that the Palestine Liberation Organization, headed by Arafat, pledged to "keep sending commandos" into Israel.
3. On May 19, the Los Angeles Times reported Egypt stood accused of using poison gas in Yemen.
4. On May 19, the New York Times reported Egypt had deployed its forces along the Israeli border.
5. On May 20, the New York Times reported Egypt forced U.N. peacekeeping troops to leave the Sinai Desert in anticipation of its attack on Israel.
6. On May 21, the New York Times reported Egyptian soldiers were massing in the Sinai.
7. On May 22, the New York Times reported that the PLO would be stepping up its attacks in Israel, that Cairo was calling up 10,000 reserves and that Iraq would be sending aid to battle Israel.
8. On May 23, every newspaper in the world reported that Egypt took the provocative action of closing the Gulf of Aqaba to Israel.
9. On May 24, every newspaper in the world reported that the U.S. declared Egypt's military blockade of the gulf "illegal."
10. On May 25, the New York Times reported that Jordan would admit Saudi and Iraqi forces into its country to do battle with Israel.
11. On May 27, every newspaper in the world reported Egypt's fiery threats to destroy Israel.
12. On May 29, the New York Times reported the Egyptian buildup of military forces in the Sinai was continuing.
13. On May 29, the Washington Post reported that despite all of this provocation, Israel was still reluctant to have a showdown with its enemies.
14. On May 29, the New York Times reported new Syrian attacks on Israel.
15. On June 3, the New York Times reported that Britain declared the Egyptian blockade could lead to war. It also reported that four Syrian commandos were intercepted in Israel.
16. On June 5, 1967, the Six Day War began. Israel rolled up all of its enemies faster than anyone would have believed.
Israel's neighboring Arab states were on the verge of attacking Israel in 1967, but Israel decided to defend itself from annihilation by launching a preemptive attack. Had Israel not done so, the Arab armies would have attacked Israel any moment.
The following are indisputable facts:
1. On May 7, the New York Times reported Syria had shelled the Israeli village of Ein Gev.
2. On May 17, the New York Times reported that the Palestine Liberation Organization, headed by Arafat, pledged to "keep sending commandos" into Israel.
3. On May 19, the Los Angeles Times reported Egypt stood accused of using poison gas in Yemen.
4. On May 19, the New York Times reported Egypt had deployed its forces along the Israeli border.
5. On May 20, the New York Times reported Egypt forced U.N. peacekeeping troops to leave the Sinai Desert in anticipation of its attack on Israel.
6. On May 21, the New York Times reported Egyptian soldiers were massing in the Sinai.
7. On May 22, the New York Times reported that the PLO would be stepping up its attacks in Israel, that Cairo was calling up 10,000 reserves and that Iraq would be sending aid to battle Israel.
8. On May 23, every newspaper in the world reported that Egypt took the provocative action of closing the Gulf of Aqaba to Israel.
9. On May 24, every newspaper in the world reported that the U.S. declared Egypt's military blockade of the gulf "illegal."
10. On May 25, the New York Times reported that Jordan would admit Saudi and Iraqi forces into its country to do battle with Israel.
11. On May 27, every newspaper in the world reported Egypt's fiery threats to destroy Israel.
12. On May 29, the New York Times reported the Egyptian buildup of military forces in the Sinai was continuing.
13. On May 29, the Washington Post reported that despite all of this provocation, Israel was still reluctant to have a showdown with its enemies.
14. On May 29, the New York Times reported new Syrian attacks on Israel.
15. On June 3, the New York Times reported that Britain declared the Egyptian blockade could lead to war. It also reported that four Syrian commandos were intercepted in Israel.
16. On June 5, 1967, the Six Day War began. Israel rolled up all of its enemies faster than anyone would have believed.
Israel's supporters are the only chauvinists I know of who accuse their opponents of *hate* even while they attack their neighbors killing tens of thousands of civilians, ethnically cleanse Palestinians out of their homes, and commit every atrocity imaginable and then justify it by pointing at other atrocities around the world and accusing anyone who notices theirs of being "anti-Semites."
