6/24/2002: Another Palestinian child
 

http://cellar.org/2002/bloodykid.jpg

It's so unfair for me to post this here when the conversation about the mideast is going on in the Current Events forum. Folks who stay mainly in Image of the Day might enjoy checking that discussion out. There's more Cellar here than just IotD!

But anyway, I said at one point that any time I see a kid being indoctrinated in violence and war I would post it, and so I do.

This girl is participating in a celebration of the anniversary of the lynching described in "Proud Murderer" from a few days ago. From an article describing what's happening:

The article describes a "graduation exercise": The kids burned an Israeli flag and recited: "in the name of the martyr Muhamad Al-Dura and the infant martyr Iman Haju, we pledge to continue the Jihad in resistance and in intifada." A girl raised her "bloody hands," then a child dressed as Hamas leader Hassan Nasrallah recited a few lines about how the Hizbullah fought the Israelis and were rewarded from above. The kids carry toy rifles.

"Bloody hands" is in quotes because she doesn't really have bloody hands; she has had her hands dipped in red paint. (Phew!)

The original lynching is described here by a British photographer who was on the scene. He says he thought was the only photographer there (before they stole and destroyed his camera and he had to run for his life) but it seems someone else was there to get that proud murderer photo.

But it's <b>okay</b> because some Jewish guy went to some mounted temple or something and that's what's caused all this. He should be more thoughtful before he travels.

I think he was very thoughtful before he travelled and that is half the problem. He had a good idea of the consequences and his actions since have indicated he wanted to reverse every gain since Oslo and marginalize the Palestinians to the point that a policy of confinement, transfer and occupation becomes practical.

How should we respond to such images, should we conclude that the Palestinian people and their culture are inherently “Evil”, “Alien to our understanding”? that makes them truely a "Them" as in "Us vs Them" or our we to say that an external pressure has been applied for so long as to twist and distort the view of the rest of the world for some Palestinians. How would your nation react to occupation? I am Irish, I know that history made some of my people bitter evil murderers, but and even when the majority of Irish culture supported them in the 70's and 80's, there was hope, clearly (I hope) the Irish were/are not evil. Was Palestinian known for suicide, terrorism and desperation before 1948?

So, of course it is not ok, it is sick, The West Bank and Gaza Strip are pressure cookers for hate, blame the scheming idiot stoking the flames as much disparate idiot blowing himself up.

How our nations would react to occupation: that's an awesome question. I'm certain that the US would react with resolute and deadly violence to such a condition. After we killed the invaders, we would probably go kill their friends, and then their friends' friends.

Nationalism is serious stuff and if you're the nation that is invaded and violated, you're irate, period.

Which makes the current situation more curious because there has never been a Palestinian state.

And because most of the people of Israel are castoffs or family of castoffs from Arabic countries. There are more Jewish refugees than Palestinian refugees. (They just don't live in camps.) "Get out of our country, you Jewish scum. Go to your own country. And now, get out of your own country, you Jewish scum."

And because the West Bank has been the source of invasions of Israel quite consistently since its creation. At this point, who are the invaders and who the invadees? Who has a nationalistic claim? The cards moved so fast that we haven't been able to follow the queen.

How are you defining Jewish refugees though, UT? Are you including:

--The settlers previous to statehood?
--Those that fled from lands that are now under Arab control?
--The Russians and Ethiopians that made their way there in the '90s?

Its so depressing seeing this stuff. It makes you wonder if there are really enough folks tired enough of the violence to take the potentially fatal step of reaching out to the other side. Maybe Yelof could write a little about the transition in Northern Ireland? Was the IRA generally more underground than Hamas and was the anti-British sentiment less direct than this?

Hmmm, Syc, I'm not sure. The source I had said that a million Jews moved away from Arabic countries and I *think* they were suggesting that the bulk of this happened soon after statehood.

This discussion is really just pointless. It's useless to try to argue who actually owns the land. Both Jews and Palestinians live in the region and none of them is moving very soon. They'll have to learn to live together and that's it.

The point is that there is an unbalanced war going on, where thousands and thousand of Palestinians are being murdered only for the sake of it, and that's going on for 30 years with full support from the US (money, weapons, training, propaganda, etc). The Palestinians aren't trying to wipe out the Jews, they're trying to live.

Palestinian terrorism is in no way justifiable by this, but it sure is understandable.

Do you truly actually believe this? I mean really? I fail to see the correlation between "trying to live" and blowing oneself up in an effort to murder innocent citizens. Is there something I'm missing here? One is trying to live by taking their own life? Huh?

