Rachel Corrie

yosi

Also I like that you completely changed the topic of the thread. The conversation had turned to violent action by Palestinians, and its alternatives. I commented on that, and you responded by saying, essentially that non-violence isn't working for them. And then when I responded to your comment within the context of the larger conversation you accused me of going off topic. That isn't a very honest way to conduct this debate.

Pepe Silvia

yosi wrote:

Also I like that you completely changed the topic of the thread. The conversation had turned to violent action by Palestinians, and its alternatives. I commented on that, and you responded by saying, essentially that non-violence isn't working for them. And then when I responded to your comment within the context of the larger conversation you accused me of going off topic. That isn't a very honest way to conduct this debate.

what????

you said pretty much, why don't they try a peaceful approach instead of reacting violently.

to which i replied that when they do react nonviolently they are still locked up without a charge or trial

and you reply that this doesn't excuse them reacting violently

yeah, no shit, but that doesn't address my point

you say why don't they try a peaceful approach, i say they do and it doesn't work, when did i say or imply that justified violent reactions?

how was i being dishonest??i was bringing you back that they DO react nonviolently

Pepe Silvia

yosi wrote:

Well they could give up terrorism for one. That might win them a whole bunch of points with the international community, and may even get them the pressure on Israel that you guys are so clamoring for. Or better yet, it might just convince the Israelis that lifting security sanctions on the Palestinians won't result in Israelis being blown up on buses.

how often is an Israeli blown up on a bus?

yosi

Pepe Silvia wrote:

yosi wrote:

Also I like that you completely changed the topic of the thread. The conversation had turned to violent action by Palestinians, and its alternatives. I commented on that, and you responded by saying, essentially that non-violence isn't working for them. And then when I responded to your comment within the context of the larger conversation you accused me of going off topic. That isn't a very honest way to conduct this debate.

what????

you said pretty much, why don't they try a peaceful approach instead of reacting violently.

to which i replied that when they do react nonviolently they are still locked up without a charge or trial

and you reply that this doesn't excuse them reacting violently

yeah, no shit, but that doesn't address my point

you say why don't they try a peaceful approach, i say they do and it doesn't work, when did i say or imply that justified violent reactions?

how was i being dishonest??i was bringing you back that they DO react nonviolently

Ok, I misunderstood you. I thought that you were implying that the fact that non-violence hasn't worked was a justification for violence. My bad.

yosi

Pepe Silvia wrote:

yosi wrote:

Well they could give up terrorism for one. That might win them a whole bunch of points with the international community, and may even get them the pressure on Israel that you guys are so clamoring for. Or better yet, it might just convince the Israelis that lifting security sanctions on the Palestinians won't result in Israelis being blown up on buses.

how often is an Israeli blown up on a bus?

Well, when I was living there in 2002, it happened pretty much every week, sometimes every day. That was up until the point when Israel reinvaded the areas of the West Bank they had ceded to the PA during Oslo in an attempt to end the terror. Over the ensuing years, through a constant military presence, roadblocks, and by building the security fence, Israel has managed to eliminate suicide bombings almost completely. Which is not to say that people aren't trying to carry out terrorist bombings, only that Israel, through admittedly draconian measures, is now able to stop them.

badbrains

Yosi, my cousins have been to Israel a couple of times. The one thing they told me was that they finally understood why buses were the targets of bombings. Almost all the buses they went on to travel in Israel were full of idf soldiers. So in a way, they were targeting military points of intrest. They told me everytime they went kn a bus, they were scared cuz of all the military idf soldiers on the bus made them targets as well. That's what they shared with me.

rebornFixer

Well, I am with yosi, needless to say. Even assuming that the Israelis are guilty of a land grab and not much else, violence continues to provide the Israelis with a seemingly valid excuse to be bellicose. In the absence of terrorism, it might be easier for the international community to understand their plight. My view is that at least some of the Israelis' draconian approach (e.g., the wall) is motivated by fear and security concerns. If this is true, giving up violence should be similarly helpful. No matter how one views Israeli motives, the violence gives them a reason to continue to use a draconian approach. Take away the violence, and just maybe they get a bit more serious about peace.

Commy

rebornFixer wrote:

Well, I am with yosi, needless to say. Even assuming that the Israelis are guilty of a land grab and not much else, violence continues to provide the Israelis with a seemingly valid excuse to be bellicose. In the absence of terrorism, it might be easier for the international community to understand their plight. My view is that at least some of the Israelis' draconian approach (e.g., the wall) is motivated by fear and security concerns. If this is true, giving up violence should be similarly helpful. No matter how one views Israeli motives, the violence gives them a reason to continue to use a draconian approach. Take away the violence, and just maybe they get a bit more serious about peace.

