Since you love talking about what's justified, here's a simple yes or no question for you:
Is it ok for Hamas to target civilians?
Let me get this right...Israel recently massacred over 900 Palestinian civilians in Gaza, and you're asking me if I think it's o.k for Palestinians to attack Israeli civilians?
I'll go with Gandhi on this one. I'll say that the Palestinians have every right to hit back in retaliation.
and here we have the ROOT of the problem in the middle east. thanks for publicly admitting you feel Israeli civilians should be killed.
Since you love talking about what's justified, here's a simple yes or no question for you:
Is it ok for Hamas to target civilians?
Let me get this right...Israel recently massacred over 900 Palestinian civilians in Gaza, and you're asking me if I think it's o.k for Palestinians to attack Israeli civilians?
I'll go with Gandhi on this one. I'll say that the Palestinians have every right to hit back in retaliation.
and here we have the ROOT of the problem in the middle east. thanks for publicly admitting you feel Israeli civilians should be killed.
The Palestinians have a right to retaliate. A moral right and a legal right. The Illegal Israeli settlers have just one right of self-defence, and that is to get out. Period.
and yet again you are accusing others of putting words in peoples mouth? this is getting beyond absurd. thats pretty much the only thing you have been doing.
Amazing that out of the whole article, which discusses Israel's massacre of 1,300 Palestinians you choose to focus your attention on the fact the 3 Israeli's were killed. I think this speaks volumes about you.
it does? ok let me try again. the massarce of 1300 Palastinians is a disgusting and horrible act. I sincerely hope there are generals or leaders in charge who get put in jail for war crimes for such acts.
do you consider this a war crime? a simple yes or no will suffice.
nevermind, you already answered... you feel Israeli civilians are valid targets and should be killed
now THAT speaks volumes about you.
The definition of hypocrisy, and a disgusting one at that. It is ok for Palestinians to kill Israeli citizens. It is not ok for Israelis to kill Palestinian citizens. Thinking like that is why this situation will never progress... it plays right into Israel's hands and helps them immeasurably.
Me? Targeting non-combatants is wrong. Period. Doesn't matter who does it, or what their reasons are. It's wrong. Israel is wrong. Hamas is wrong. We're wrong for backing Israel always without question. Not a single reasonable voice in this whole fucking mess over there.
and here we have the ROOT of the problem in the middle east.
Now explain to me why you think that Palestinian attacks on Israeli's is the ROOT of the problem in the Middle East.
The ROOT of the problem is not Palestine's attacks on Israel. It is the fact that BOTH sides consider all their violence and disgusting practices to be ok due to what they claim the other side is doing. If it's wrong for Israel to do it, it's wrong for Hamas to do it too. You can't say your side is allowed to target civilians and the other side isn't. You lose all legitimacy. Israel says Hamas is a terrorist group and so it's ok for them to kill anyone that blinks down there. That's wrong and it's despicable. Hamas says Israel is on their property and thus it's ok for them to target civilians and murder them. That's wrong and despicable too. Neither side can act like savages and then try to claim it's ok because the other side started it. It won't get anyone anywhere.
and here we have the ROOT of the problem in the middle east.
Now explain to me why you think that Palestinian attacks on Israeli's is the ROOT of the problem in the Middle East.
The ROOT of the problem is not Palestine's attacks on Israel. It is the fact that BOTH sides consider all their violence and disgusting practices to be ok due to what they claim the other side is doing. If it's wrong for Israel to do it, it's wrong for Hamas to do it too. You can't say your side is allowed to target civilians and the other side isn't. You lose all legitimacy. Israel says Hamas is a terrorist group and so it's ok for them to kill anyone that blinks down there. That's wrong and it's despicable. Hamas says Israel is on their property and thus it's ok for them to target civilians and murder them. That's wrong and despicable too. Neither side can act like savages and then try to claim it's ok because the other side started it. It won't get anyone anywhere.
Israel does not have the right to use force in occupied territories. Gazans do.
that's not a biased opinion, that's using logic. If your land is being taken with force by outside invaders, you have a right to defend yourself with force.
Israel, being in occupied territories, has a right to defend themselves as well,only not with violence. They can defend themselves by leaving occupied territories.
The definition of hypocrisy, and a disgusting one at that. It is ok for Palestinians to kill Israeli citizens. It is not ok for Israelis to kill Palestinian citizens. Thinking like that is why this situation will never progress... it plays right into Israel's hands and helps them immeasurably.
Me? Targeting non-combatants is wrong. Period. Doesn't matter who does it, or what their reasons are. It's wrong. Israel is wrong. Hamas is wrong. We're wrong for backing Israel always without question. Not a single reasonable voice in this whole fucking mess over there.
I think that illegal Israeli settlers who verbally abuse, spit at, beat, and murder Palestinians in the Occupied territories are legitimate targets. Don't pretend to be so shocked.
The ROOT of the problem is not Palestine's attacks on Israel. It is the fact that BOTH sides consider all their violence and disgusting practices to be ok due to what they claim the other side is doing. If it's wrong for Israel to do it, it's wrong for Hamas to do it too. You can't say your side is allowed to target civilians and the other side isn't. You lose all legitimacy. Israel says Hamas is a terrorist group and so it's ok for them to kill anyone that blinks down there. That's wrong and it's despicable. Hamas says Israel is on their property and thus it's ok for them to target civilians and murder them. That's wrong and despicable too. Neither side can act like savages and then try to claim it's ok because the other side started it. It won't get anyone anywhere.
Try and get your lawyers mindset around this:
One man is crushing another mans neck with his boot. The man on the ground tries desperately to fight back. He occasionally manages to bite the toe of the attacker who is squeezing the life out of him. This doesn't make it an equal contest. There is no level playing field here. The root of the problem is not the sporadic violence from either side. The root of the problem is the occupation.
The Israeli settlers are not innocent civilians. If someone broke into your home and began abusing, and beating members of your family you would use violence against them.
The Palestinians have every right to use violence against the Zionist occupation. This is a perfectly logical, reasonable, and moral response in the face of the threat which they face.