If anyone else tried this (central american right wingers, South African racists, KKK members, Indonesian elite) they'd be laughed right out of the room.
Enough is enough. The real victims in this conflict are the Palestinian, Lebanese, and Syrian people who have been ethnically cleansed or killed by Israel's expansionist ideology and our full support for all of it. In addition, Syrians, Libyans, Lebanese and especially Iraqis are suffering as a direct result of Isreali influence on the government and media which makes this country behave in a fascist way towards all Arabs on Israel's behalf.
If anyone else tried this (central american right wingers, South African racists, KKK members, Indonesian elite) they'd be laughed right out of the room.
Enough is enough. The real victims in this conflict are the Palestinian, Lebanese, and Syrian people who have been ethnically cleansed or killed by Israel's expansionist ideology and our full support for all of it. In addition, Syrians, Libyans, Lebanese and especially Iraqis are suffering as a direct result of Isreali influence on the government and media which makes this country behave in a fascist way towards all Arabs on Israel's behalf.
How stoned are you? Did you reach a high yet?
On pro-ethnic cleansing activists' "indisputable facts."
--"...Syria had shelled the Israeli village of Ein Gev."
Why would Syria do that? Zionists invariably leave out the details in order to make it appear like they are the victims.
"Moshe Dayan, the celebrated commander who, as Defense Minister in 1967, gave the order to conquer the Golan...[said] many of the firefights with the Syrians were deliberately provoked by Israel, and the kibbutz residents who pressed the Government to take the Golan Heights did so less for security than for the farmland...[Dayan stated] 'They didn't even try to hide their greed for the land...We would send a tractor to plow some area where it wasn't possible to do anything, in the demilitarized area, and knew in advance that the Syrians would start to shoot. If they didn't shoot, we would tell the tractor to advance further, until in the end the Syrians would get annoyed and shoot.
And then we would use artillery and later the air force also, and that's how it was...The Syrians, on the fourth day of the war, were not a threat to us.'"
The New York Times, May 11, 1997
Did the Egyptians actually start the 1967 war, as Israel originally claimed?
"The former Commander of the Air Force, General Ezer Weitzman, regarded as a hawk, stated that there was 'no threat of destruction' but that the attack on Egypt, Jordan and Syria was nevertheless justified so that Israel could 'exist according the scale, spirit, and quality she now embodies.'...Menahem Begin had the following remarks to make: 'In June 1967, we again had a choice. The Egyptian Army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him.' "
Noam Chomsky, "The Fateful Triangle."
Was the 1967 war defenisve? - continued
"I do not think Nasser wanted war. The two divisions he sent to The Sinai would not have been sufficient to launch an offensive war. He knew it and we knew it."
Yitzhak Rabin, Israel's Chief of Staff in 1967, in Le Monde, 2/28/68
"The main danger which Israel, as a 'Jewish state', poses to its own people, to other Jews and to its neighbors, is its ideologically motivated pursuit of territorial expansion and the inevitable series of wars resulting from this aim...No zionist politician has ever repudiated Ben-Gurion's idea that Israeli policies must be based (within the limits of practical considerations) on the restoration of Biblical borders as the borders of the Jewish state."
Israeli professor, Israel Shahak,
"Jewish History, Jewish Religion: The Weight of 3000 Years."
But wasn't the occupation of Arab lands necessary to protect Israel's security?
"Senator [J.William Fulbright] proposed in 1970 that America should guarantee Israel's security in a formal treaty, protecting her with armed forces if necessary. In return, Israel would retire to the borders of 1967. The UN Security Council would guarantee this arrangement, and thereby bring the Soviet Union - then a supplier of arms and political aid to the Arabs - into compliance. As Israeli troops were withdrawn from the Golan Heights, the Gaza Strip and the West Bank they would be replaced by a UN peacekeeping force. Israel would agree to accept a certain number of Palestinians and the rest would be settled in a Palestinian state outside Israel.