Israeli brutality predates palestinian violence.


so you're wrong. look at a timeline.

rebornFixer

Commy wrote:

rebornFixer wrote:

Well, I am with yosi, needless to say. Even assuming that the Israelis are guilty of a land grab and not much else, violence continues to provide the Israelis with a seemingly valid excuse to be bellicose. In the absence of terrorism, it might be easier for the international community to understand their plight. My view is that at least some of the Israelis' draconian approach (e.g., the wall) is motivated by fear and security concerns. If this is true, giving up violence should be similarly helpful. No matter how one views Israeli motives, the violence gives them a reason to continue to use a draconian approach. Take away the violence, and just maybe they get a bit more serious about peace.

Israelis brutality predates palestinian violence.


so you're wrong. look at a timeline.

I don't know how many times I need to explain myself ... Timelines DO NOT MATTER at this point. Please explain to me how "hey-nanna-boo-boo, they started it first" is going to solve the problem now. Even assuming that one side is entirely at fault in terms of "starting it", how is any solution that involves only one side renouncing violence going to work? I'm all ears. To be honest though, one or two sentence responses that essentially amount to "you're wrong" are really irritating, and if that's all you got, don't bother.

yosi

badbrains wrote:

Yosi, my cousins have been to Israel a couple of times. The one thing they told me was that they finally understood why buses were the targets of bombings. Almost all the buses they went on to travel in Israel were full of idf soldiers. So in a way, they were targeting military points of intrest. They told me everytime they went kn a bus, they were scared cuz of all the military idf soldiers on the bus made them targets as well. That's what they shared with me.

Your cousins are right that buses are almost always full of soldiers. That's because in Israel everyone serves in the army, and since the country is so small they get very regular breaks where they can go home to their families for a weekend. Since they can't have a car at an army base they all take buses (which they also get to ride for free). Thing is I think you misunderstand what a military target is. The buses don't have any military use. Just because soldiers on leave are on the bus, doesn't mean the bus is of military value and therefore a legitimate target. Also, the buses that soldiers are on are generally intercity buses, and these tend to be safer because they only go between central bus stations where there are security precautions at the entrances. The buses that were regular targets for bombings were the intracity municipal buses that stopped every few blocks, and couldn't therefore employ the same kind of security.

TriumphantAngel

no amount of reading, attendance at conferences, documentary viewing and word of mouth could have prepared me for the reality of the situation here. You just can't imagine it unless you see it...

- Rachel Corrie

Commy

rebornFixer wrote:

Commy wrote:

rebornFixer wrote:

Well, I am with yosi, needless to say. Even assuming that the Israelis are guilty of a land grab and not much else, violence continues to provide the Israelis with a seemingly valid excuse to be bellicose. In the absence of terrorism, it might be easier for the international community to understand their plight. My view is that at least some of the Israelis' draconian approach (e.g., the wall) is motivated by fear and security concerns. If this is true, giving up violence should be similarly helpful. No matter how one views Israeli motives, the violence gives them a reason to continue to use a draconian approach. Take away the violence, and just maybe they get a bit more serious about peace.

Israelis brutality predates palestinian violence.


so you're wrong. look at a timeline.

I don't know how many times I need to explain myself ... Timelines DO NOT MATTER at this point. Please explain to me how "hey-nanna-boo-boo, they started it first" is going to solve the problem now. Even assuming that one side is entirely at fault in terms of "starting it", how is any solution that involves only one side renouncing violence going to work? I'm all ears. To be honest though, one or two sentence responses that essentially amount to "you're wrong" are really irritating, and if that's all you got, don't bother.

not quite.






logic was used......when there was no palestinian terrorism there was very real and brutal israeli violence agaisnt them. using common sense.....or history, or reality as a guide.......if the palestinians cease their violence Israel will still continue to dehumanize and terrorize and brutalize.

palestinian terrorism is reactionary. terrorism is, by definition.


you're blaming the victim.

Commy

TriumphantAngel wrote:

no amount of reading, attendance at conferences, documentary viewing and word of mouth could have prepared me for the reality of the situation here. You just can't imagine it unless you see it...

- Rachel Corrie

right.


back to the thread.

yosi

TriumphantAngel wrote:

no amount of reading, attendance at conferences, documentary viewing and word of mouth could have prepared me for the reality of the situation here. You just can't imagine it unless you see it...