You and Jlew keep talking about the word hypocrite. You both keep trying to justify and excuse Israel's crimes, and yet you pretend to be shocked when anyone says the Palestinians have a right to defend themselves. That is Hypocrisy.
The definition of hypocrisy, and a disgusting one at that....
Let me ask you a question. Do you think that the American settlers in this video do not constitute a legitimate target? Watch it through to the end. It's about 10 minutes long:
Keep in mind that these 'civilians' are merely verbally abusing, and throwing rocks at the old lady. You can easily find other video clips which show settlers beating old people with baseball bats, spitting in women's faces, beating up schoolgirls on their way to school, and shooting unarmed Palestinians dead.
The ROOT of the problem is not Palestine's attacks on Israel. It is the fact that BOTH sides consider all their violence and disgusting practices to be ok due to what they claim the other side is doing. If it's wrong for Israel to do it, it's wrong for Hamas to do it too. You can't say your side is allowed to target civilians and the other side isn't. You lose all legitimacy. Israel says Hamas is a terrorist group and so it's ok for them to kill anyone that blinks down there. That's wrong and it's despicable. Hamas says Israel is on their property and thus it's ok for them to target civilians and murder them. That's wrong and despicable too. Neither side can act like savages and then try to claim it's ok because the other side started it. It won't get anyone anywhere.
You're not even considering all aspects though:
1. The Gazans have no place to go. They are subject to all the Israeli bombardment. The illegal Israeli settlers can simply go back to the '67 borders.
2. You say "Hamas says Israel is on their property". WRONG. The WORLD says Israel is on their property.
"A civilian under international humanitarian law is a person who is not a member of his or her country's armed forces." Land robbers (a.k.a Settlers) are not civilians.. they are armed forces acting outside of the rules of law.. they are colonial tools put there by the israeli government to grab more land. Thinking settlers are harmless civIlians is like saying the bullet in the gun is not a weapon only the gun is.
If you watch interviews with settlers two mindsets emerge.. a predominant mindset which goes along the lines of "I am here to steal the land" and the other "i was tricked by the israeli government to think living in settlements would be great".
"A civilian under international humanitarian law is a person who is not a member of his or her country's armed forces." Land robbers (a.k.a Settlers) are not civilians.. they are armed forces acting outside of the rules of law.. they are colonial tools put there by the israeli government to grab more land. Thinking settlers are harmless civIlians is like saying the bullet in the gun is not a weapon only the gun is.
Not according to the international humanitarian law you just quoted.
as long as you don't support the use of children as human shields on either side, then we agree. and we'll agree to disagree that children decide for themselves that its a good thing to kill themselves to support resistance. I dont care what they've been through. deliberately strapping a bomb to oneself to be detonated it is something that is taught and encouraged.
You speak like there has been a 100 suicide bombings involving children under the age of 16.. when in reality they are EXTREMELY rare and can be counted.
"A civilian under international humanitarian law is a person who is not a member of his or her country's armed forces." Land robbers (a.k.a Settlers) are not civilians.. they are armed forces acting outside of the rules of law.. they are colonial tools put there by the israeli government to grab more land. Thinking settlers are harmless civIlians is like saying the bullet in the gun is not a weapon only the gun is.
Not according to the international humanitarian law you just quoted.
They are armed lawless forces and have served or still serve in the israeli terrorist forces.
One man is crushing another mans neck with his boot. The man on the ground tries desperately to fight back. He occasionally manages to bite the toe of the attacker who is squeezing the life out of him. This doesn't make it an equal contest. There is no level playing field here. The root of the problem is not the sporadic violence from either side. The root of the problem is the occupation.
The Israeli settlers are not innocent civilians. If someone broke into your home and began abusing, and beating members of your family you would use violence against them.
Yes, I would. But I would not use violence against the child or spouse that was sitting in the car the intruder drove into my driveway just because the one person from their family acted a prick, even though they're ALL on my property. I'm sorry, but by definition, if you're not part of the military, you're a civilian.
The Palestinians have every right to use violence against the Zionist occupation. This is a perfectly logical, reasonable, and moral response in the face of the threat which they face.
Absolutely, they have every right to use violence against the occupation. Against MILITARY and authoritative elements of the occupation. Not against random civilians. By all means, they can and should defend themselves. But they should not attack civilians when doing so. Just as Israel should not attack Palestinian civilians or take their land.
You and Jlew keep talking about the word hypocrite. You both keep trying to justify and excuse Israel's crimes, and yet you pretend to be shocked when anyone says the Palestinians have a right to defend themselves. That is Hypocrisy.
Where have I justified Israel's war crimes? I love this 1984-style newspeak you do.
You:
Israel is committing war crimes when it targets civilians. But when Hamas targets civilians, it is perfectly ok and not a war crime (despite the fact that the UN article you posted yourself says otherwise).
Me:
Targeting civilians is wrong. It is wrong when Israel does it, and it is wrong when Hamas does it.
Yet I'm the hypocrite?
How about you stop worrying about my lawyer mindset and start worrying about your inability to grasp the fundamentals of logic... that killing innocent people is wrong, no matter who does it.
I just read your post Commy. Looks like you said it first. Respect.
What's with the respect thing? Is that like 'mad props dude'? IIt reminds me of hanging out with my stoner friends in high school. Is that some sort of Chinese idiom?
How about you stop worrying about my lawyer mindset and start worrying about your inability to grasp the fundamentals of logic... that killing innocent people is wrong, no matter who does it.
Settlers aren't innocent people. They are human scum. The occupation itself is a criminal act of violence. I am opposed to the Palestinians targeting civilians within Israel proper, but as has been said before, the settlers only have one right of self-defence, and that is to get the fuck out.
Anyway, these are my personal opinions on the subject. I'm sure there are many Palestinians who would take a different view.
and yet again you are accusing others of putting words in peoples mouth? this is getting beyond absurd. thats pretty much the only thing you have been doing.
yet you have spent now two pages not only justifying but encouraging the killing of unarmed Israeli civilians. class act.
ok ... knowing that the death of unarmed israeli civilians is few and far between - if i brought my family to your house and took it over without the use of any weapon ... what would you do? ... goto the police maybe? ... well, what if they did nothing? ... what if you went to the world and the world said to those people - you must leave ... but they don't ... what would you do?
