Gaza - Some Good News
yosi
NYC Posts: 3,069
From today's Jerusalem Post:
Muhammad Farmawi, a 15-year-old said to have been shot dead by the IDF during Land Day riots in Gaza on Tuesday, was reported on Saturday to be alive and well.
The Palestinian Ma’an news agency said Farmawi’s mother was surprised to find her son alive four days after he was allegedly killed. His death had been confirmed by medical professionals in the Gaza Strip.
The IDF, however, firmly denied allegations that Palestinians had been killed during demonstrations on Land Day, which marks the 34th anniversary of the killing of six Galilee Arabs during protests against land confiscations.
According to the Ma’an report, Farmawi arrived in Gazan Rafah on Friday alive and well. He was discovered to be part of a group of 17 Palestinian youths who were arrested after trying to infiltrate Egypt via smuggling tunnels. Gaza police facilitated the boys’ return to their homes.
Farmawi’s mother had “wept for days at the loss of her son,” whom she considered a martyr, Ma’an reported.
The IDF had stressed that although the protesters in southern Gaza – among them Farmawi – had moved their demonstration to a dangerous zone close to the security fence, no soldier had shot to kill.
Interesting...Gazan medical professionals proclaim someone dead, evidently without any evidence. You all go into uproar, totally ignoring the fact that the IDF flatly denied killing anyone...and the IDF was telling the truth. Interesting how things can turn out to be more complicated than you think they are.
In any event, innocents being alive rather than dead is always good news. A happy and healthy Passover and Easter to everyone.
Muhammad Farmawi, a 15-year-old said to have been shot dead by the IDF during Land Day riots in Gaza on Tuesday, was reported on Saturday to be alive and well.
The Palestinian Ma’an news agency said Farmawi’s mother was surprised to find her son alive four days after he was allegedly killed. His death had been confirmed by medical professionals in the Gaza Strip.
The IDF, however, firmly denied allegations that Palestinians had been killed during demonstrations on Land Day, which marks the 34th anniversary of the killing of six Galilee Arabs during protests against land confiscations.
According to the Ma’an report, Farmawi arrived in Gazan Rafah on Friday alive and well. He was discovered to be part of a group of 17 Palestinian youths who were arrested after trying to infiltrate Egypt via smuggling tunnels. Gaza police facilitated the boys’ return to their homes.
Farmawi’s mother had “wept for days at the loss of her son,” whom she considered a martyr, Ma’an reported.
The IDF had stressed that although the protesters in southern Gaza – among them Farmawi – had moved their demonstration to a dangerous zone close to the security fence, no soldier had shot to kill.
Interesting...Gazan medical professionals proclaim someone dead, evidently without any evidence. You all go into uproar, totally ignoring the fact that the IDF flatly denied killing anyone...and the IDF was telling the truth. Interesting how things can turn out to be more complicated than you think they are.
In any event, innocents being alive rather than dead is always good news. A happy and healthy Passover and Easter to everyone.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
I'd like to hear a response from the Palestinian doctors on this. Though whatever the reasons behind this confusion it shouldn't be allowed to obscure the bigger picture.
http://signalfire.org/?p=1962
In a similar incident east of the town of Khan Yunis, Israeli soldiers fired live bullets at hundreds of Palestinians marking the day, witnesses said. Near the site of clashes, which left two Israeli soldiers and two Palestinians dead over the weekend, protesters hurled stones at troops along the border, who responded with live fire, witnesses said according to Saudi Web site Arab News.
Muawiya Hassanein, the head of Gaza emergency services, said 11 people, including children, were wounded. One of them, nine-year-old Raid Abu Namus, was in serious condition, medics at a nearby hospital said.
Another Palestinian, 14, was shot in a similar incident near the Maghazi refugee camp in central Gaza, according to Hassanein.
http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=172089
Palestinian sources report 1 killed, 16 wounded in Land Day demonstrations.
30/03/2010
A 15-year-old Palestinian boy was reportedly shot dead on Tuesday during an anti-Israel demonstration along the Gaza Strip border fence.
The IDF confirmed that soldiers fired warning shots in the air after a group of Palestinians approached the fence in the southern Gaza Strip, but said that no one was injured in the shooting. The Palestinian Ma’an news agency reported that the boy, Muhammad al-Farmawi, was shot after approaching the barrier near the Dahaniya airport.