Furthermore, how do you explain Fatah's previous unwillingness to concede Israel's right to exist and Hamas and Islamic Jihad's constant efforts to derail the peace process and destroy Israel? This is their <b>stated goal</b>. It's not a side effect of "trying to live".

Nevermind the 51% of Palestinians that support the destruction of Israel.

I guess "trying to live" nowadays means killing little girls on buses or shooting them point blank in their homes. What about the Israelis that are just trying to live? Where's your argument for them? Rachel Levy was just going to the grocery store for some food. <b>That</b> is "trying to live". She got blown up by a suicide bomber. <b>That</b> is murder.

Oh, sure... not <b>all</b> Palestinians want to see the Jews killed (though apparently some 51% of them do)... but then again, hardly all Israelis are murdering thousands and thousands of Palestinians, only for the sake of it. You sure do fail to mention <b>this</b>, don't you?

Nevermind your complete lack of mention of the thousands of Israelis that have been murdered only for the sake of it.

You can't change the rules for just one side; it's got to apply to all. If the murder of Palestinians is awful and its support by the US government is awful, then the murder of Israelis is just as equally awful, and so is the support of that murder by governments such as Syria, Iran and Iraq and groups such as the Palestinian Authority, Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, Palestinian Liberation Organization, Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine and however many other terrorist-supporting groups exist in the mideast and abroad.

Furthermore, I don't recall any recent news stories about Israeli soldiers walking into crowds of Palestinian civilians and detonating themselves, but I seem to recall an incident last week during morning rush hour where a Palestinian extremist got on a bus and... I don't even need to say it, because you know what happened.

Whereas Israel targets those who target Israel, Palestinian extremists target little kids.

You're right though - just trying to live.

kudos
 

I've got to say - the sheer clarity of opinion posted both by undertoad and Dhamsaic are precisely why this is my favorite discussion forum to read through (even if i don't have much time to participate).

I'm going to be encouraging Worth1000 members to visit here in a big way in the coming days.

Re: kudos
 

Son of a bitch! <b>U</b>ndertoad and <b>d</b>hamsaic. :)

or Tony and Dave. I don't think The Tone minds, and I don't either. But man, Dhamsaic just looks <b>awful</b> with that capital D. :)

Jenin. They didn't detonate themselves, but I'm pretty certain that the Israli army gave a good "Crowd" of Palestinians a one way ticket to Paradise there.

another key difference is that where palestinian civilians are killed, the killing is accidental and collateral to the terrorists. Whereas when Israelis are killed it is always intentional and the intended targets are nearly always civilian.

How do I know this? Because Israel, if it so wanted, could drop a small nuke into Palestinian territory and end all terrorism instantly, but has not. During their most recent incursion into Ramallah during Operation Defensive Shield, they sent in ground troops to battle terrorists instead of bombing th place indiscriminately from the safety of the skies so as not to harm civilians.

Does this mean that Palestinian civilians's lives count less than Israelis? Certainly not. But lets put things into perspective by virtue of the intentions of the offenders before demonizing either side.

Want to cry out "massacre" by the Israelis? Look at their arsenal and marvel how few civilians have been killed to date despite the terrorists camping in their midsts and using civilians as shields.

It's pointless for me to even post a response. If it's one thing terrorists apologists know, it's put a spin on everything.

Because the Palestinian territory is "occupied" by Jewish settlements! Refraining from dropping a small nuke is not an indication of any intention not do drive the Palestinians from the West Bank.

You guys are a microcosm of sorts.

We have a few people that seem to be pro-Israeli, from the US. We have a few folks from outside the US that seem to be pro-Palestinian. (And my apologies to all if I am mistaking your views here).

But this seems to be the case in the world as a whole. The US are staunch supporters of the State of Israel, while most of the world seems to favor the Palestinians.

So...what are we not connecting on here? Are we just seeing it through different eyes? Are we affected by our media sources (on both sides)? To me, it just seems that there is more to it than our own personal statements (even if loaded with facts).

not quite
 

I'm a liberal American who has spent time in Israel and Palestine. I saw life on both sides first hand. I have both Arab and Israeli friends. My posts are based on my experience - not media bias.

And as for the idiotic "Israel hasn't nuked b/c there are settlements" statement, not quite. They don't need to use an actual nuclear weapon to destroy all of Palestine. They can drop a single missile on Ramallah and kill everyone without harming a single Jewish settlement.

So it's not that they are afraid for the settlements. It's that they have respect for innocent life.

Don't start that "humiliating checkpoint" garbage either. If you had terrorists attending your school you'd install metal detectors and armed guards at the entrances too.