Israel's State-Assisted Terrorism: "Settlers" as Armed Combatants
By Israel Shahak
Since its inception, the Israeli regime in the territories has been, in some respects, worse than that of South Africa's apartheid regime at its worst. Nor has this changed with the signing by the Yitzhak Rabin government and the PLO of the Declaration of Principles of Peace.
On Jan. 9, 1994, Amnon Denkner described in the Israeli daily Ha 'aretz a radio broadcast of a few days earlier in which a Colonel Y. explained that the standing orders of the Israeli army in the West Bank are "never, under any circumstances, and in no case whatsoever, to shoot at any Jew.',
“Then what will you do,” Colonel Y. was asked, “if you see a Jewish settler aiming his gun at an Arab, with a clear intent to fire at him?”
“In such a case,” responded Colonel Y. seriously, “I will run as fast as I can, and shield the Arab with my body, but under no circumstances will I use force against a Jew.”
Needless to say, therefore, Jews who beat up or humiliate Arabs, or vandalize their property, cannot be stopped by the Israeli army except, perhaps, by "interposing." Surely there were never such regulations in South Africa!
Denkner commented that "when an Arab is thought to be a danger to the life of a Jew, there is no problem. Just kill him and feel good."
Thus it is no wonder that violent assaults are perpetrated by Jewish settlers upon the Palestinians in the West Bank. They are aimed at innocent, randomly chosen individuals. Their avowed "purpose" is either "to relieve the feelings of distress of the assaulters," or "to teach the Arabs a lesson," or else somehow "influence" the Palestinian population to prevent future violence.
Regardless of whether the assaults cause injury to persons or "only" to property, they consist of recourse to violence against innocents for the sake of a political purpose. As such they can only be regarded as acts of terror, and the assaulters as terrorists. Accordingly, the organizations responsible for these assaults are terrorist organizations, although assisted financially and otherwise by the Israeli government.
The Israeli administration which abets this violence therefore can only be defined as a terror-supporting government.
A typical incident of settler terrorism was described in the Nov. 17, 1993 issue of Ha'olam Ha'ze by correspondent Amit Gurevitz, who did his reserve service in a paratrooper unit stationed in Hebron shortly before he wrote the article. The events described occurred after Hamas guerrillas killed a religious settler, Ephraim Ayubi, the driver of Rabbi Druckman, one of the most extreme leaders of the Gush Emunim Jewish religious settlers.
Gurevitz is careful to point out that "according to the unanimous view of the unit's officers, duly reported to the area's commanders, the murder of Ephraim Ayubi was a retaliation for the settlers' rampages on the previous day, in the course of which the settlers burned 15 Arab-owned cars in a single day. Right after that arson took place the soldiers were warned by their military superiors to 'expect an Arab retaliation. "'
Incidents of Jewish settler terrorism usually are depicted in the U.S. media as retaliation for acts of violence by Palestinian guerrillas. However, the retaliatory character of these settler actions is in doubt.
Rather, as in Ayubi's case, they may provoke the Palestinians to retaliate. This is acknowledged by the internal communications of the Israeli army, which often admit that a given action of Palestinian guerrillas was "a retaliation." But the U.S. media seldom indicate that Palestinian violence is "provoked" by anything the settlers have done.
Gurevitz quotes "the unit's officers and soldiers" as saying of "the Jews living in Hebron that their behavior toward the Arabs is intentionally provocative. . . The soldiers testify that the settlers often harass Hebron Arabs in front of Israeli army troops. They overturn the crates in the market, kick the elderly Arabs carrying the baskets, spit at people, spray insecticide on fruits and vegetables, overturn the carts loaded with tomatoes so as to crush them underfoot. Most shocking for the soldiers was an incident in which the settlers screamed 'Mazel Tov!' [Good luck!] at an Arab family burying their child within sight of an army equipment camp."
One of the unit's major assignments in Hebron was the guarding of the Patriarchs' Cave, a sacred site for both Jews and religious Muslims. Said "B.R., a soldier in the unit: 'In the Patriarchs' Cave the settlers keep trying to disrupt the officially imposed status quo between the Jews and the Arabs . . . The settler children keep spraying acid and scattering thumbtacks on the carpets of that Hall. The Muslims now have no choice but to collect the thumbtacks with a magnet before beginning to pray. "
Gurevitz reports that a unit officer told him "the soldiers are forbidden to arrest a Jew, except if he hits a soldier, or after he injures an Arab by shooting in the presence of an Israeli army soldier." Beating the Arabs, or humiliating them otherwise, or vandalizing their property before the very eyes of the army soldiers is not regarded as "a sufficient reason" for arresting a settler. Gurevitz quotes "another officer, T., who complained that an Arab is sent to jail the minute he is seen to throw a stone. But the settlers throw stones with impunity. "
Not an Isolated Instance
That story by Gurevitz is by no means an isolated instance. Hanna Kim described in Hadashot of Nov. 9 a roadblock set up by religious settlers from the settlement of Yaqir, where "a local hero, Yehuda, nicknamed by his neighbors 'Crazy Yehuda,' reveled in all his glory. 'Do you want to watch how an Arab gets burned alive? Just point your camera at me,' he boasted to reporters .... Two conscript soldiers, one of them a lieutenant, and two reservists without indication of rank, were watching it unruffled. At a moment of quiet Crazy Yehuda told Kim that 'they [the Arabs] should be exterminated just as we [the Israelites] exterminated the Amalekites. (See Samuel I, Chapter 15.) Not only the males, but entire families, and their descendants no matter how remote. You just have to seek out all the descendants.' His buddy, Meir, who was holding an Israeli flag, upbraided the Israeli media for wanting to be on the spot in order to document his deeds. 'Hitler owed his successes to Goebbels. You are doing the same."'
Hillel Cohen commented in Kol Ha'ir of Nov. 12 on the apartheid curfews, saying that "When a curfew was imposed on Hebron, it affected only the city's Palestinian residents." After the army prevented Cohen from entering Hebron, he, along with his photographer, boarded the Hebron religious settlers' bus in Jerusalem. In this way, he entered Hebron undisturbed.