Additionally, a nine-year-old Gazan boy was reported seriously wounded by IDF fire during another demonstration. Palestinian sources reported 15 others hurt.
“The demonstrators knowingly occupied a zone in which movement is forbidden and attempted several times to reach the security barrier,” read a statement by the IDF Spokesperson. “As a result, it is possible that a number of demonstrators were hurt.”
The statement noted that the matter was being investigated...
The only thing of interest here is that the IDF may have been wittingly, or unwittingly, telling the truth. Though unfortunately for the IDF their history of brutality, lack of accountability, and outright lies will not be brushed aside by this one incident - whatever the truth behind it turns out to be.
'...Muawiya Hassanein, Health Ministry director of ambulance and emergency services in Gaza, told Ma'an that Farmawi was “assumed” to have died in clashes Tuesday after an Arab ambulance crew was refused permission to access to the area.
Ma'an had reported Tuesday that “witnesses said Israeli troops opened fire directly at protesters east of Khan Younis and the Al-Maghazi refugee camp in southern Gaza.” However, the event now seems never to have happened.
Meanwhile, Arab medics found the body of Ei'tah Ad-Dughmah, 23, who was killed eight days ago in a firefight in Gaza that left two IDF soldiers and three Arabs dead. He belonged to the Islamic Jihad terror militia.'
Thanks, this pretty much makes my point about the Goldstone Report for me. Here we have a clear example of how in Gaza the testimony of "witnesses," and the reports of Hamas government officials can simply be made up. Since the Goldstone Report is largely based solely on the accounts given by such "witnesses" and government sources, and lacks entirely the Israeli account of events, it seems plain that the report is, at best, structurally flawed, and therefore untrustworthy, and at worst reflects the outright bias of its sources.
You have said that we should ignore the fact that the Israeli account isn't given because Israel refused to cooperate with the commission working on the report, but this is entirely beside the point. It doesn't matter why Israel's account isn't included. The fact that the report is based solely on the Palestinian version of events is an inherant flaw. It would be as if I set out to gather information on the political opinions of Americans, but only polled Republicans. Clearly, my poll would be partially accurate, sort of, insofar as it would reflect the opinions of Republican Americans, but no one would say that my poll presented a complete and accurate account.
You have also said that the report should be believed in its entirety because it is corroberated by the reports of various other NGOs operating in the region. This raises a number of questions. Unless these NGOs were copying and pasting the Goldstone Report in its entirety and resubmitting it as their own we can't really speak about them corroborating Goldstone in full. Certain parts of the report certainly, but not the entire report. So which points exactly do these other reports corroborate? And what are the sources for the information in these other reports? If these reports, like Goldstone, reflect only the Palestinian version of events, which I suspect most of them do (if Israel didn't cooperate with the UN, I'm not sure why they would cooperate with an NGO) then they suffer from the very same flaw as Goldstone.
Again, I'm not saying that the Goldstone Report is categorically false. In fact I'm certain that many of its indictments are accurate. But one cannot, as you do, point to this document and in good faith claim that it is a complete and accurate accounting of what happened in Gaza. The fact that you do is just more proof that you, for one, are more than willing to swallow whole the Palestinian narrative of every event while ignoring entirely the Israeli perspective. And yet you claim to bring an objective and critical mind, convinced only by "facts," to the discussion of this subject. You'll forgive me if I'm sceptical.
There is no truth in you.
Have you ever considered becoming a lawyer?
Why did the Israeli's refuse to cooperate with the Goldstone report? The Israeli's refused to cooperate and then sat back and declared all of the following investigations to be flawed. The Israeli's were given the opportunity to present their case and defend themselves and were unwilling or unable to do so. This is tantamount to a criminal standing in a court of law accused of murder who says he is unwilling to provide any evidence of his innocence, and who then turns to the court after the proceedings have concluded and declares the trial to be flawed on the grounds that he refused to cooperate. Sorry, but your reasoning here is a joke.
http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/democr ... ne-report/
NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: Well, the report is the last in a large number of reports that have been issued on the Gaza massacre. There were two significant reports issued by Amnesty International, five reports issued by Human Rights Watch, and a whole slew of Israeli-based human rights organizations have issued reports. But this was the most awaited report of all of them. It was commissioned by the UN Human Rights Council. And Richard Goldstone, as you mentioned in your own introductory remarks, is a significant international figure, legal figure.