As I mentioned in another thread ... David Grossman writes this insightful piece:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Six months ago the journal Nature published a study about a dangerous mechanism in the human visual system. The study sought to explain why the brain sometimes refuses to see what the eyes convey to it. The scientists, from Israel's Weizmann Institute, suggested that the explanation for this phenomenon is that the brain is flooded with a multitude of interpretations of every reality it faces and that it must, in the end, decide in favour of one of them and act accordingly. The fascinating part of this explanation is the hypothesis that, from the moment the brain decides in favour of a given interpretation of the images it is receiving, all stimuli that support any other interpretation simply "disappear". The brain, as it were, refuses to relate to them.

In the impossible relationship between Israel and the Palestinians, both sides have for years suffered from almost complete blindness to reality's complexity. Each is certain that the other side is ceaselessly deceiving it; that the other side does not want peace at all; that any compromise move by the other side is camouflage for an intrigue designed to bring the other side's victory and the elimination of its own existence.

There's no need for scientific research to understand how easy it is to paint reality this way.

Nic, I must have missed that originally. Do you have a link to the article or to a story about it? It sounds very interesting.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0...620762,00.html

where Grossman also writes:

Very good read...thanks. :)

This little flash history is an interesting backgrounder to this discussion: http://www.guardian.co.uk/flash/0,5860,720353,00.html

as is this weblog on the conflict: http://www.guardian.co.uk/weblog/spe...533512,00.html

First off, please understand that I wasn't being sarcastic. I was curious as to the "criteria" for a refugee, given that those who fled to Israel after the Holocaust might be considered refugees.

According to The Department for Jewish Zionist Education, they say there were about 600,000 Jews that fled to Israel from Arab countries, and about 720,000 Arabs fled. Here are some maps, including those that show the migrations.

The numbers ARE fairly close, although to put it in perspective, the extra 120,000 Arabs are like a city the size of Allentown.

Your point on nationalism is well-taken though. Some Palestinians have been living in refugee camps for over 50 years now. If Palestinians are Arabs, I don't understand why the Arab countries in which many of them are housed don't seem willing to accept them as part of their own countries. I can only suspect that much of it has to do with a) nationalism of the other Arab countries and/or the Palestinians, or b) a good point of grievance the Arabs can make against Israel.

Here's a CBC article regarding Palestinian refugees from April.

I am neither pro-Israel nor pro-Palestinian. I am pro-let's stop killing the fucking civilians and find some peace so I don't have to read about dead 3 year olds on MSNBC. And the first step... the very first step... is cutting out the suicide attacks. Who's directly responsible for those? Palestinian extremists. So the ball is in their court, and they refuse to move.

Well, who could make them move then? A true leader of the Palestinian people. One whom would crack down on militants, make it known that hatred toward the others would not be tolerated, and lead peaceful protests to the occupation.

Arafat is none of that. He hates Israel as much as the extremists do. He just has to be diplomatic about it.

So the public needs to force change. They need to install a government that will suit them in their quest for an end to the occupation.

In the mean time, Israel has to continue to defend its citizens by eliminating threats when they appear. It is a shitty reality, but it is the reality.

The ball is in the Palestinians' court. They need to make the move.

And the Israeli viewpoint is that it's their ball, their court and they make the rules. Now if the Palestinians would just start playing by Israel's rules everything would be kosher.

Perhaps I'm being naive, but it seems to me like what Israel should do is just prevent any Palestinians from getting to where Israelis live. It's always some Palestinian going into some Israeli neighborhood and blowing themselves up. Why not change to checkpoints to prevent anybody who doesn't have a beard and is wearing a black hat from coming through? I doubt that would take any more resources than they're already committing, and it would require a lot more effort on the suicide bomber's part to get to a target. (The settlements are a problem in this scheme, but they too can be isolated.)

I hear that african americans commit a lot of murders as compared to white middle class people, perhaps in the USA neighborhoods should be divided into white and black with checkpoints....

Yeah, that's why we keep them relegated mainly to run-down areas...except for those "good niggers."

You mean the ones that only steal bikes and shit?

:)

Nic - eh, sorta. See, back in 1993, Oslo, that sort of thing, everyone agreed that Arafat would word hard to curb violence, stop the really heated anti-Israel protests, etc... well, Arafat isn't doing that. At all. So Israel is enforcing.

Like I said, if Arafat would do his job, Israel wouldn't need to.

Ball's in his court.

Dhamsaic: congratulations for the most shallow analysis or a series of facts i've seen in a long time.

