Israeli wall must fall documentary
RolandTD20Kdrummer
Posts: 13,066
Nice little intro in the full vid. No guesswork to be found there.
quick synopsis:
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-8859359373617555301&q=Israeli+wall+must+fall&total=11&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0
http://www.torrentz.com/aba63ea9c1fed6ca1779cb6caafbb16ab4a687ac
"A Palestinian village takes creative action to stop Israeli bulldozers form uprooting their olive trees in order to build the separation fence. As more and more Israelis and members of the international community join the demonstrations, Bilin becomes a symbol of the desire for peace."
quick synopsis:
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-8859359373617555301&q=Israeli+wall+must+fall&total=11&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0
http://www.torrentz.com/aba63ea9c1fed6ca1779cb6caafbb16ab4a687ac
"A Palestinian village takes creative action to stop Israeli bulldozers form uprooting their olive trees in order to build the separation fence. As more and more Israelis and members of the international community join the demonstrations, Bilin becomes a symbol of the desire for peace."
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
great documentary/
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
it claims the wall cuts familys apart, well so do suiside bombers
it may prevent or restrict the movment of palastinian, but its a small price to pay to prevent inocent israeli's from being blown to smitherines
the wall they say does nothing to create peace in the mid east, but alas that was never its purpose, stopping homerside bombers is its purpose
the land is disputed ,not ocupied
the wall must fall they say, terrorism must stop first
add a little balance to this documentry
If Israeli aggression and terrorism stops we would see a decline in Palestinian violence. ITs up to Israel to end this cycle.
if the palastinians didnt blow up isali's than the israeli's would not be "aggresive"
blowing up inocent civillians is " keeping the israeli population down"
a slite correction of your word" foe every israeli who is MURDERED(yes its also called murder when inocent israeli's are killed)Israel uses its right of self deffence, unfortunatly the palastinian terrorist see nothing wrong in hiding amongs there own population, effectivlly using thire own people as behind get killed, if palastion agression and terrorism stop, then thire will be peace
if the israelis put thire guns down thire would be no israel, if the palstinian put thire guns down, thire would be peace
All sides are to blame. Violence is not the answer, but it seems to be the only diplomatic tool Israel is willing to listen too.
and commy your right, the suiside bombing has been reduced, but that is only due to the wall wich helps prevent them.
refering to palastinians blowing up inocent civilians, and rockets been directed at israeli civilian population as "deplomacy" could be turned round and i could say the same thing about the palstinians, the only diplomacy they understand is aggresion, violence is nevr diplomacy, no matter who carries it out.
but i will say that self defence of israel and the mindless terror fromthe palastinians is not comparable
Defending Isreali aggression as reactionary ignores the the reality of the situation.
This documentary shows how many humans rights violations are bing committing towards the Palestinian people, even in lieu of. The Palestinians have no rights. They actually opened fire on a row of paralyzed people in wheelchairs and actually shot one in the face.
They do stupid shit like this all the time, and what do they actually expect is going to be the response?
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
calling blowing up inosent israeli civilians, rocketing them indiscriminatly, resistance, is that not reactionary.
palastinans have been using terror against israelis sinse 1922 in hevron, before israel was even declared a state was that aslo becouse of the so called wall, or the 67 war?
the first half of your sentence is probably an overstatement of fact.
If Israel put down its arms, there would be increased jewish bloodshed, you are likely correct there.
However, if the palestinians stopped fighting,
what would occur would not be "peace" ...
.. it would be "unchecked aggression", furthered occupation, and increased destruction of palestinian homesteads for the creation of jewish "settlements".
To deny that is to deny reality.
How do a people peacefully negotiate for the return of their land, when those they seek to engage have ZERO interest in such negotiations?
By this logic, if the insurgents stopped fighting US forces in Iraq, there would be peace. No there wouldn't. There would just be continued, unopposed, US occupation of the region.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Compared with what? The mainstream media?
http://www.ifamericansknew.org/media/net-report.html
'In the first year of the current uprising, when there were four times more Palestinians being killed than Israelis, two out of three networks reported on more Israeli deaths than Palestinian deaths...