"The plan drew favorable editorial support in the United States. The proposal, however, was flatly rejected by Israel. 'The whole affair disgusted Fulbright,' writes [his biographer Randall] Woods. 'The Israelis were not even willing to act in their own self-interest.'"
Allan Brownfield in "Issues of the American Council for Judaism." Fall 1997.[Ed.-This was one of many such proposals]
Examples of the effects of Israeli occupation
"A study of students at Bethlehem University reported by the Coordinating Committee of International NGOs in Jerusalem showed that many families frequently go five days a week without running water...The study goes further to report that, 'water quotas restrict usage by Palestinians living in the West Bank and Gaza, while Israeli settlers have almost unlimited amounts.'
"A summer trip to a Jewish settlement on the edge of the Judean desert less than five miles from Bethlehem confirmed this water inequity for us. While Bethlehemites were buying water from tank trucks at highly inflated rates, the lawns were green in the settlement. Sprinklers were going at mid day in the hot August sunshine. Sounds of children swimming in the outdoor pool added to the unreality."
Betty Jane Bailey, in "The Link", December 1996.
"There is nothing quite like the misery one feels listening to a 35-year-old [Palestinian] man who worked fifteen years as an illegal day laborer in Israel in order to save up money to build a house for his family only to be shocked one day upon returning from work to find that the house and all that was in it had been flattened by an Israeli bulldozer. When I asked why this was done - the land, after all, was his - I was told that a paper given to him the next day by an Israeli soldier stated that he had built the structure without a license. Where else in the world are people required to have a license (always denied them) to build on their own property? Jews can build, but never Palestinians. This is apartheid."
Edward Said, in "The Nation", May 4, 1998.
All Jewish settlements in territories occupied in the 1967 war are a direct violation of the Geneva Conventions, which Israel has signed.
"The Geneva Convention requires an occupying power to change the existing order as little as possible during its tenure. One aspect of this obligation is that it must leave the territory to the people it finds there. It may not bring its own people to populate the territory. This prohibition is found in the convention's Article 49, which states, 'The occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.'"
John Quigley, "Palestine and Israel: A Challenge to Justice."
Excerpts from the U.S. State Department's reports during the Intifada
"Following are some excerpts from the U.S. State Department's Country Reports on Human Rights Practices from 1988 to 1991:
1988: 'Many avoidable deaths and injuries' were caused because Israeli soldiers frequently used gunfire in situations that did not present mortal danger to troops...IDF troops used clubs to break limbs and beat Palestinians who were not directly involved in disturbances or resisting arrest..At least thirteen Palestinians have been reported to have died from beatings...'
1989: Human rights groups charged that the plainclothes security personnel acted as death squads who killed Palestinian activists without warning, after they had surrendered, or after they had been subdued...
1991: [The report] added that the human rights groups had published 'detailed credible reports of torture, abuse and mistreatment of Palestinian detainees in prisons and detention centers." Former Congressman Paul Findley, "Deliberate Deceptions."
And this was at a time before the first suicide bombing (which occurred in 1994 and was in response to a massacre by Baruch Goldstein of 29 Palestinians and then the killing of 20 more by Israeli troops the next day who were protesting the massacre). That is, the first Intifada was overwhelmingly non-violent on the part of the Palestinians yet they over a thousand of them were killed by Israelis and tens of thousands were injured or maimed because of Yitzhak Rabin's official stated policy of breaking their bones (and Yitzhak Rabin is hailed in this country as an Israeli peacemaker).
--"...Syria had shelled the Israeli village of Ein Gev."
Why would Syria do that? Zionists invariably leave out the details in order to make it appear like they are the victims.