Ill say only one thing, its hard to move wood when i chop off your arms.

Talking of dead kids, 4 of the 5 victims of the currant occupation of the west bank so far have ben under 10.

No, not them...we ship them straight to North Philadelphia (or in your area, SE DC). You have to have a "Good Nigger Card." Rho carries hers in her purse.

dham, you are pro-Israel or at least pro-state when given the choice of which style of violence to support.


There is a difference between fencing off Americas blacks and fencing off the Palestinians. Most of Black America doesn't claim a separate national identity. The Israelis and Palestinians should be separated to at least stop the violence until cooler heads can provide leadership. If the Palestinians are ever going to have an economy, after getting their state, they need to have a relationship with Israel. There is little that the US can do to help the situation other than eliminate our financial and military comittment to Israel. Propping up their controlled economy isolates them from the reallity that they need trade with their neighbors.

Griff - your analysis is incorrect.

When we look at the violence, we need to look at it factually. What are the facts of the current situation?

These are the facts, and they are indisputable:

1) Palestinian extremists such as Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades are <b>targeting</b> innocent citizens in their attacks.

2) The IDF is <b>targeting</b> those which target Israel.

Neither side is perfect, obviously. Israel has made some mistakes, such as firing into a market. This is absolutely unacceptable and should be investigated. But this is the exception, not the rule.

Jag - this is true, to a certain degree. It is not at all helpful when Israel bombs a Palestinian police station and these actions can certainly be blamed for some of the reluctance of Arafat to "reign in" militants. However, it is hardly accurate to list this as the only cause, or even the biggest.

Far and away the biggest problem when it comes to Arafat reigning in militants is that Arafat is <b>unwilling to do so</b>. Images frequently come along of dead "collaborators" being dragged down the streets by militants. This is not possible in Israel, because its police force would put a stop to it. The Palestinian police force is, quite simply, apathetic. They don't care.

Arafat does not do all that he can do. Not by a long shot. As I've explained in other threads, he could very easily help put a stop to the suicide attacks by collaborating with Israel and arresting known militants for trial. On all but a few occasions, he has refused to do so.

As far as children being killed, we've covered this in another thread as well - they are not <b>targeted</b> by Israel. Is it a shame that they died? Absolutely. Their life is as valuable as anyone else's. But they were not deliberately targeted. Their death, while tragic, is accidental. The same cannot be said of the three children murdered in a settlement last week.

In other words, stop bringing up the children thing, because your argument is far too weak to support it. You cannot win because to do so, you need to be able to justify the targeting and intentional, knowing murder of children. Which you cannot possibly do.

I'm still chewing on this idea that Ut and yourself posit, that there can be an accidental death in war. War is waged intentionaly. In war there will be casualties among the innocent. Where is the accident in that? To me, its like the drunk driving 80 mph on a back road, its no accident.

Well then your view is, in my opinion, very short sighted. Here's an example of an accidental death:

Israel knows that a militant is going to be leaving his house at about 10:30 AM to go to a Hamas meeting. This man is responsibile, directly, for the deaths of a number of Israelis. They see his car pull out and wait for it to be in a remote-enough area for a "targeted killing". Then, when the time is right, Israeli helicopters appear and fire missiles on the vehicle.

The man is dead. This was intentional. Goal accomplished.

Unfortunately, his young daughter was in a car seat in the back. Her death was not an objective. Accidental killing.

This has happened before and, unfortunately, it will happen again. It doesn't change the fact that she's dead, and that sucks. But it's not intentional.

I've said it before, and I will say it again: Palestinian militants <b>target</b> civilians. Israel targets those who target Israelis. Whereas the goal of Palestinian militant groups is to kill as many civilians as possible (and Hamas has their "glory record" on their homepage, listing their most successful attacks - I know, I have seen this for myself), Israel does not target civilians. Do civilian casualties still occur? Yes, and it's awful, as death generally is. But there is a big difference between intentionally killing the innocent and unintentionally killing the innocent.

By your logic, there should be just one sentence for any type of death-related crime, because they're all the time. The guy that accidentally backs over his son with his truck and kills him (this happened to a kid I knew in elementary school) is guilty of the same crime as Ted Bundy? Absolutely not, and I don't think that even you would try to argue so. There is intentional killing and unintentional killing, and there's a world of difference between them.

Or this example... the IDF goes into the West Bank intending to go after terrrorists and deliberately fires a tank shell into a market because the folks there are shopping during an Israeli imposed curfew. You might say that's an accident. It sucks. But the Israeli government can't be criticized for that ... it wasn't intentional. That's an assumption.