So the report basically is consistent with the findings of the other human rights organizations, that Israel targeted civilians, Israel targeted civilians who were carrying white flags, Israel systematically targeted the Palestinian infrastructure. The findings were consistent with those of the other human rights organizations: Israel is guilty of a very significant number of war crimes. And also, the findings which were—other reports, the same conclusions, that the Palestinians were not using hospitals to hide Hamas officials. There’s no evidence that the ambulances Israel targeted were carrying Hamas militants or ammunition. And most significantly, in terms of the coverage during the Gaza massacre, the report found, as did Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, there’s no evidence whatsoever—and I would want to underline that—there’s no evidence whatsoever that Hamas was guilty of human shielding. But on the other hand, there is significant evidence, actually copious evidence, that Israel was guilty of human shielding.
NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: Well, Richard Goldstone is a very respected jurist, and he also has a long record of being very supportive of Israel. If I’m not mistaken, he sits on the Hebrew University of Jerusalem board of directors.
Now, when the UN Human Rights Council asked Goldstone to chair the mission, originally his mandate was just to investigate Israeli crimes. He himself said he couldn’t fulfill that mandate, unless it was modified and included crimes on all sides. The Human Rights Council said, “Fine. We’ll modify the mandate, and we’ll accept your terms.” At that point, Richard Goldstone accepted to head the mission.
So you have to ask yourself the question: if what the gentleman said were true, why did Goldstone accept? If it were so biased, he always had the option of saying no. Why would a well-known supporter of Israel have accepted that mandate if it were biased against Israel?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8607795.stm
Turkish PM Erdogan says Israel is 'threat to peace'
Wednesday, 7 April 2010
Turkey's Prime Minister has described Israel as the "main threat to peace" in the Middle East.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu responded saying he regretted Turkey's "repeated attacks" on Israel.
Relations between the two countries have been worsening since the Israeli incursion into the Gaza Strip in 2009, made worse by a recent diplomatic row.
Mr Erdogan was speaking to journalists before meeting the French President Nicolas Sarkozy.
"It is Israel that is the main threat to regional peace," he said.
"If a country uses disproportionate force, in Palestine, in Gaza, uses phosphorus bombs we are not going to say 'well done.'"
Both Israel and Hamas, which control the Gaza Strip, have been accused by the UN of war crimes during the 22-day offensive in December 2008 and January 2009.
Mr Netanyahu said he regretted the Turkish prime minister's comments.
"We are interested in good relations with Turkey and regret that Mr Erdogan chooses time after time to attack Israel," he told reporters in Israel.
The countries have been allies in the past.
But earlier this week, the Turkish ambassador to Israel was recalled by Ankara, weeks after being humiliated in public by the Israeli deputy foreign minister.
Ambassador Oguz Celikkol was called into the Israeli foreign ministry in January and rebuked over a Turkish television series that showed Israeli intelligence agents kidnapping children.
Mr Celikkol was made to sit on a low chair while being lectured by Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon.
Mr Ayalon later apologised for the rebuke.
Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman has compared Mr Erdogan to Presidents Hugo Chavez of Venezuela and Libya's leader Muammar Gaddafi.
The problem with your analogy is that it assumes that all the parties agree that the trial is fair to begin with. Israel refused to cooperate with the commission because no one in Israel trusts the UN at all. A better analogy would be that someone is brought before a court (let's not call him a murderer, since any fair court functions with a presumption of innonence), but it happens that the defendent has a history with the judge and the members of the jury, all of whom have for years publicly stated how much they hate the defendent. And for the purposes of accuracy let us also assume that this court is autonomous from any sort of larger judicial system that might excercise a check on the ability of the judge and jury to prejudge the outcome of the trial based on their animosity towards the defendent. The defendent, perceiving that the court is stacked against him refuses to cooperate, and hence legitimate, what he believes to be little more than a show trial. The defendant may be guilty or he may be innocent, but his refusal to cooperate is not an admission of guilt. Furthermore, let us say the court now finds the utterly uncooperative defendent guilty of all charges. Is it possible that the trial was fair, that the court's ruling was just, and that the defendant really is guilty. Yes, it is possible, in which case the verdict would presumably have been the same had the defendant cooperated. But there are two other possibilities as well, namely that the defendant was wrong about the judge and jury, and the trial was a fair one, but because the court didn't receive all the evidence they found an innocent man to be guilty, or, the other possibility, that the defendant was right about the biases of the court, the trial was never fair to begin with, and even with all the evidence laid out before them the court would have found the innocent defendant to be guilty.