"On the way," he reports, "the religious youths from Kiryat Arba kept themselves busy slinging stones at Arab passersby, explaining their behavior by saying: 'We are the settlers, aren't we?' At the entrance to Kiryat Arba, an old graffiti inscription reading 'Only a sucker doesn't kill an Arab' was still visible."
Ha'aretz reported on Nov. 21 that two Kahanist militants, Baruch Marzel and Noam Federman, had been detained the previous day for a rampage during a visit to Kiryat Arba by Israeli President Ezer Weizman. Weizman's intention was to encourage the settlers, but Marzel and Federman nevertheless had abused him violently. When they were brought before the magistrate in Western Jerusalem (as settlers they have the privilege of standing trial in Israel rather than in the West Bank where they committed their crimes), the police asked to remand them on the ground that "they could not be found while they were wanted since Nov. I for an offense they were suspected of committing on that day. "
Police authorities told the magistrate, Yehudit Tzur, that they suspected Marzel and Federman of "going in a rented taxi to the Arab village of Al-Hadar in the district of Bethlehem, in the company of some armed settlers. Upon arriving there they went to a local grocery. One of them aimed his gun at the grocer, while others burned the Palestinian flags on sale." Thereupon, the whole group crisscrossed the village, burning all the flags that could be found, and forcing the inhabitants at gunpoint to watch the fires.
Incidents of this type are common in the West Bank and the Israeli army dismisses complaints by villagers with contempt. In this particular case, however, the assault was recorded with a telescopic lens from a nearby Israeli army post—presumably by soldiers uninformed of what the army really wanted. They handed over to the police photographs clear enough to identify the assailants. The police, who already had Marzel and Federman under detention for insulting the president, asked that they be held for seven more days. Marzel and Federman, however, demanded that they be released on bail in view of the "petty" nature of the offenses with which they were charged. Accepting such "arguments," Magistrate Tzur freed the two on a minuscule bail.
A Recurrent Pattern
These are not isolated incidents. They follow a recurrent pattern. Day after day Palestinians are beaten up or humiliated by settlers, or their property is vandalized. Such incidents occur all over the West Bank.
Since mid-September, everyday conditions under which the Palestinians exist vividly resemble the conditions under which Jews lived under in viciously anti-Semitic countries. Since the signing of the agreement between Israel and the PLO, a large number of Palestinians have been beaten up or humiliated by the religious settlers, quite often under the gaze of Israeli soldiers who refused or were unable to intervene.
The most important conclusion warranted by the evidence is that Rabin's real policy is to support the settlements in order to guarantee continued Israeli domination of the territories. To pursue that policy, Rabin needs to bestow favors upon religious settlers, because they alone are willing to settle in places like Hebron. He also must condone their violence against the Palestinians.
Ruling a population which refuses to accord legitimacy to its rulers requires a continuous recourse to violence for the purpose of cowing the subject people and keeping them intimidated. This is what the religious settlers are doing, and this is also why nothing is done to restrain them.
The settlers should be regarded as a vital segment of the Israeli security system, on a par with the army and the Shabak (plainclothes security police), which are inhibited by the constraints of acting as official arms of the Israeli government. It is therefore unrealistic to expect Israel to take any meaningful action against the violence of the settlers.'
'The Palestinian Centre for Human Rights (PCHR) strongly condemns a combined attack perpetrated by Israeli settlers and Israeli Occupation Forces (IOF), against Palestinian civilians in the Kherbat Safa area, northwest of Hebron. This pre-planned attack resulted in the injury of nine Palestinian civilians. Six civilians were injured by IOF, while three were injured by settlers.
PCHR's investigations indicate that at 06:10 a.m. on Wednesday, 8 April 2009, approximately 50 settlers from the Gush Etzion and Beit Ayen settlements gathered on the outskirts of Kherbat Safa. They were accompanied by approximately 10 IOF soldiers.
At approximately 08:00 a.m., the settlers – armed with pistols and machine guns – opened fire directly at Palestinian civilians and houses. The settlers and soldiers then advanced towards the houses, firing their weapons and tear gas. The Palestinian civilians responded with stones, in an attempt to prevent the attackers from entering the houses. Soldiers and settlers shot directly at Palestinian civilians, at distances ranging from 2 to 20 metres. The attack lasted for approximately 90 minutes, without interruption.
As a result, nine civilians were wounded by live and rubber bullets. Local witnesses report that three of the wounded were injured by settlers while the others were wounded by IOF soldiers. 26 Palestinians also suffered suffocation due to gas inhalation. The wounded were transferred to Hebron Ahli Hospital and to Hebron Governmental Hospital. Medical sources described the wounds of one civilian as serious. The names of the wounded persons are included in PCHR's Weakly Report published today, 8 April 2009.
PCHR reiterates its condemnation of this joint attack by Israeli settlers and IOF soldiers against Palestinian civilians in Kherbat Safa, and warns of the potential for increasing settler attacks against Palestinian civilians under the current Israeli government.
PCHR also:
- Demands that IOF cease the practice of protecting and granting immunity to settlers. This policy encourages crimes against Palestinian civilians;
- Demands the immediate confiscation of settlers' weapons. As demonstrated, these weapons pose a serious risk to the lives of Palestinian civilians.
- Calls upon the international community to intervene immediately in order to ensure the State of Israel's compliance with international law. All settlements are illegal. Settlement activities must be halted.
- Reminds the international community that settlements are considered war crimes. Accordingly, all High Contracting Parties to the Geneva Conventions must, individually or collectively, fulfil their obligations under common Article 1 to the Conventions, and take the steps necessary' to ensure Israel's compliance with international humanitarian law.'
I have never tried to justify or excuse Israel's crimes. In fact, I have pointed them out several times.
There must be two Jlews posting on this message pit then.
nope, just one. and I'll repeat...I have never justified or excused Israel's crimes. you put words in peoples mouth when you dont get the answer you want or are asked a tough question.