"Moshe Dayan, the celebrated commander who, as Defense Minister in 1967, gave the order to conquer the Golan...[said] many of the firefights with the Syrians were deliberately provoked by Israel, and the kibbutz residents who pressed the Government to take the Golan Heights did so less for security than for the farmland...[Dayan stated] 'They didn't even try to hide their greed for the land...We would send a tractor to plow some area where it wasn't possible to do anything, in the demilitarized area, and knew in advance that the Syrians would start to shoot. If they didn't shoot, we would tell the tractor to advance further, until in the end the Syrians would get annoyed and shoot.
And then we would use artillery and later the air force also, and that's how it was...The Syrians, on the fourth day of the war, were not a threat to us.'"
The New York Times, May 11, 1997
Did the Egyptians actually start the 1967 war, as Israel originally claimed?
"The former Commander of the Air Force, General Ezer Weitzman, regarded as a hawk, stated that there was 'no threat of destruction' but that the attack on Egypt, Jordan and Syria was nevertheless justified so that Israel could 'exist according the scale, spirit, and quality she now embodies.'...Menahem Begin had the following remarks to make: 'In June 1967, we again had a choice. The Egyptian Army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him.' "
Noam Chomsky, "The Fateful Triangle."
Was the 1967 war defenisve? - continued
"I do not think Nasser wanted war. The two divisions he sent to The Sinai would not have been sufficient to launch an offensive war. He knew it and we knew it."
Yitzhak Rabin, Israel's Chief of Staff in 1967, in Le Monde, 2/28/68
"The main danger which Israel, as a 'Jewish state', poses to its own people, to other Jews and to its neighbors, is its ideologically motivated pursuit of territorial expansion and the inevitable series of wars resulting from this aim...No zionist politician has ever repudiated Ben-Gurion's idea that Israeli policies must be based (within the limits of practical considerations) on the restoration of Biblical borders as the borders of the Jewish state."
Israeli professor, Israel Shahak,
"Jewish History, Jewish Religion: The Weight of 3000 Years."
But wasn't the occupation of Arab lands necessary to protect Israel's security?
"Senator [J.William Fulbright] proposed in 1970 that America should guarantee Israel's security in a formal treaty, protecting her with armed forces if necessary. In return, Israel would retire to the borders of 1967. The UN Security Council would guarantee this arrangement, and thereby bring the Soviet Union - then a supplier of arms and political aid to the Arabs - into compliance. As Israeli troops were withdrawn from the Golan Heights, the Gaza Strip and the West Bank they would be replaced by a UN peacekeeping force. Israel would agree to accept a certain number of Palestinians and the rest would be settled in a Palestinian state outside Israel.
"The plan drew favorable editorial support in the United States. The proposal, however, was flatly rejected by Israel. 'The whole affair disgusted Fulbright,' writes [his biographer Randall] Woods. 'The Israelis were not even willing to act in their own self-interest.'"
Allan Brownfield in "Issues of the American Council for Judaism." Fall 1997.[Ed.-This was one of many such proposals]
Examples of the effects of Israeli occupation
"A study of students at Bethlehem University reported by the Coordinating Committee of International NGOs in Jerusalem showed that many families frequently go five days a week without running water...The study goes further to report that, 'water quotas restrict usage by Palestinians living in the West Bank and Gaza, while Israeli settlers have almost unlimited amounts.'
"A summer trip to a Jewish settlement on the edge of the Judean desert less than five miles from Bethlehem confirmed this water inequity for us. While Bethlehemites were buying water from tank trucks at highly inflated rates, the lawns were green in the settlement. Sprinklers were going at mid day in the hot August sunshine. Sounds of children swimming in the outdoor pool added to the unreality."
Betty Jane Bailey, in "The Link", December 1996.
"There is nothing quite like the misery one feels listening to a 35-year-old [Palestinian] man who worked fifteen years as an illegal day laborer in Israel in order to save up money to build a house for his family only to be shocked one day upon returning from work to find that the house and all that was in it had been flattened by an Israeli bulldozer. When I asked why this was done - the land, after all, was his - I was told that a paper given to him the next day by an Israeli soldier stated that he had built the structure without a license. Where else in the world are people required to have a license (always denied them) to build on their own property? Jews can build, but never Palestinians. This is apartheid."