It is also possible that some Israeli soldiers are taking an eye for an eye and kill Palestinian civilians, including children, as an act of revenge against the terrorists' killing of Israeli civilians, including children.

It is possible that many Palestinians have that perception of the IDF incursions into the West Bank, and view Palestinian terrorist acts as a militant response to Israeli aggression.

None of these actions are justifiable, nor can they be exculpated by a denial of intention, when the acts are deliberate, not accidental.

There is no reality, just perceptions of reality.

btw, David, your facts are just your statements of fact, and they may be disputable even if you say they're indisputable.

We've already been over this one, and I've already stated that it is unacceptable. Is it an accident or not? I don't know. I've already said that it should be investigated. I've also said that incidents like these are the exception, not the rule. It should be noted that Israel has, at the very least, acknowledged their fuckups and, I believe, apologized for the deaths of innocent civilians. The same cannot be said of Hamas, Islamic Jihad, al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, etc.

Duh. This is also irrelevant in this discussion because actions like these would be those of individuals, not entities. There is a very big difference. There are groups that are operating under a stated goal of destroying Israel. The IDF is acting under the stated goal of keeping that from happening. The IDF goes about accomplishing its goal by targeting and executing attacks against militants and those that support them. The aforementioned anti-Israel groups go about their goal by killing civilians.

Do Israeli soldiers kill innocent victims intentionally? I'm absolutely certain that they do. But this is not a function of the group. It is a function of a person. A single individual. This is an important distinction to make.

Absolutely. This is due in large part to the fact that Arafat will not lead. The people are being lead by the extremists and Arafat is doing nothing to curb this extremist sentiment.

Again, no. Facts are facts, period. Ariel Sharon is the Prime Minister of Israel. Yasser Arafat is the chairman of the Palestinian Authority. Yitzhak Rabin is deceased. Militant organizations exist with and act upon a stated goal of destroying Israel. Israel acts to keep this from happening. Those are facts.

That was very poor phrasing on my part. The real difference is that we're not at war with the blacks in this country. If about once a week a black guy would go to a random place and blow himself and any bystanders to bits, claim it was for all his black brothers, and have most of the other black people cheer him on for doing that, then I'd be all for isolating all blacks in some place.

I guess the only reason Israel doesn't want to isolate the Palestinians is because that's a lot like giving them their own state.

Can you handle the truth?
 

Tony, Dave, and all others who continue emphasizing the vast numbers of innocent Israeli children murdered by the Palestinians: why not look at the actual numbers of minors killed in the occupied terrirories between December 1987 and January 2002?

Shall we take the numbers published by an Israeli group (which includes members of the Knesset), as to not be fooled by anti-Jewish propaganda? Sure.

Total number of Palestinian minors in the occupied territories killed by both Israeli security forces and civilians:

433 (115 of whom were 13yrs or younger)


Total number of Israeli minors killed in BOTH THE OCCUPIED TERRITORIES and Israel:

50 (10 of whom were 13yrs or younger)


Although things may have got even more violent since that data was compiled (January), the trend continues. Some crimes, however, are publicized and used as propaganda much more efficiently than others.

Yes, both sides are wrong to propagate violence against innocents. The manner in which the Palestinians are portrayed as the sole bloodthirsty murderers, however, is stomach-churning - if you know the truth.

Pity USA Today, Fox News, and the NYT won't spell it out for you. When Ted Turner correctly pointed out that Israel was engaging in state-sponsored terroristm (which is factually accurate from the point of view of political science, by the way), the uproar immediately forced him to retract and clarify.

And if the disproportionate number of children killed doesn't persuade you, how about this: Between September 2000 and April 2002, 300 Israelis, and 1200 Palestinians were killed in the Second Intifada. Where are the headlines?

Before answering, please read the two sources listed below; the first especially is outstanding in its description and analysis of reporting.

X.


Sources:
http://www.fair.org/activism/network-retaliation.html
http://www.btselem.org/English/Stati...ors_Killed.asp

Xug -

Firstly, I was not "emphasizing the vast numbers of innocent Israeli children murdered by the Palestinians". Maybe you should go back and re-read what I've said. Tony also has not emphasized numbers. Probably because we both know that they are unimportant.

Now... as far as your numbers go... we all know this. You, as well as many others, are missing the point. The numbers are awful. The death is awful. That's not what this is about.

I will say it again. <b>Hamas, Islamic Jihad an the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, which are the three most active Palestinian extremists groups that are carrying out attacks against Israel, are specifically targeting *****CITIZENS*****</b>.