- if i brought my family to your house and took it over without the use of any weapon ... what would you do? ... goto the police maybe? ... well, what if they did nothing? ... what if you went to the world and the world said to those people - you must leave ... but they don't ... what would you do?
these cute little metaphors dont apply.
are you, mr peace loving passifist, also justifying attacking and killing Israeli civilians?
yet you have spent now two pages not only justifying but encouraging the killing of unarmed Israeli civilians. class act.
I can see why you would be so quick to jump to the defence of these people Jlew:
http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=44864 'Thousands of Israeli Defence Force (IDF) soldiers were put on high alert over the weekend as 20,000 Israeli settlers from across the West Bank descended on Hebron.
The settlers were there to mark an annual Jewish pilgrimage...
Baruch Goldstein, a doctor who had emigrated from the U.S. machine-gunned 29 Palestinians to death in 1994 as they prayed in Hebron's Ibrahimi Mosque during the holy month of Ramadan.
Hebron settlers later built a shrine to him, and many settlers from the occupied territory pay their respects to the late doctor, who was beaten to death by survivors, during visits to the shrine.
There are about 430,000 Israeli settlers living in hundreds of settlements throughout the West Bank, which are illegal according to international law and UN Security Council resolutions.
A recent UN report documented 222 settler attacks against Palestinians and Israeli security forces in the first half of this year, against a total of 291 for the whole of last year...'
its only few and far between because they dont have the means to kill them effectively due to Israel's ridiculously strong security.
death tolls are significantly important because many justify the actions of the israeli military based upon the attacks on israelis ... especially as it pertains to gaza ...
are you, mr peace loving passifist, also justifying attacking and killing Israeli civilians?
it wasn't a metaphor - it was a direct question ... one you've chosen not to answer for some reason ... yes, i am a peace loving pacifist however i believe in the struggle of the palestinian people ... they are not perfect nor is anyone however, the oppression and abuse at the hand of israel has been going on too long now without any help from the people that claims to want peace and human rights maintained throughout the world ... the choice for them is simple ... continue to be treated like second-class citizens and be kicked off your land or fight back ...
Do you have anything to say regarding the articles I posted which show quite clearly that the settlers are violent, armed extremists?
all of them are?
but to answer your question, no I do not support violent armed extremists. any Israeli civilians who shoot at another person should be arrested like anyone else.
its only few and far between because they dont have the means to kill them effectively due to Israel's ridiculously strong security.
death tolls are significantly important because many justify the actions of the israeli military based upon the attacks on israelis ... especially as it pertains to gaza ...
so its probably in Hamas's best interest to not fire worthless rockets into civilians areas. like I said, it simply gives Israel and excuse to hit back. (disclaimer: I do not support Israelis retaliation)
it wasn't a metaphor - it was a direct question ... one you've chosen not to answer for some reason
your direct question is bullshit, unrelated, and utterly pointless. if someone broke into my home I would call the police and protect my family if necessary. happy? its just a baiting question.
... yes, i am a peace loving pacifist however i believe in the struggle of the palestinian people ... they are not perfect nor is anyone however, the oppression and abuse at the hand of israel has been going on too long now without any help from the people that claims to want peace and human rights maintained throughout the world ... the choice for them is simple ... continue to be treated like second-class citizens and be kicked off your land or fight back ...
I have no problem with them resisting. I do, however, have a problem with unarmed Israeli civilians be (key word here)..deliberately targeted.
Comments
and here we have the ROOT of the problem in the middle east. thanks for publicly admitting you feel Israeli civilians should be killed.
un fucking real
In my opinion these American-Israeli illegal settlers are scum. Are they legitimate targets? Yes.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 5358600137
The Palestinians have a right to retaliate. A moral right and a legal right. The Illegal Israeli settlers have just one right of self-defence, and that is to get out. Period.
Now explain to me why you think that Palestinian attacks on Israeli's is the ROOT of the problem in the Middle East.
Fine. Provide just one example.
The definition of hypocrisy, and a disgusting one at that. It is ok for Palestinians to kill Israeli citizens. It is not ok for Israelis to kill Palestinian citizens. Thinking like that is why this situation will never progress... it plays right into Israel's hands and helps them immeasurably.
Me? Targeting non-combatants is wrong. Period. Doesn't matter who does it, or what their reasons are. It's wrong. Israel is wrong. Hamas is wrong. We're wrong for backing Israel always without question. Not a single reasonable voice in this whole fucking mess over there.
The ROOT of the problem is not Palestine's attacks on Israel. It is the fact that BOTH sides consider all their violence and disgusting practices to be ok due to what they claim the other side is doing. If it's wrong for Israel to do it, it's wrong for Hamas to do it too. You can't say your side is allowed to target civilians and the other side isn't. You lose all legitimacy. Israel says Hamas is a terrorist group and so it's ok for them to kill anyone that blinks down there. That's wrong and it's despicable. Hamas says Israel is on their property and thus it's ok for them to target civilians and murder them. That's wrong and despicable too. Neither side can act like savages and then try to claim it's ok because the other side started it. It won't get anyone anywhere.
that's not a biased opinion, that's using logic. If your land is being taken with force by outside invaders, you have a right to defend yourself with force.
Israel, being in occupied territories, has a right to defend themselves as well,only not with violence. They can defend themselves by leaving occupied territories.
I think that illegal Israeli settlers who verbally abuse, spit at, beat, and murder Palestinians in the Occupied territories are legitimate targets. Don't pretend to be so shocked.
Try and get your lawyers mindset around this:
One man is crushing another mans neck with his boot. The man on the ground tries desperately to fight back. He occasionally manages to bite the toe of the attacker who is squeezing the life out of him. This doesn't make it an equal contest. There is no level playing field here. The root of the problem is not the sporadic violence from either side. The root of the problem is the occupation.
The Israeli settlers are not innocent civilians. If someone broke into your home and began abusing, and beating members of your family you would use violence against them.
The Palestinians have every right to use violence against the Zionist occupation. This is a perfectly logical, reasonable, and moral response in the face of the threat which they face.
You and Jlew keep talking about the word hypocrite. You both keep trying to justify and excuse Israel's crimes, and yet you pretend to be shocked when anyone says the Palestinians have a right to defend themselves. That is Hypocrisy.