In 2004, when 22 times more Palestinian children were being killed than Israeli children, we found that ABC, CBS, and NBC were reporting Israeli children’s deaths at rates 9 to 12.8 times higher than Palestinian children’s deaths...
we found that the networks virtually never reported the total number of deaths among both populations in this conflict. This is a bizarre and highly perplexing omission. Such numbers are easily available and immensely significant. At the same time, we found the networks’ tendency in 2004 to report on the fact that “hundreds of Israelis have been killed” without at the same time mentioning the number of Palestinians killed (several times greater) inexplicable. Such reporting can only mislead.'
Then Israel should get out of the occupied territories if it's people really want peace.
A small price to pay for who? Are you paying the price of being subjected to the terror of a brutal military occupation? Have you had your home bulldozed and your land stolen? Are you under threat of being shot in the head by a sniper or of being blown to pieces by a missile fired from an Apache helicopter everytime you walk out onto the street?
And what 'innocent Israelis' are you referring to exactly? Those who live within the 1967 borders or those who live in the illegally occupied territories on stolen land?[/quote]
Your statement is bullshit.
http://www.ifamericansknew.org/cur_sit/sep_barrier.html
'While Israel claims that the wall is meant to make it more secure by keeping Palestinians out, it actually is serving to confiscate up to 50% of the West Bank, leaving the Palestinians in control of only 12% of historic Palestine. Moreover, the fact that the barrier leaves nearly 16% of West Bank Palestinians between the barrier and the Israel-West Bank border (‘the Green Line’), demonstrates that the result of this barrier will not be to keep Palestinians and Israelis apart, but rather to increase the already major humanitarian crisis faced by the Palestinians. In addition, the fact that the Israeli military has no plan to end its occupation of the fence-in portions suggests that this wall will in no way improve the security of the Palestinian people, who are more than 75% of the victims of violence.
Palestinians caught in between the Green Line and Israel will not be incorporated into Israel or granted citizenship, giving rise to fears that the real purpose of this barrier is to annex Palestinian land to Israel, while making life for Palestinians so hard that they will be forced to flee. The trapped Palestinians will live in isolated communities or bantustans, at times walled off on all sides. (See The one-family Bantustan in Mas’ha one year into its residents’ demise.) This isolation from the consumers of their products and from their means of survival and sustenance—their agricultural land—is speeding the collapse of these already toppling economies.
Besides the many families and communities trapped in the ‘no-man’s land’ between the barrier and Israel, the barrier will also isolate the walled-in Palestinian communities from each other. At times the barrier will cut so deep into the West Bank that whole sections will be cut off from each other, creating cantons or enclaves, and, Palestinians fear, destroying any hope of a contiguous Palestinian state.'
Only according to Israel. The international community - except the U.S - and the United Nations think differently.
'terrorism must stop first'? Who's terrorism? Israeli terrorism? Or just Palestinian terrorism?
So you're claiming a level playing field?
http://www.ifamericansknew.org/
This isn't just untrue, it's a blatent lie. Every time the Palestinians have declared, and honoured, a ceasefire it has been met with Israeli violence.
If you'd like me to provide evidence, I will.
And what about Palestinians right of self-defence? Or do they not have one?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2006/jul/18/israel
'Israel is staking a claim to the exclusive use of force as an instrument of policy and punishment, and is seeking to deny any opposing state or non-state actor a similar right. It is also largely succeeding in portraying its own "right to self-defence" as beyond question, while denying anyone else the same. And the international community is effectively endorsing Israel's stance on both counts.
From an Arab point of view this cannot be right. There is no reason in the world why Israel should be able to enter Arab sovereign soil to occupy, destroy, kidnap and eliminate its perceived foes - repeatedly, with impunity and without restraint - while the Arab side cannot do the same. And if the Arab states are unable or unwilling to do so then the job should fall to those who can.'