Edward Said, in "The Nation", May 4, 1998.
All Jewish settlements in territories occupied in the 1967 war are a direct violation of the Geneva Conventions, which Israel has signed.
"The Geneva Convention requires an occupying power to change the existing order as little as possible during its tenure. One aspect of this obligation is that it must leave the territory to the people it finds there. It may not bring its own people to populate the territory. This prohibition is found in the convention's Article 49, which states, 'The occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.'"
John Quigley, "Palestine and Israel: A Challenge to Justice."
Excerpts from the U.S. State Department's reports during the Intifada
"Following are some excerpts from the U.S. State Department's Country Reports on Human Rights Practices from 1988 to 1991:
1988: 'Many avoidable deaths and injuries' were caused because Israeli soldiers frequently used gunfire in situations that did not present mortal danger to troops...IDF troops used clubs to break limbs and beat Palestinians who were not directly involved in disturbances or resisting arrest..At least thirteen Palestinians have been reported to have died from beatings...'
1989: Human rights groups charged that the plainclothes security personnel acted as death squads who killed Palestinian activists without warning, after they had surrendered, or after they had been subdued...
1991: [The report] added that the human rights groups had published 'detailed credible reports of torture, abuse and mistreatment of Palestinian detainees in prisons and detention centers." Former Congressman Paul Findley, "Deliberate Deceptions."
And this was at a time before the first suicide bombing (which occurred in 1994 and was in response to a massacre by Baruch Goldstein of 29 Palestinians and then the killing of 20 more by Israeli troops the next day who were protesting the massacre). That is, the first Intifada was overwhelmingly non-violent on the part of the Palestinians yet they over a thousand of them were killed by Israelis and tens of thousands were injured or maimed because of Yitzhak Rabin's official stated policy of breaking their bones (and Yitzhak Rabin is hailed in this country as an Israeli peacemaker).
For more information:
http://www.cactus48.com/1967war.html
"Inconvenient facts" is coming to the aid of the "anti-Zionist" who posted under "Straight from the ADL archives".
Informed educated readers should dismiss his/her obfuscation attempts, since Cactus48 is a "website by American Christians which presents a pro-Palestinian history. They distribute a booklet written by "Jews for Justice in the Middle East", a small organization of Jewish scholars.(http://equalpeace.com/mideast.htm). In other words, the Cactus site is not objective and its contents cannot really be trusted.
The following source sheds light on Cactus48 and the 2 people behind it: scroll almost all the way down to the bottom on http://www.think-israel.org/fraudhistory.html. The rest of this webpage is very recommended reading too, btw.
Informed educated readers should dismiss his/her obfuscation attempts, since Cactus48 is a "website by American Christians which presents a pro-Palestinian history. They distribute a booklet written by "Jews for Justice in the Middle East", a small organization of Jewish scholars.(http://equalpeace.com/mideast.htm). In other words, the Cactus site is not objective and its contents cannot really be trusted.
The following source sheds light on Cactus48 and the 2 people behind it: scroll almost all the way down to the bottom on http://www.think-israel.org/fraudhistory.html. The rest of this webpage is very recommended reading too, btw.
The above is from the 3rd Edition of "The Origin of the Palestine-Israel Conflict," a book published by Jews for Justice in the Middle East.
As the name suggests it is by Jews (non-Zionists and anti-Zionists) who support peace with justice in the Israel/Palestine conflict. They strive to tell the truth and cut through the obfuscation and lies disseminated by Israel's supporters.
No doubt Zionists call them anti-Semites or "self-hating Jews." He stops short of charging cactus48.com of anti-Semitism, but I suspect that is what he is trying to intimate (he says that a couple of that website's producers are Christians as though that is enough to discredit the site).
The guy above says they are untrustworthy and then goes on to suggest a Zionist source which is of course trustworthy as far as he is concerned.