- Rachel Corrie

I could have written the same thing when I was living in Israel at pretty much the same time Rachel put down her own thoughts. This conflict is a tragedy precisely because both sides are victims and both sides are so traumatized that they have lost all trust that the other side will ever do the right thing.

badbrains

Oh, so youre saying that the buses were not military points of intrest? Ok, I'll buy that...but yet a Palestinian school was, a UN safe house was, a mosque was????? And i guess Rachel standing in front of a bulldozer was to??? Or the dr.'s house that she was trying to protect? Israel reponds with f-16's when they feel there "houses" are threatened with missles, Palestinians respond with non-violent protests that result with a young woman having her soul ripped out of her body when she trys to protect a dr.'s "house." ah, idk man, I guess we have different views on military targets.

badbrains

Military points of intrest- Palestinian school full of children? Israeli bus with mostly idf soldiers? I can't pick which one.

Pepe Silvia

yosi wrote:

Pepe Silvia wrote:

yosi wrote:

Also I like that you completely changed the topic of the thread. The conversation had turned to violent action by Palestinians, and its alternatives. I commented on that, and you responded by saying, essentially that non-violence isn't working for them. And then when I responded to your comment within the context of the larger conversation you accused me of going off topic. That isn't a very honest way to conduct this debate.

what????

you said pretty much, why don't they try a peaceful approach instead of reacting violently.

to which i replied that when they do react nonviolently they are still locked up without a charge or trial

and you reply that this doesn't excuse them reacting violently

yeah, no shit, but that doesn't address my point

you say why don't they try a peaceful approach, i say they do and it doesn't work, when did i say or imply that justified violent reactions?

how was i being dishonest??i was bringing you back that they DO react nonviolently

Ok, I misunderstood you. I thought that you were implying that the fact that non-violence hasn't worked was a justification for violence. My bad.

i don't know why you would think that since i already told you and said in both threads several times that violence against civilians is wrong no matter who does it.

so, the Palestinians HAVE tried non violence and that doesn't work, they have already had 80% of the water in the region taken from them, they have already had countless homes destroyed by bombs or bulldozers as illegal settlements continue to expand....what more can they give up or peace?

Pepe Silvia

badbrains wrote:

Military points of intrest- Palestinian school full of children? Israeli bus with mostly idf soldiers? I can't pick which one.

according to Israel since Hamas is also the government pretty much everything and everyone is an extension of Hamas, therefor killing hundreds of police officers is justified

yosi

badbrains wrote:

Oh, so youre saying that the buses were not military points of intrest? Ok, I'll buy that...but yet a Palestinian school was, a UN safe house was, a mosque was????? And i guess Rachel standing in front of a bulldozer was to??? Or the dr.'s house that she was trying to protect? Israel reponds with f-16's when they feel there "houses" are threatened with missles, Palestinians respond with non-violent protests that result with a young woman having her soul ripped out of her body when she trys to protect a dr.'s "house." ah, idk man, I guess we have different views on military targets.

Ok, so the difference is that the bombers who get on buses are trying to kill civilians. I have yet to meet a single Israeli soldier, and I know, and am friends with many, who has told me that the policy of the IDF is to kill civilians on purpose. In fact I know a guy who was sent into Jenin in 2002 who described to me how the infantry went house to house, rather than using air bombardment or artillery, so as to minimize civilian casualties. Israel lost 23 soldiers in that battle. The Palestinians claimed that Jenin was a massacre of hundreds if not thousands, and the world media duly reported that claim. Only months later did official reports come out that found that in fact only 56 Palestinians had been killed, and most of those were combatants.

Clearly, since then Israel has become much more careless in its actions, and I in no way support this. But, from everything I know firsthand about Israel and the IDF, they do not target civilians on purpose. I believe someone else said this earlier, but a measure of disregard for "collateral damage" (which is by the way a term I detest) is not the same as willful targeting of civilians, which is exactly what Palestinian terrorism is all about.

yosi

[/quote]


i don't know why you would think that since i already told you and said in both threads several times that violence against civilians is wrong no matter who does it.

so, the Palestinians HAVE tried non violence and that doesn't work, they have already had 80% of the water in the region taken from them, they have already had countless homes destroyed by bombs or bulldozers as illegal settlements continue to expand....what more can they give up or peace?[/quote]

Again, my bad. And again, they can give up violence, and they can stop calling for Israel to either be destroyed or to commit demographic suicide through the right of return.