This is how you justify murdering civilians.
You see, when an Israeli pilot of an Apache, or F16, fires a missle into a residential area, civilians get killed.
Until Israel begins abiding by international law, renounces terrorism, and withdraws from the occupied territories, and until the U.S stops vetoing every U.N resolution calling for a two-state solution, then there will be no peace.
Raymond Deane, The Electronic Intifada, 9 May 2006
http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article4690.shtml
Neumann, Michael: The Case Against Israel, CounterPunch and AK Press, ISBN 1-90485-946-1, 220 pages, $16.50 (paperback)
Michael Neumann is the US-born son of Jewish refugees from Hitler's Germany, and Herbert Marcuse's stepson. He now teaches philosophy at Trent University in Ontario, Canada.
A tireless advocate for the Palestinian cause, Prof Neumann has consistently de-bunked conventional wisdom, more often than not in the online newsletter CounterPunch. In August 2002, in an essay tauntingly entitled Protect Me from My Friends - Pro-Palestinian Activists and the Palestinians, he wrote
"The enormous, ignored fact of the Palestinian story is that America is not, as the left loves to think, pursuing some vital interest in its alliance with Israel. On the contrary, America is acting against its vital interests."
Apart from its pertinent critique of the left, this, of course, pre-empts aspects of the recent Walt/Mearsheimer article The Israel Lobby by several years. So why didn't it stir up the same controversy as the latter? There are two possible answers. Firstly, Neumann's impeccably Jewish pedigree makes him a difficult target for those whose only weapon is the "anti-Semite" charge. Secondly, Counter/Punch is a leftie website from which attacks on Israel are "only to be expected" and hence can be safely ignored.
The same factor precludes the kind of response that one might have expected had The Case Against Israel been issued by a major publishing house such as John Wiley & Sons, who published Alan Dershowitz's best-selling The Case For Israel in 2003. Publication by CounterPunch was a sure guarantee that The Case Against Israel would not be reviewed in the mainstream media and would not be the focus of the kind of concerted vilification to which the ultra-establishment figures Walt and Mearsheimer have been subjected. Given Neumann's formidable capacity for rational riposte, this is regrettable.
Although the title of this little book gives the misleading impression that it is conceived as a reply to Dershowitz's lamentable screed (Dershowitz gets only one un-indexed look-in), its thrust is rather similar to Norman Finkelstein's Beyond Chutzpah, which is so conceived. Both authors maintain that "the Israel/Palestine conflict is not so complex as it has been made out to be" (Neumann), and set about cutting away the thicket of obfuscation with which it has been deliberately surrounded. The historian Finkelstein marshalls a massive array of evidence that utterly disproves that adduced by Dershowitz, while the philosopher Neumann's preferred weapon is Ockham's razor, a logical procedure for stripping away layers of assumption.
Neumann's main argument is rapidly sketched:
"The Zionist project... was entirely unjustified and could reasonably be regarded by the inhabitants of Palestine as a very serious threat, the total domination by one ethnic group of all others in the region. Some form of violent resistance was , therefore, justified..."
Describing his focus as "moral and political...not legal", Neumann quickly disposes of international law, which "has no central authority to enforce it. The UN... is unavailable because the most powerful countries can veto any sanction they dislike..."
A few pages later, the "right of self-determination of peoples" is dismissed as a tool for either side, being equated with "advocating the political supremacy of an ethnic group." He later elaborates that the Palestinians "could appeal, not to rights of ethnic self-determination, but to rights of self-government within a sovereign geographic area."
A historical account (for Neumann by no means shuns history, just as Finkelstein doesn't shun logic) demonstrates that Zionism always intended to establish a sovereign state in Palestine, however cunningly it sought to dissimulate this end. The indigenous Arabs were perfectly well aware of this, hence "they would have been irrational not to resist..." Neumann's verdict on Zionism is uncompromising and devastating - "It was wrong to pursue the Zionist project and wrong to achieve it" - and from this he draws the conclusion that "much that is said in its defence, and in Israel's defence,... is irrelevant."