Then Israel could simply carry out it's own investigation, as requested by the United Nations.
Also, can you explain why Israel lied about it's use of white phosphorous on civilian areas during the massacre?
And as for the U.N not being fair. Are you suggesting that the whole world is biased against Israel, excluding the U.S, Micronesia, The Marshall Islands, Palau, and Naurau?
Edit: I wonder if it ever gets tiresome going through life concocting lie, after lie, after lie? These convenient, self-serving rationalizations and fantasies of yours are simply a way of avoiding reality and living in a state of denial. Some people would regard this as a form of mental illness.
But then I suppose that if lies and fantasies are all you have when trying to defend Israel, then you're not left with much of an alternative. Though I do find it interesting that so many Jews seem to believe that simply by just being Jewish - or by declaring themselves to be Jewish - that they're automatically required to support Israel and it's crimes.
And how many Palestinians have Israel kicked out of there OWN land. I can't say country cuz Israel HASNT allowed them to have there OWN country......I believe it's well OVER 1'million, that's 1,000,000...that's a lot of zeros
There's a big difference between the law, and lawyers.
As for the UN, I think it's complicated. There are many countries that, yes, do have a bias against Israel. For example, the entire block of Arab and Muslim states, who, on matters pertaining to Israel, all vote the same way. These also happen to be countries that have historically had a great deal of pull among what used to be called the "non-alligned" nations, plus these countries happen to control most of the world's oil, which also gives them a great deal of diplomatic influence. Add to that the fact that the devil is in the details, and the details of what happens in Israel-Palestine are all too often not very well understood, plus the fact that the UN has, as an organization, enmeshed itself in the everyday affairs of the Palestinians and made the Palestinians a central institutional issue, and you have a situation where, yes, the UN, as an organization (as distinct from every individual country that makes up the organization) does in fact manifest a bias against Israel.
Looks pretty unambiguous to me:
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2008/ga10791.doc.htm
Vote on Peaceful Settlement of Palestine Question
26 November 2008
The draft resolution on the peaceful settlement of the question of Palestine (document A/63/L.35) was adopted by a recorded vote of 164 in favour to 7 against, with 3 abstentions, as follows:
In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burundi, Cambodia, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, Somalia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.
Against: Australia, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia (Federated States of), Nauru, Palau, United States.
The U.N has 'enmeshed itself in the everyday affairs of the Palestinians and made the Palestinians a central institutional issue'. The Palestinians get special treatment in your opinion? Maybe that explains why Gaza is an open air prison and 1.5 million people are being allowed to suffer from chronic malnutrition? Maybe that also explains why Jewish-only settlements continue being built?
As for the U.N being 'distinct from every individual country that makes up the organization' - especially when it comes to voting at the General Assembly - how does that work in your topsy-turvy world?
I can't wait to read your 5 paragraph rationalization explaining this for me.
As for being enmeshed in Palestinian affairs, what other group has so many UN agencies whose sole purpose is to provide for their needs?
Your opinion is that the 156 countries listed are all biased against Israel and coerced by oil producing states to vote the way they do every year.
You then act surprised when I don't take your comments seriously?
I don't know, maybe you can list all of these agencies for us so we can see?
I know of one in particular:
http://www.unrwa.org/etemplate.php?id=47
UNRWA
UNRWA (the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East) provides assistance, protection and advocacy for some 4.7 million registered Palestine refugees in Jordan, Lebanon, Syria and the occupied Palestinian territory, pending a solution to their plight.
UNRWA is funded almost entirely by voluntary contributions from UN member states.