I say consider the source. On the one hand, here is a book written by Jews who oppose Israel's expansionism and who try to dispell many of the myths surrounding this conflict and on the other you have a link to a Zionist website linked to by a pro-Israel zealot.
Americans need to become aware of the real history of Israel and the region and not just the pro-Israel drivel that the tireless propagandists of the state of Israel have managed to instill in the collective American psyche.
As the name suggests it is by Jews (non-Zionists and anti-Zionists) who support peace with justice in the Israel/Palestine conflict. They strive to tell the truth and cut through the obfuscation and lies disseminated by Israel's supporters.
No doubt Zionists call them anti-Semites or "self-hating Jews." He stops short of charging cactus48.com of anti-Semitism, but I suspect that is what he is trying to intimate (he says that a couple of that website's producers are Christians as though that is enough to discredit the site).
The guy above says they are untrustworthy and then goes on to suggest a Zionist source which is of course trustworthy as far as he is concerned.
I say consider the source. On the one hand, here is a book written by Jews who oppose Israel's expansionism and who try to dispell many of the myths surrounding this conflict and on the other you have a link to a Zionist website linked to by a pro-Israel zealot.
Americans need to become aware of the real history of Israel and the region and not just the pro-Israel drivel that the tireless propagandists of the state of Israel have managed to instill in the collective American psyche.
Better you should trust a junkie with your rent money than pro-Israeli propagandists with the truth.
--"The above is from the 3rd Edition of "The Origin of the Palestine-Israel Conflict," a book published by Jews for Justice in the Middle East."
"The above" refers to the post entitled "A few of the inconvenient facts Israel's supporters would rather ignore." ( http://www.cactus48.com/1967war.html )
What I find bewildering is that the pro-Israel zealot above claims that two of catus48.com's workers are Christians as though this discredits the site. (What is he trying to imply?)
In any case, the quotes in the above post which references cactus48.com were written by Jews for Justice in the Middle East not "Christians" as he says. But it is still untrustworthy as far as he is concerned proving that the only trustworthy sources are Zionist sources.
"The above" refers to the post entitled "A few of the inconvenient facts Israel's supporters would rather ignore." ( http://www.cactus48.com/1967war.html )
What I find bewildering is that the pro-Israel zealot above claims that two of catus48.com's workers are Christians as though this discredits the site. (What is he trying to imply?)
In any case, the quotes in the above post which references cactus48.com were written by Jews for Justice in the Middle East not "Christians" as he says. But it is still untrustworthy as far as he is concerned proving that the only trustworthy sources are Zionist sources.
I'm a pro-truth zealot.
By the same token, http://www.think-israel.org is actually rather pro-truth which happens to be pro-Israel.
Pro-Israelis have no monopoly on the truth, yet what must be recognized is that most historical facts in objective narratives of the Israeli-Arab conflict cast Israel and the Zionists in positice light while casting Arabs and Palestinians in negative light. Pity so many people have preconceptions to the contrary and refuse to be enlightened.
By the same token, http://www.think-israel.org is actually rather pro-truth which happens to be pro-Israel.
Pro-Israelis have no monopoly on the truth, yet what must be recognized is that most historical facts in objective narratives of the Israeli-Arab conflict cast Israel and the Zionists in positice light while casting Arabs and Palestinians in negative light. Pity so many people have preconceptions to the contrary and refuse to be enlightened.
--"...yet what must be recognized is that most historical facts in objective narratives of the Israeli-Arab conflict cast Israel and the Zionists in positice light while casting Arabs and Palestinians in negative light."
That's because most of the major media is far from objective (even though it claims to be) and is absolutely pro-Zionist. The evidence of this is the fact that one of the most terrorized people in the world -- the Palestinians -- have come to be viewed as the major purveyors of terrorism. Imagine that. A people who have been ethnically cleansed from their own homes and who have been killed en masse by a colonial settler society is seen as the aggressors rather than the victims. All the while their tormentors -- the Israelis -- are viewed as victims of "unprovoked terrorism" by most people in this country.