Let me ask you a question. Do you think that the American settlers in this video do not constitute a legitimate target? Watch it through to the end. It's about 10 minutes long:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 5358600137
Keep in mind that these 'civilians' are merely verbally abusing, and throwing rocks at the old lady. You can easily find other video clips which show settlers beating old people with baseball bats, spitting in women's faces, beating up schoolgirls on their way to school, and shooting unarmed Palestinians dead.
1. The Gazans have no place to go. They are subject to all the Israeli bombardment. The illegal Israeli settlers can simply go back to the '67 borders.
2. You say "Hamas says Israel is on their property". WRONG. The WORLD says Israel is on their property.
The rest Commy and Byrnzie pointed out.
If you watch interviews with settlers two mindsets emerge.. a predominant mindset which goes along the lines of "I am here to steal the land" and the other "i was tricked by the israeli government to think living in settlements would be great".
Not according to the international humanitarian law you just quoted.
You speak like there has been a 100 suicide bombings involving children under the age of 16.. when in reality they are EXTREMELY rare and can be counted.
They are armed lawless forces and have served or still serve in the israeli terrorist forces.
Yes, I would. But I would not use violence against the child or spouse that was sitting in the car the intruder drove into my driveway just because the one person from their family acted a prick, even though they're ALL on my property. I'm sorry, but by definition, if you're not part of the military, you're a civilian.
Absolutely, they have every right to use violence against the occupation. Against MILITARY and authoritative elements of the occupation. Not against random civilians. By all means, they can and should defend themselves. But they should not attack civilians when doing so. Just as Israel should not attack Palestinian civilians or take their land.
Where have I justified Israel's war crimes? I love this 1984-style newspeak you do.
You:
Israel is committing war crimes when it targets civilians. But when Hamas targets civilians, it is perfectly ok and not a war crime (despite the fact that the UN article you posted yourself says otherwise).
Me:
Targeting civilians is wrong. It is wrong when Israel does it, and it is wrong when Hamas does it.
Yet I'm the hypocrite?
How about you stop worrying about my lawyer mindset and start worrying about your inability to grasp the fundamentals of logic... that killing innocent people is wrong, no matter who does it.
What's with the respect thing? Is that like 'mad props dude'? IIt reminds me of hanging out with my stoner friends in high school. Is that some sort of Chinese idiom?
Settlers aren't innocent people. They are human scum. The occupation itself is a criminal act of violence. I am opposed to the Palestinians targeting civilians within Israel proper, but as has been said before, the settlers only have one right of self-defence, and that is to get the fuck out.
Anyway, these are my personal opinions on the subject. I'm sure there are many Palestinians who would take a different view.
I have never tried to justify or excuse Israel's crimes. In fact, I have pointed them out several times.
yet you have spent now two pages not only justifying but encouraging the killing of unarmed Israeli civilians. class act.
ok ... knowing that the death of unarmed israeli civilians is few and far between - if i brought my family to your house and took it over without the use of any weapon ... what would you do? ... goto the police maybe? ... well, what if they did nothing? ... what if you went to the world and the world said to those people - you must leave ... but they don't ... what would you do?
There must be two Jlews posting on this message pit then.
Who said the settlers are unarmed?
http://www.wrmea.com/backissues/0294/9402016.htm
From the Hebrew Press - February/March 1994
Israel's State-Assisted Terrorism: "Settlers" as Armed Combatants
By Israel Shahak
Since its inception, the Israeli regime in the territories has been, in some respects, worse than that of South Africa's apartheid regime at its worst. Nor has this changed with the signing by the Yitzhak Rabin government and the PLO of the Declaration of Principles of Peace.
On Jan. 9, 1994, Amnon Denkner described in the Israeli daily Ha 'aretz a radio broadcast of a few days earlier in which a Colonel Y. explained that the standing orders of the Israeli army in the West Bank are "never, under any circumstances, and in no case whatsoever, to shoot at any Jew.',
“Then what will you do,” Colonel Y. was asked, “if you see a Jewish settler aiming his gun at an Arab, with a clear intent to fire at him?”
“In such a case,” responded Colonel Y. seriously, “I will run as fast as I can, and shield the Arab with my body, but under no circumstances will I use force against a Jew.”
Needless to say, therefore, Jews who beat up or humiliate Arabs, or vandalize their property, cannot be stopped by the Israeli army except, perhaps, by "interposing." Surely there were never such regulations in South Africa!
Denkner commented that "when an Arab is thought to be a danger to the life of a Jew, there is no problem. Just kill him and feel good."
Thus it is no wonder that violent assaults are perpetrated by Jewish settlers upon the Palestinians in the West Bank. They are aimed at innocent, randomly chosen individuals. Their avowed "purpose" is either "to relieve the feelings of distress of the assaulters," or "to teach the Arabs a lesson," or else somehow "influence" the Palestinian population to prevent future violence.
Regardless of whether the assaults cause injury to persons or "only" to property, they consist of recourse to violence against innocents for the sake of a political purpose. As such they can only be regarded as acts of terror, and the assaulters as terrorists. Accordingly, the organizations responsible for these assaults are terrorist organizations, although assisted financially and otherwise by the Israeli government.
The Israeli administration which abets this violence therefore can only be defined as a terror-supporting government.
A typical incident of settler terrorism was described in the Nov. 17, 1993 issue of Ha'olam Ha'ze by correspondent Amit Gurevitz, who did his reserve service in a paratrooper unit stationed in Hebron shortly before he wrote the article. The events described occurred after Hamas guerrillas killed a religious settler, Ephraim Ayubi, the driver of Rabbi Druckman, one of the most extreme leaders of the Gush Emunim Jewish religious settlers.
Gurevitz is careful to point out that "according to the unanimous view of the unit's officers, duly reported to the area's commanders, the murder of Ephraim Ayubi was a retaliation for the settlers' rampages on the previous day, in the course of which the settlers burned 15 Arab-owned cars in a single day. Right after that arson took place the soldiers were warned by their military superiors to 'expect an Arab retaliation. "'
Incidents of Jewish settler terrorism usually are depicted in the U.S. media as retaliation for acts of violence by Palestinian guerrillas. However, the retaliatory character of these settler actions is in doubt.