If they were attacking military personnel and bases and the occasional innocent got killed, it would be <b>entirely different</b>. However, they are <b>not</b>. Fuck those numbers, because they hardly paint an accurate portrait. Show me the Israeli soldier that stormed a Palestinian house and shot 3 kids and their mother. That would be deliberately targetting citzens. Fortunately, it hasn't yet happened. You know, at least most of the time when Israel launches an attack, they can say "Yeah, that was a fuckup in the sense that we killed 25 civilians, but we got a good number of militants too." How often can the Palestinian extremist groups say that? "Well, we decided to blow up a supermarket this time, to eradicate the... uh... diabolical shopping nature of the Israelis. We didn't get any activists or anything, but we sure blew the shit out of a 17 year old girl and a security guard!" Give me a break.

You've stated before that you're pro-peace. So where are your posts condemning Arafat's refusal to do anything other than sit on his ass and look ugly? He is certainly not pro-peace, as you have proclaimed yourself to be. You're quick to attack Israel, and that's fine - so long as you apply that same logic to the Palestinian Authority and its direct and/or indirect support of Palestinian extremist groups such as al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades and Hamas.

X-man,

If body counts matter, how about one broken down correctly?

You know, the majority of suicide bombings don't work. The bombers are trained to blow themselves up if they are detected, and a lot of them do, offing only themselves. Some are shot at checkpoints. Some are shot by private security forces. Some are just misses.

Palestinian teenagers are the most militant, the most likely to become suicide bombers. And I've documented a trend here before, wherein Palestinian youngsters are deciding to take matters into their own hands, excited by the new culture of death. I noted the three teenagers who wandered into a settlement with guns in hand, intent on doing harm, shot before they can do any damage.

Your numbers include those deaths. But clearly you don't want to blame Israel for killing a suicide bomber, right? (Well unless your initials are tw.) What if we took those numbers out? What if we listed the numbers of Palestinian deaths <b>minus</b> the ones that died as militants? If you can find those numbers, I would be really interested.

Hmmm. How about if we compare the <b>ages</b> of the children who were killed? That would tell us whether those big death numbers were not indicative of the shooting of militants, but evidence of heartless/racist summary executions and poorly-executed military operations. If as many 5-year-olds were killed as 15-year-olds, we would know that Israeli killing is indiscriminate, intentional... it would be quite the open-and-shut case.

According to your source, here's that breakdown from Sept. 29 2000- June 22, 2002. Please excuse my lousy formatting.

Age # killed
17&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 45
16&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 35
15&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 39
14&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 32
13&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 25
12&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 10
11&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 7
10&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 9
9&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 5
8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 6
7&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 3
6&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 3
5&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 1
4&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 2
3&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 2
2&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 0
1&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 1
<1&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 1

But do we know how many of these people were confirmed to be suicide bombers or about to cause some other danger to society, as opposed to how many just looked like suicide bombers to the people who were doing the shooting.

And why so many 10 years old and younger - 33 children 10 years or less posed a threat ? Yea, ok.

The point I'm trying to make here is that Israel is not blameless, they are not squeaky clean, they are every bit as guilty of attrocities as the Palestinian extremists.

Americans don't often see that though, partly because of the American interests in the area, partly because the Israelies look "westernized" compared to Palestinians, and partly because that is what you have become conditioned to by your government.

Outside of the US we are in a position where we can more clearly see the happenings there, there is less of a spin. We can see that Sharon is pig headed, Arafat is a weakling, Hamas does do some good (along with the bad), and the George Dubya is a complete and utter moron (but you knew that).

Statistics, while informative, are easily manipulated.

I was just having some random thoughts, in conjunction with my microcosm post last night.

We're having a big ol' testosterone fest here...I haven't seen a woman (that I know of) post yet.

For that matter (I think someone mentioned this before), we haven't had a Palestinian or Israeli (that I know of) post yet. We know everything and yet nothing. Although, if we did have either or both, I think it would be a refreshing perspective.

We're trying to use facts and logic here, yet being humans, we can't help but be emotional about things. You see it in the posts. It's a good and bad thing IMO.

USA Today, Fox News, and the NY Times? Them's fighting words. ;) Seriously though, you think people in the US are nuts now...give 'em just those three and we're ALL in trouble. (Though the Times and Fox actually contradict each other to a degree.)

Ellen Siegel, a Jewish nurse, tells her story ...
 