There is no such thing as an objective, unbiased source. Every source has its own bias.
The dishonest ones pretend to be unbiased while being anything but. While the honest ones tell you their bias up front.
There are those who disingenuously claim to be objective (like the mainstream media -- CNN, FOX, almost all the major newspapers) and then through editorial prerogative suppress information they don't want to get out to the general public (like Palestinian children being shot in the head by Israeli soldiers), thus effectively shaping public opinion to their liking.
--"Pity so many people have preconceptions to the contrary and refuse to be enlightened."
Translation: Why won't those few who see through the deceit just accept the lies?
I've been to the Middle East on several occasions and thus understand the vicious stereotypes and hatred directed against Arabs that is seen as acceptable and perfectly mainstream in this country. No one would tolerate such ugly stereotypes were it done to any other people.
That's because most of the major media is far from objective (even though it claims to be) and is absolutely pro-Zionist. The evidence of this is the fact that one of the most terrorized people in the world -- the Palestinians -- have come to be viewed as the major purveyors of terrorism. Imagine that. A people who have been ethnically cleansed from their own homes and who have been killed en masse by a colonial settler society is seen as the aggressors rather than the victims. All the while their tormentors -- the Israelis -- are viewed as victims of "unprovoked terrorism" by most people in this country.
There is no such thing as an objective, unbiased source. Every source has its own bias.
The dishonest ones pretend to be unbiased while being anything but. While the honest ones tell you their bias up front.
There are those who disingenuously claim to be objective (like the mainstream media -- CNN, FOX, almost all the major newspapers) and then through editorial prerogative suppress information they don't want to get out to the general public (like Palestinian children being shot in the head by Israeli soldiers), thus effectively shaping public opinion to their liking.
--"Pity so many people have preconceptions to the contrary and refuse to be enlightened."
Translation: Why won't those few who see through the deceit just accept the lies?
I've been to the Middle East on several occasions and thus understand the vicious stereotypes and hatred directed against Arabs that is seen as acceptable and perfectly mainstream in this country. No one would tolerate such ugly stereotypes were it done to any other people.
"That's because most of the major media is...absolutely pro-Zionist. The evidence of this is the fact that one of the most terrorized people in the world -- the Palestinians -- have come to be viewed as the major purveyors of terrorism... A people who have been ethnically cleansed from their own homes and who have been killed en masse by a colonial settler society is seen as the aggressors rather than the victims. All the while their tormentors -- the Israelis -- ..."
Not only is your retort not an explanation as it fails to address what I stated, but the portions I quoted are also unmitigated bullshit and lies.
"There is no such thing as an objective, unbiased source. Every source has its own bias. The dishonest ones pretend to be unbiased while being anything but. While the honest ones tell you their bias up front."
Obviously we can't speak of any source of being TOTALLY objective, but some of them are less subjective than others. The Pro-Palestinian ones are more subjective much more often than not.
"There are those who disingenuously claim to be objective (like the mainstream media --... FOX,)"
Funny. FOX is NOT mainstream.
"...like Palestinian children being shot in the head by Israeli soldiers"
That's because such intentional murder has never occurred.
"--"Pity so many people have preconceptions to the contrary and refuse to be enlightened." Translation: Why won't those few who see through the deceit just accept the lies?"
You mean "Translation". "Those few" are the people who twist impeachable evidence into deceit and lies.
"I've been to the Middle East on several occasions"
I've been to the ME on many occasions.
Not only is your retort not an explanation as it fails to address what I stated, but the portions I quoted are also unmitigated bullshit and lies.
"There is no such thing as an objective, unbiased source. Every source has its own bias. The dishonest ones pretend to be unbiased while being anything but. While the honest ones tell you their bias up front."
Obviously we can't speak of any source of being TOTALLY objective, but some of them are less subjective than others. The Pro-Palestinian ones are more subjective much more often than not.