No, what I said is that there are a number of reasons that you get 156 countries voting the way they do. It could be bias, it could be oil concerns, it could be a host of other political or diplomatic concerns, it could a well intentioned vote premised on a false or partial understanding of the issues at stake. It is simple-minded to look at a result and to start making inferences without trying to understand the process by which that result was reached. It is equally simple-minded to assume that simply because a majority has made a decision that the decision is the right one.
As an aside, I find UNRWA to be repugnant. It amounts to the world facilitating the cynical and immoral exploitation of the refugees for political ends. These people should have been treated as all the other millions of refugees in the late 1940's were. They should have been taken in assimilated by the countries to which they fled. Instead they have languished in horrid refugee camps for 60 years. Israel is not the one keeping these people in the camps. Think about that. People have been forced to live in refugee camps for 60 years in Egypt, Syria, and Lebanon, legally barred from acquiring citizenship and civil rights. And rather than demanding that these people be treated fairly by the countries hosting them the UN has taken on the responsibility of sustaining this situation in perpetuity. Certainly the UNRWA does good work, but they shouldn't have to be doing such work in the first place.
There's nothing complex about it at all.
156 countries consulted the evidence available, consulted the law as it pertained to the case at hand, and then voted accordingly.
And I would say that 156-6 is a pretty unanimous verdict, whatever way you look at it.
I can see how it would suit you if the Palestinian refugees were brushed under the carpet of history.
In the meantime, maybe you can explain who is forcing 194,514 Palestinians to live in 19 refugee camps in the West Bank, and who is forcing 478,854 Palestinians to live in eight refugee camps in the Gaza Strip?
yosi - i respect the fact that you have come on a predominantly hostile board to try and shed a perspective that we may not necessarily see ...
but in reading many of your posts - i think you need to take a step outside your jewish ancestry and upbringing and try and view this situation as another human being on this planet ... i liken some of your responses to others on this board when their native country is being attacked ... it's often defensive in nature and rooted in some rationalization ... this one is a clear example ... you didn't like the result of the vote so therefore your response is to cite hypotheticals that have no foundation ... the majority of those countries could care less about oil and political allies ... is it possible that you are the simple-minded one in not interpreting an overwhelming majority vote the way others do?
in any case - sometimes we need to view situations from a different perspective to truly grasp the context
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 811690589#
Yes, it is possible that my interpretation is wrong in this case. I don't think I'm all-knowing, so certainly, it is always possible that I'm wrong. That said, I don't believe that in this instance I am.
Why would Israel vote against such a resolution? Byrnzie would say it is because they don't really want peace. I would say that it is because despite the resolution's title, from Israel's perspective the content of the resolution is problematic, especially so for the peace process. If Byrnzie's presentation of the resolution is correct then I would imagine that Israel has an issue with the acceptance of the Palestinian "right of return," which amounts to the Palestinians making a claim to sovereign Israel. As I've explained elsewhere, the right of return is a non-starter for Israel. Regardless of what one thinks about this, it is the reality, and if there is ever going to be peace the Palestinians will have to compromise on this issue. Now, Israel knows this, but does Switzerland? Or Norway? Or Peru, Kenya, or Bangladesh? Leaving aside the countries that actually are biased (and I think everyone can agree that Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, etc have a bias against Israel), and the issues of politics and diplomacy, which I think it would be naive to ignore, I don't think it is at all implausible that many countries, meaning well, would vote for a resolution for "the peaceful settlement of the conflict" without really understanding all the implications of what they are voting for.
No one here believes that I care about peace, but let me put it to you this way. My best friend, Ben, is now serving in the IDF, in the tank core. My cousins, Ben and Eitan, are both in elite special forces units, units that would be called on first and deployed in the most dangerous situations in any conflict. Even if you don't believe that I care about the Palestinians simply because I'm not a heartless human being, believe that I don't want to see my friends and family get killed, or have to kill other people. I want peace here more than anything, which is why I won't pretend that the reality here is anything other than what it is.
the rest of the world votes against israel for the most part because they are simply committing acts that goes against the values of most of the world ...
you can look at all the complexities and nuances that exists in this topic all you want ... but how does a nation who claims to want peace continue to illegally occupy lands, expand further without right, withold basic necessities to people? ...