The indisputable point 2 is factually incorrect. IDF is <b>targeting</b> innocent Palestinians. IDF openly blame terrorism on Arafat and not on Hamas, Islamic Jihad, etc. so they can justify attacks on innocent Palestinians. If IDF were targeting 'those which target Israel', then a majority of those killed in the Jenin massacre would not be innocent civilians. Human Rights Watch investigation belives the majority killed in Jenin were innocent civilians.

Today the IDF attacked, with tanks, a Palestinian police station because the Police are terrorists? Terrorist only in the eyes of Likud lovers. IDF killed 3 Palestinian policemen and took 20 prisioner including the chief so that terrorist have no police to fear and so that Arafat cannot stop suicide bombers. IDF attacks the innocent people because the intend to to invade and confiscate the occupied territories. IDF and justice are contractions because the IDF now represents the interests of the Jewish Nazi party - Likud.

Long ago, posted were examples of how Israel would confiscate the land. Cut down Olive trees of innocent farmers, without compensation, because terrorist might hide behind those trees - or really so the innocent farmer would not be able to pay his taxes. Israeli Likud lovers could steal his land - legally. That example alone justifies outright rebellion and violence because the oppressed have no legal recourse - as defined by the American Declaration of Independence.

Any people who have their land taken and are not protected by laws have rights to take any and all actions necessary in response to their oppressors. Top on the list of world racists is the current Israeli government and its IDF actors. It is a shame that all Likud extremists don't walk around with signs so the the enemies of humanity could be idenfied before they were killed. With death rates equal on both sides, then peace would happen quickly. Peace? That is what Sharon fears because peace means he cannot attack innocent Palestinians.

Want to end the violence? Then advocate the assasination of Ariel Sharon - as he advocated the murder of Rabin. Eye for an eye. As long a Sharon is alive, then violence must escalate because Sharon wants the instability of violence - as has been his entire history. Anyone who advocates less violence without first addressing reasons for that violence is living in LaLaLand.

Violence must increase. Death rates on both sides must end up in equal numbers of dead peopple - for sanity to return. This will not happen as long as a mental midget President cuddles up to a mass murder - Sharon.

What? No "dichead?"

OK, i'm back here now.
Dham, lets go though this. I posted what i posted because you choose the simplest possible conclusion of the facts rather than putting them in context.

The first question is *why would he*
Isreal have offered nothing, nothing real has even been suggested, i don't think if arafat wanted he could reign in militants without being removed himself but even is he could he has no motivation to. The second is simple, if brutal, Mossad is effective, and ruthless, anyone that becomes a mossad turncoat needs to be made a good example of becase they cannot afford to have operations disruped by Mossad. yes, that is brutal.

As for targeting, i don't see much difference between a palastinain woman and 2 of her children who were cut in half on the way to answering the door by an isreli explosive, both were calous, and considering the looting, shooting at medical vehicles, using medical personel as human shields, using civvies as human shields and to test for traps that there is the slighest bit of difference, both sides clearly are not respecting the rules of war. The Isreali sholders are no different to treatment of Vietnamese civvies by US troops during the Vietnam war.

Why would he?

You meant to add, "besides the fact that it's morally reprehensible", of course. "Besides the fact that it's creating a deeply broken culture that worships death and promotes hate and violence in its six-year-olds." I'm sure you meant to add.

Remember how a few weeks ago Arafat suddenly said OK, that Clinton plan was good, we'll accept that now. He didn't get anywhere with that idea, because after 20 months of Intifada it was way off the table.

So suicide bombing has been more than ineffective at promoting the cause of statehood; it has, in effect, polarized the diplomatic atmosphere against Arafat, especially in a post-9/11 world.

The question should be "why WOULDN'T he?" The reason: because it's only while he is the center of Islamic rage against the world that he has any power whatsoever. The Arabic leaders are all like "We must help the cause of our brothers in Palestine!" because they have a wet dream of defeating the West, somewhere, anywhere. So they send him money, and they send him weapons, and a while back there was an unverified report that $5.1 million of Arabic assistance money found its way to Arafat's personal bank account.

Well count me converted on that rock had evidence.

Little would change in the palastinian situation if they did stop, its not like Isreal is going to turn roudn and grant a state becase Lukid policies worked so once again, why would they? And don't give me morality, its irrelavent to this part of it.

Btw: no, i didn't mean to add anything and i'm not in the sligest aplogetic for it, sure, its horrible but its not in their interest, its all politics.

When Bush says the Palestinians must choose a new leader, does he mean in the American sense of whoever gets the most popular votes loses?

When Sharon says the Palestinians need a new leader, does he mean in the Israeli sense that the elected leader is assassinated so someone else can rise to power?