"There are those who disingenuously claim to be objective (like the mainstream media --... FOX,)"
Funny. FOX is NOT mainstream.
"...like Palestinian children being shot in the head by Israeli soldiers"
That's because such intentional murder has never occurred.
"--"Pity so many people have preconceptions to the contrary and refuse to be enlightened." Translation: Why won't those few who see through the deceit just accept the lies?"
You mean "Translation". "Those few" are the people who twist impeachable evidence into deceit and lies.
"I've been to the Middle East on several occasions"
I've been to the ME on many occasions.
Since most of your replies don't really refute my arguments, I'll just reply to a few which I think are more important or just plain bewildering.
--"Funny. FOX is NOT mainstream."
What?
--"That's because such intentional murder has never occurred."
They occur all the time. It's just that the witnesses to them are usually Palestinian and their testimony is often not considered good enough in order to get it documented by some human rights groups (even though they do document similar incidents using testimongy in other conflicts).
In the link below, members of ISM describe a scene in which one of their Palestinian friends (a 14 year old boy) is shot dead by an Israeli sniper whom they saw take careful aim before pulling the trigger:
http://www.squall.co.uk/squall.cfm?sq=2002092601&ct=9
Pictures of Palestinian children shot in the head/eyes (Graphic):
http://www.palestinianjustice.com/nchildrent/fullimages/9_f.jpg
http://www.palestinianjustice.com/nchildrent/fullimages/13_f.jpg
--"Funny. FOX is NOT mainstream."
What?
--"That's because such intentional murder has never occurred."
They occur all the time. It's just that the witnesses to them are usually Palestinian and their testimony is often not considered good enough in order to get it documented by some human rights groups (even though they do document similar incidents using testimongy in other conflicts).
In the link below, members of ISM describe a scene in which one of their Palestinian friends (a 14 year old boy) is shot dead by an Israeli sniper whom they saw take careful aim before pulling the trigger:
http://www.squall.co.uk/squall.cfm?sq=2002092601&ct=9
Pictures of Palestinian children shot in the head/eyes (Graphic):
http://www.palestinianjustice.com/nchildrent/fullimages/9_f.jpg
http://www.palestinianjustice.com/nchildrent/fullimages/13_f.jpg
"most of your replies don't really refute my arguments"
Meaning you're ignoring the refutations.
"They occur all the time. It's just that the witnesses to them are usually Palestinian and their testimony is often not considered good enough in order to get it documented by some human rights groups"
Once more, you're making something up. Your excuse doesn't pass the test of common sense, since the human rights groups have a pro-Palestinian slant and bias.
There's no intentional murder. You lack the honesty to admit that most of these kids have been involved in either hurling rocks, Molotov cocktails or even shooting Israeli soldiers and civilians. You're trying to get a free pass for children of your Palestinian brethren, as if they can have their cake (commit terror and violence) and eat it too (be exempt from getting hurt). Obviously a certain percentage among them is collateral damage, however unfortunate.
As far as the ISM members' testimony goes, forgive me for being doubtful about it, because the ISM have already lied so many times that they can hardly be trusted by educated non-partisan observers.
Meaning you're ignoring the refutations.
"They occur all the time. It's just that the witnesses to them are usually Palestinian and their testimony is often not considered good enough in order to get it documented by some human rights groups"
Once more, you're making something up. Your excuse doesn't pass the test of common sense, since the human rights groups have a pro-Palestinian slant and bias.
There's no intentional murder. You lack the honesty to admit that most of these kids have been involved in either hurling rocks, Molotov cocktails or even shooting Israeli soldiers and civilians. You're trying to get a free pass for children of your Palestinian brethren, as if they can have their cake (commit terror and violence) and eat it too (be exempt from getting hurt). Obviously a certain percentage among them is collateral damage, however unfortunate.
As far as the ISM members' testimony goes, forgive me for being doubtful about it, because the ISM have already lied so many times that they can hardly be trusted by educated non-partisan observers.
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$210.00 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