Rather, as in Ayubi's case, they may provoke the Palestinians to retaliate. This is acknowledged by the internal communications of the Israeli army, which often admit that a given action of Palestinian guerrillas was "a retaliation." But the U.S. media seldom indicate that Palestinian violence is "provoked" by anything the settlers have done.
Gurevitz quotes "the unit's officers and soldiers" as saying of "the Jews living in Hebron that their behavior toward the Arabs is intentionally provocative. . . The soldiers testify that the settlers often harass Hebron Arabs in front of Israeli army troops. They overturn the crates in the market, kick the elderly Arabs carrying the baskets, spit at people, spray insecticide on fruits and vegetables, overturn the carts loaded with tomatoes so as to crush them underfoot. Most shocking for the soldiers was an incident in which the settlers screamed 'Mazel Tov!' [Good luck!] at an Arab family burying their child within sight of an army equipment camp."
One of the unit's major assignments in Hebron was the guarding of the Patriarchs' Cave, a sacred site for both Jews and religious Muslims. Said "B.R., a soldier in the unit: 'In the Patriarchs' Cave the settlers keep trying to disrupt the officially imposed status quo between the Jews and the Arabs . . . The settler children keep spraying acid and scattering thumbtacks on the carpets of that Hall. The Muslims now have no choice but to collect the thumbtacks with a magnet before beginning to pray. "
Gurevitz reports that a unit officer told him "the soldiers are forbidden to arrest a Jew, except if he hits a soldier, or after he injures an Arab by shooting in the presence of an Israeli army soldier." Beating the Arabs, or humiliating them otherwise, or vandalizing their property before the very eyes of the army soldiers is not regarded as "a sufficient reason" for arresting a settler. Gurevitz quotes "another officer, T., who complained that an Arab is sent to jail the minute he is seen to throw a stone. But the settlers throw stones with impunity. "
Not an Isolated Instance
That story by Gurevitz is by no means an isolated instance. Hanna Kim described in Hadashot of Nov. 9 a roadblock set up by religious settlers from the settlement of Yaqir, where "a local hero, Yehuda, nicknamed by his neighbors 'Crazy Yehuda,' reveled in all his glory. 'Do you want to watch how an Arab gets burned alive? Just point your camera at me,' he boasted to reporters .... Two conscript soldiers, one of them a lieutenant, and two reservists without indication of rank, were watching it unruffled. At a moment of quiet Crazy Yehuda told Kim that 'they [the Arabs] should be exterminated just as we [the Israelites] exterminated the Amalekites. (See Samuel I, Chapter 15.) Not only the males, but entire families, and their descendants no matter how remote. You just have to seek out all the descendants.' His buddy, Meir, who was holding an Israeli flag, upbraided the Israeli media for wanting to be on the spot in order to document his deeds. 'Hitler owed his successes to Goebbels. You are doing the same."'
Hillel Cohen commented in Kol Ha'ir of Nov. 12 on the apartheid curfews, saying that "When a curfew was imposed on Hebron, it affected only the city's Palestinian residents." After the army prevented Cohen from entering Hebron, he, along with his photographer, boarded the Hebron religious settlers' bus in Jerusalem. In this way, he entered Hebron undisturbed.
"On the way," he reports, "the religious youths from Kiryat Arba kept themselves busy slinging stones at Arab passersby, explaining their behavior by saying: 'We are the settlers, aren't we?' At the entrance to Kiryat Arba, an old graffiti inscription reading 'Only a sucker doesn't kill an Arab' was still visible."
Ha'aretz reported on Nov. 21 that two Kahanist militants, Baruch Marzel and Noam Federman, had been detained the previous day for a rampage during a visit to Kiryat Arba by Israeli President Ezer Weizman. Weizman's intention was to encourage the settlers, but Marzel and Federman nevertheless had abused him violently. When they were brought before the magistrate in Western Jerusalem (as settlers they have the privilege of standing trial in Israel rather than in the West Bank where they committed their crimes), the police asked to remand them on the ground that "they could not be found while they were wanted since Nov. I for an offense they were suspected of committing on that day. "
Police authorities told the magistrate, Yehudit Tzur, that they suspected Marzel and Federman of "going in a rented taxi to the Arab village of Al-Hadar in the district of Bethlehem, in the company of some armed settlers. Upon arriving there they went to a local grocery. One of them aimed his gun at the grocer, while others burned the Palestinian flags on sale." Thereupon, the whole group crisscrossed the village, burning all the flags that could be found, and forcing the inhabitants at gunpoint to watch the fires.
Incidents of this type are common in the West Bank and the Israeli army dismisses complaints by villagers with contempt. In this particular case, however, the assault was recorded with a telescopic lens from a nearby Israeli army post—presumably by soldiers uninformed of what the army really wanted. They handed over to the police photographs clear enough to identify the assailants. The police, who already had Marzel and Federman under detention for insulting the president, asked that they be held for seven more days. Marzel and Federman, however, demanded that they be released on bail in view of the "petty" nature of the offenses with which they were charged. Accepting such "arguments," Magistrate Tzur freed the two on a minuscule bail.
A Recurrent Pattern
These are not isolated incidents. They follow a recurrent pattern. Day after day Palestinians are beaten up or humiliated by settlers, or their property is vandalized. Such incidents occur all over the West Bank.
Since mid-September, everyday conditions under which the Palestinians exist vividly resemble the conditions under which Jews lived under in viciously anti-Semitic countries. Since the signing of the agreement between Israel and the PLO, a large number of Palestinians have been beaten up or humiliated by the religious settlers, quite often under the gaze of Israeli soldiers who refused or were unable to intervene.
The most important conclusion warranted by the evidence is that Rabin's real policy is to support the settlements in order to guarantee continued Israeli domination of the territories. To pursue that policy, Rabin needs to bestow favors upon religious settlers, because they alone are willing to settle in places like Hebron. He also must condone their violence against the Palestinians.
Ruling a population which refuses to accord legitimacy to its rulers requires a continuous recourse to violence for the purpose of cowing the subject people and keeping them intimidated. This is what the religious settlers are doing, and this is also why nothing is done to restrain them.