By now the pro-Palestinian activist is feeling smug and elated. However, Neumann's logic inexorably leads him to the less comfortable conclusions that Israel does indeed have a right to exist, however illegitimate its foundations, and a concomitant right to self-defence.
"Israel's existence is tainted, not sacred, but it is protected by the same useful international conventions that allow others... to retain their ill-gotten gains. ...The more your actions, right or wrong, put your life in danger, the more you are justified in defending yourself."
Hence Neumann is even prepared to concede that "'the occupation itself', in the narrowest sense of the word, was no great crime." Indeed he believes that the 1967 war, which "liberated" the West Bank from Jordanian tutelage, gave Israel "a chance to make handsome amends for the crimes on which it was built...Israel could have sponsored...the establishment of a sovereign Palestinian state..." Instead, largely spearheaded by the USA, the settlements made a bad situation infinitely worse, and it is the settlements and the brutal military regime instituted to defend them that bear the brunt of Neumann's often eloquent disgust.
When he comes to the options available to Palestinians for countering Israel's race-war, Neumann is brutally consistent: there are none, save violence. This part of his argument will be unacceptable to the fainthearted, but it is up to them to refute it. He does not content himself with dismissing passive resistance as an option in the Palestinian context, but denies that it has worked in any context where the powerless faced the unscrupulously powerful. Gandhi "cannot be said to have won independence for India", Martin Luther King's civil rights movement had the backing of the US establishment, indeed "was practically a federal government project", and South Africa's ANC "was never a nonviolent movement but a movement that decided, on occasion, to use nonviolent tactics".
As for "terrorism", which he defines as "random violence against non-combatants", he distinguishes it from "collateral damage" with the assertion that the latter "involves knowingly killing innocent civilians" while "Terrorism involves intentionally killing innocent civilians", concluding that "the moral difference is too academic even for an academic." Why, then, is "terrorism" considered to be particularly morally repugnant, while "collateral damage" tends to be taken in our moral stride?[/b]
"Imagine trying to make such a claim. You say: 'To achieve my objectives, I would certainly drop bombs with the knowledge that they would blow the arms off some children. But to achieve those same objectives, I would not plant or set off a bomb on the ground with the knowledge that it would have that same effect. After all, I have planes to do that, I don't need to plant bombs.' As a claim of moral superiority, this needs a little work."
The Palestinians, he repeats, are without options. Israel has all the options, principally that of unilateral withdrawal from the Occupied Territories, but refuses to use them. Hence he refuses "to pronounce judgment on Palestinian terrorism."
So why does Israel still command such support from the US? Neumann deftly dismantles the notions that there are either "shared values" or a "confluence of interests" between the US and Israel, or that Israel is anything but a hindrance in the pursuit of America's nefarious oil politics. The US/Israel alliance is analysed historically as a relic of the cold war perpetuated by inertia: "Stale ideology has enshrined a counter-productive alliance at the heart of American foreign policy." Neumann calls for the US to change sides, and itemises the obvious benefits that would accrue from such a U-turn:
"It would instantly gain the warm friendship of Arab oil producers and obtain far more valuable allies in the war on terror: not only the governments of the entire Muslim world, but a good portion of the Muslim fundamentalist movement! The war on terror, which seems so unwinnable, might well be won at nominal cost, and quickly... Perhaps most important, switching sides would revitalize America's foundering efforts at non-proliferation."
Neumann's final verdict: "Israel is the illegitimate child of ethnic nationalism." While it is not his brief to "formulate specific strategies" leading towards a solution, he advocates "vigorous anti-Israeli action" primarily in the shape of "the most extensive international sanctions possible", undeterred "by the horrors of the Jewish past."