Or, do they mean it in the Kofi Annan sense that if the Palestinians re-elect Arafat, the world leaders will have to recognize him as the legitimate leader of the Palestinians?

Really, I don't think Arafat will live to see the next election, if he pursues re-election. So, I guess I'm saying that the proposal is for an Israeli-style election.

If they knocked him off the result would be............it'd involve allot of red stuff. Everywhere. But yes, democratic in bushepak means the person we want.

Very few of the Palestinians commit any type of terrorism. They neither have the will or the resources.

You're taking the actions of a few to represent the will of the majority, and that's ridiculous.

Of course. They're being massacred by the Israeli army for generations. Completely understandable. Keep in mind that you can't compare the killing done by the Israeli army to the killing done by Palestinian suicide bombs. Not by the longest shot.

What you said is just tabloid argument.

First tabloid argument, then cheap sentimentalism.

How about the hundreds of little kids and innocents civilians killed by Sharon's army during one of it's mass murders? Can you do simple math? Is Israeli blood better that Palestinian? The US government apparently thinks so.

Of course the murder of Israelis is awful, but the point it that the overwhelmingly bigger number of deaths is on the Palestinian side, and the overwhelmingly majority of civilians. Nothing justifies this. Certainly not the "fight against terrorism". Total annihilation and ethnic cleansing is the worse form of terrorism, and is the one the US is most familiar with in terms of support. Does Turkey ring a bell? Probably not...

Oh, please...
How can a whole settlement, with not enough food or water, target Israel ?

Look. You are _very_ uninformed about the whole business. I'm certainly no expert, but here are a few texts that were very enlightening to me:

http://www.zmag.org/content/Mideast/chomlateline.cfm
http://www.zmag.org/content/Mideast/chomskyconstr.cfm
http://www.zmag.org/shalom-meqa.htm
http://www.zmag.org/content/Mideast/pilger_june19.cfm

I suggest you take a look at them, and at everything else at www.zmag.org for that matter.

It finally hit me, when I read this, why you come off sounding like such a knob. You're misinterpreting what I'm writing. I am very clearly saying Palestinian <b>extremists</b> and you're interpreting it to mean "all Palestinians". So how about you go re-read what I said with that in mind.

The image of the kid is beyond politics. It is a growing, dynamic culture of hate and death. I'd like to think there is some instinctive survival element that regulates violent behavior, finds balance, but its short circuited here with the justification of death/violence for survival. And the problem I have with Arabic culture keeps going back to sexism and the oppression of women. Not just extremists, but the majority. Now, I tend to think that gender differences/ rationales can be too simplistic and too quickly tossed down, but we need some powerful maternal life-affirming love to rise up against this self destructive patriarchy. It has to be a leader from within. Sexism is the main reason why my sympathies align more with Israel, although I am not blind to their atrocities.

You said:
I said that Israel does not target those who target Israel, they target everyone that happens to be Palestinian, by killing them and destroying their homes, exactly like the Palestinian suicide bombers. The only difference is the order of magnitude, and the fact that Israeli weapons and training were paid with American tax-payer money.

Where exactly is my misinterpretation ?

Our differences are obvious. But, is there anything we can agree on? Israel and Palestine both deserve their own states? Innocents are being killed on both sides?

Anyone, anyone? :)

Its pretty fucking horrible however you look at it?
Christan nutters (see other thread) are bad?
Fish on pizza is just plain wrong?

This is absolutely false. It is not Israeli policy to target and attack "everyone that happens to be Palestinian". If it were, you would see a lot more tanks-firing-into-markets incidents. I will absolutely agree with you that invidivual soldiers within IDF have intentionally killed innocent Palestinians, but your submission that Israel targets all Palestinians is false. The fighting would have been over long ago if this were true.

Here's a quote from a text written by Shamai Leibowitz, an Orthodox Jew and a criminal defense attorney in Tel Aviv and is also a tank gunner in reserve duty, and part of a group of 1000 soldiers who have refused to serve in the occupied territories (http://www.couragetorefuse.org/) :

I'm sure these were all terrorists... (Keep in mind that an Israeli Officer wrote that.)

The whole text is at http://www.zmag.org/content/showarti...22&ItemID=2042

There's a lot more where that came from, and other countless evidences of massacres done by the Israeli army, so your response couldn't be lamer.

Again, you are refusing to acknowledge a very simple truth: the IDF is not targeting all Palestinians, because if they were, they would have all been wiped out long ago. Imposing a strict curfew is hardly targetting "everyone that happens to be Palestinian."

As for whether they deserve that curfew or not... 51% of Palestinians represent the destruction of Israel. No pity for the majority.