The settlers should be regarded as a vital segment of the Israeli security system, on a par with the army and the Shabak (plainclothes security police), which are inhibited by the constraints of acting as official arms of the Israeli government. It is therefore unrealistic to expect Israel to take any meaningful action against the violence of the settlers.'
Those poor innocent unarmed settlers. My heart bleeds for them:
http://www.reliefweb.int/rw/rwb.nsf/db9 ... enDocument
PCHR condemns attack by Israeli settlers and soldiers on Kherbat Safa and warns of potential increase in attacks under new Israeli government
Palestinian Centre for Human Rights (PCHR)
Date: 09 Apr 2009
'The Palestinian Centre for Human Rights (PCHR) strongly condemns a combined attack perpetrated by Israeli settlers and Israeli Occupation Forces (IOF), against Palestinian civilians in the Kherbat Safa area, northwest of Hebron. This pre-planned attack resulted in the injury of nine Palestinian civilians. Six civilians were injured by IOF, while three were injured by settlers.
PCHR's investigations indicate that at 06:10 a.m. on Wednesday, 8 April 2009, approximately 50 settlers from the Gush Etzion and Beit Ayen settlements gathered on the outskirts of Kherbat Safa. They were accompanied by approximately 10 IOF soldiers.
At approximately 08:00 a.m., the settlers – armed with pistols and machine guns – opened fire directly at Palestinian civilians and houses. The settlers and soldiers then advanced towards the houses, firing their weapons and tear gas. The Palestinian civilians responded with stones, in an attempt to prevent the attackers from entering the houses. Soldiers and settlers shot directly at Palestinian civilians, at distances ranging from 2 to 20 metres. The attack lasted for approximately 90 minutes, without interruption.
As a result, nine civilians were wounded by live and rubber bullets. Local witnesses report that three of the wounded were injured by settlers while the others were wounded by IOF soldiers. 26 Palestinians also suffered suffocation due to gas inhalation. The wounded were transferred to Hebron Ahli Hospital and to Hebron Governmental Hospital. Medical sources described the wounds of one civilian as serious. The names of the wounded persons are included in PCHR's Weakly Report published today, 8 April 2009.
PCHR reiterates its condemnation of this joint attack by Israeli settlers and IOF soldiers against Palestinian civilians in Kherbat Safa, and warns of the potential for increasing settler attacks against Palestinian civilians under the current Israeli government.
PCHR also:
- Demands that IOF cease the practice of protecting and granting immunity to settlers. This policy encourages crimes against Palestinian civilians;
- Demands the immediate confiscation of settlers' weapons. As demonstrated, these weapons pose a serious risk to the lives of Palestinian civilians.
- Calls upon the international community to intervene immediately in order to ensure the State of Israel's compliance with international law. All settlements are illegal. Settlement activities must be halted.
- Reminds the international community that settlements are considered war crimes. Accordingly, all High Contracting Parties to the Geneva Conventions must, individually or collectively, fulfil their obligations under common Article 1 to the Conventions, and take the steps necessary' to ensure Israel's compliance with international humanitarian law.'
nope, just one. and I'll repeat...I have never justified or excused Israel's crimes. you put words in peoples mouth when you dont get the answer you want or are asked a tough question.
do you support the killing of unarmed Israeli civilians living in settlements established after 1967? a simple yes or no will suffice.
sadly, you wont answer directly. but everyone already knows the answer anyway.
its only few and far between because they dont have the means to kill them effectively due to Israel's ridiculously strong security.
these cute little metaphors dont apply.
are you, mr peace loving passifist, also justifying attacking and killing Israeli civilians?
I can see why you would be so quick to jump to the defence of these people Jlew:
http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=44864
'Thousands of Israeli Defence Force (IDF) soldiers were put on high alert over the weekend as 20,000 Israeli settlers from across the West Bank descended on Hebron.
The settlers were there to mark an annual Jewish pilgrimage...
Baruch Goldstein, a doctor who had emigrated from the U.S. machine-gunned 29 Palestinians to death in 1994 as they prayed in Hebron's Ibrahimi Mosque during the holy month of Ramadan.
Hebron settlers later built a shrine to him, and many settlers from the occupied territory pay their respects to the late doctor, who was beaten to death by survivors, during visits to the shrine.
There are about 430,000 Israeli settlers living in hundreds of settlements throughout the West Bank, which are illegal according to international law and UN Security Council resolutions.
A recent UN report documented 222 settler attacks against Palestinians and Israeli security forces in the first half of this year, against a total of 291 for the whole of last year...'
Bullshit. And everyone on this pit who has been here for at least the past two years knows it.
(If the majority of your posts hadn't been deleted following your life-time ban then I'd prove my point).
I said the settlers are legitimate targets.
Do you have anything to say regarding the articles I posted which show quite clearly that the settlers are violent, armed extremists?
death tolls are significantly important because many justify the actions of the israeli military based upon the attacks on israelis ... especially as it pertains to gaza ...
it wasn't a metaphor - it was a direct question ... one you've chosen not to answer for some reason ... yes, i am a peace loving pacifist however i believe in the struggle of the palestinian people ... they are not perfect nor is anyone however, the oppression and abuse at the hand of israel has been going on too long now without any help from the people that claims to want peace and human rights maintained throughout the world ... the choice for them is simple ... continue to be treated like second-class citizens and be kicked off your land or fight back ...
lol ok. solid case you make. like I said, when you dont get the answers you want, you make shit up to make others look bad. pretty sad....
as is this.
all of them are?
but to answer your question, no I do not support violent armed extremists. any Israeli civilians who shoot at another person should be arrested like anyone else.
so its probably in Hamas's best interest to not fire worthless rockets into civilians areas. like I said, it simply gives Israel and excuse to hit back. (disclaimer: I do not support Israelis retaliation)
your direct question is bullshit, unrelated, and utterly pointless. if someone broke into my home I would call the police and protect my family if necessary. happy? its just a baiting question.
I have no problem with them resisting. I do, however, have a problem with unarmed Israeli civilians be (key word here)..deliberately targeted.