The Case Against Israel is, in my view, the most comprehensive and devastating critique of Israel in print. Its value as a campaigning tool consists primarily in the icy precision of its logic, and its independence of quibbles about international law or historical responsibility. Following its elegant arguments requires a concentrated application of the reader's own reasoning faculties - but the exercise is worth it.
It's pretty hard....actually...it's impossible to "defend yourself" when you are the one forcefully occupying someone else's owned land. On top of this, when you then go ahead and purposefully evict groups of families from established homes, level everything they own to the ground at gunpoint, and then tell the owners to go away, and if they come back they will be arrested/beaten/shit, or any combination thereof.
Israel is a perfect example of why a police state does not/will not ever work. It actually causes terrorism.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
I'm sorry, but this statement is a whopping bunch of hooey.
That land was palestinian land up until the early and mid-1900's. You can go back to pre-history and ancient history if you want, but the fact remains, in modern history, that land was Arab land.
You don't just tell a people who have been settled for hundreds of years, "Uh, now listen, this other group of people, who used to live here 1000 years ago, is coming back. We are putting them here, you better clear out, they're coming. Deal with it." ... and expect there to be anything resembling "peace". Especially when you are talking about displacing a people as oppossed to Western meddling as the Arabs.
That land was taken from the Palestinian & Arab world in a small series of steps, starting with the British Mandate over Palestine, which was granted by the Council of the League of Nations expressly for the purpose of "placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home"
After setting the conditions of white Western rule necessary for the influx of Jews to the region. Then, between 1947 and 1948, as England grew tired of its dealings with the Jewish\Arab conflict it had helped to create and began to withdraw from the region, the United Nations stepped up to continue the Zionist agenda. They granted a charter for the creation of Jerusalem by splitting Arab land in half and giving it to the Jews.
Now, what say the United Nations comes over to America, and says they are splitting the United States in half and giving half to the Vikings, because they traditionaly had been here, or they gave half to any number of "native" peoples, on the grounds that they had been here and suffered horribly under Colonial oppression?
It's just asinine.
Of COURSE the Arabs got up in arms and started fighting.
They did this, literaly, the moment they were certain that Jerusalem was being granted charter. Of course, when Israel, backed by Western arms whooped their asses, they simply decided that they were keeping what ever land fell within the borders of the cease fire. That meant not only were they taking the half of the land that the UN had granted them, they were taking the EXTRA land (Gaza strip primarily) that they accquired after the Arabs had attempted to solve the dispute via war.
I don't advocate the war, but certainly you must see why the Arabs began the fight.
And this was not the only time land was taken by Israel.
They did it again after they preemptively started a war in 1967. Who knows what the Arabs were planning ... certainly they were attemtping to at the very least embargo Israel, but the fact remains that Israel began the war preemptively, and then continued to push back the Arab front line -- again, with the assistance of arms accquired from the West -- and again, they claimed ALL land that fell within these new "borders".
I'm sorry,
but -- even being of jewish descent -- i don't see dick-all of their being "two sides" to this argument. The Western backed Zionist agenda for the theft of arab land to recreate Jersualem is soley responsible for the current violence in the region.
The arab response is nothing more than a reactionary movement to perpetual Israeli\Zionist agression.
:(
If I opened it now would you not understand?
familiar nonsensical...
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
jezuz you love to rant. the land in question can't be compared to anything else, so that BS about united states/vikings crap doesn't apply. (as for native Indians, they have reservations if you didnt notice) this entire post of nonsense shows you don't have a good grasp on the history of the region. I'm not making a case that Israel is right. I'm just saying one should have a good understand of the history before one can say arabs own the land.
O.k, Jlew, we'll go over this for the 100th time. It's only according to Israel, and certain people in the U.S that the land isn't 'owned' by Palestinians. According to the U.N It does own that land and Israel is in breach of over 60 U.N resolutions.
The difference here is simply whether you respect international law, or whether you qualify as a rogue state. You obviously adhere to the latter category.
I suggest you read the history of the region.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerusalem
In the five centuries following the Bar Kokhba revolt, the city remained under Roman then Byzantine rule. During the 4th century, the Roman Emperor Constantine I constructed Christian sites in Jerusalem such as the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. Jerusalem reached a peak in size and population at the end of the Second Temple Period: The city covered two square kilometers (0.8 sq mi.) and had a population of 200,000[46][43] From the days of Constantine until the Arab conquest in 638, Jews were banned from Jerusalem,[47] but were allowed back into the city by Muslim rulers.[48] By the end of the 7th century, an Umayyad caliph Abd al-Malik had commissioned and completed the construction of the Dome of the Rock over the Foundation Stone.[49] In the four hundred years that followed, Jerusalem's prominence diminished as Arab powers in the region jockeyed for control.[50]
In 1099, Jerusalem was besieged by the First Crusaders, who killed most of its Muslim and Jewish inhabitants, apart from many Christians.[51] That would be the first of several conquests to take place over the next four hundred years. In 1187, the city was taken from the Crusaders by Saladin.[52] Between 1228 and 1244, it was given by Saladin's descendant al-Kamil to the Holy Roman Emperor Frederick II. Jerusalem fell again in 1244 to the Khawarizmi Turks, who were later, in 1260, replaced by the Mamelukes. In 1517, Jerusalem and its environs fell to the Ottoman Turks, who would maintain control of the city until the 20th century.[52] This era saw the first expansion outside the Old City walls, as new neighborhoods were established to relieve the overcrowding. The first of these new neighborhoods included the Russian Compound and the Jewish Mishkenot Sha'ananim, both founded in 1860.[53]
General Edmund Allenby enters the Jaffa Gate in the Old City of Jerusalem on December 11, 1917
General Edmund Allenby enters the Jaffa Gate in the Old City of Jerusalem on December 11, 1917
In 1917 after the Battle of Jerusalem, the British Army, led by General Edmund Allenby, captured the city.[54] The League of Nations, through its 1922 ratification of the Balfour Declaration, entrusted the United Kingdom to administer the Mandate for Palestine and help establish a Jewish state in the region.[55] The period of the Mandate saw the construction of new garden suburbs in the western and northern parts of the city[56][57] and the establishment of institutions of higher learning such as the Hebrew University, founded in 1925.[58]
Eric H. Cline, author of Jerusalem Besieged, notes that Jerusalem has been destroyed at least twice, besieged 23 times, attacked an additional 52 times, and captured and recaptured 44 times.[5
once again,
like i said ... your basis for the claim that the arabs were not the rightful inhabitants of this land is based in ONE THOUSAND YEAR OLD history?
Is that correct?
Look.
I'm not saying it's not "valid",
but if we are going to start allowing 1000 year old claims to land to become legitimate entitltements to land, there is fuck-all coming to every one.
???
Do you not understand that regardless of who was where 1000 years ago (600 to 1000ad), fate has it that the arabs were settled there as of any honest account of RECENT or "MODERN" history?
Please correct me if i am wrong.
I am no all-knowing savant,
but in what studies i have done,
it seems apparent that the last Jewish claims to that land date back at least 1000 years.
Is it your position that those with millenium old claims to land should be legitimate in their agressions to displace any current residents in any given region?
Please answer that question.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
first of all you really need to relax. all I picture on the other side of the computer is some wacky college kid banging his head on the keyboard and using caps locks much too often. relax, take deep breaths, lay off the cookies and coffee.
now listen, no other area on earth has quite the history this place does. it is the spiritual capital of 3 major religions. all 3 think they can take claim to it.
O.k, so either you're an apologist for Israeli terrorism, or you believe in a two-state solution - and therefore an Israeli withdrawal to either the 1967 or 1948 borders.
Which is it?
and you very much sound like a hamas apologist? no? as for me, I support a two state solution. I have no idea where theres borders should be, thats not for me or you to decide.