Report: Insurgents stock missiles in their Gaza homes

[Behind the Aegis]

GAZA CITY — Insurgents are storing missiles in the homes of operatives in the Gaza Strip, according to a Palestinian human rights group.

The Palestinian Center for Human Rights said insurgents keep Kassam-class, short-range missiles in homes in the northern Gaza Strip.

Northern Gaza has been the launching pad for nearly daily missile strikes against Israel.

The center reported Palestinian casualties from failed launches as well as missile explosions inside Gaza homes. On Aug. 28, a Palestinian youngster was killed and his brother was injured when they played with a Kassam missile near their home in Beit Hanoun.

more...

[NOLADEM]

1. And we and the Israelis have many thousands of tons more

Do the Palenstinians have the right to defend themselves and/or to field an army? If so, no story.

If they don't have such a right in one's mind, that is pretty revealing about their opinion of their humanity of the enemy.

You know what? I bet they wouldn't have such a need for rockets if we quit destroying their country, killing their children and taking their land. However, I am old enough to know that we will never stop until Israel kills every Palestinian and claims Israel and Palestine as their own.

Flame on.

[msmcghee]

2. The cognitive disconnect in . .

. . many of these posts is amazing.

NOLADEM says, "Do the Palenstinians have the right to defend themselves and/or to field an army?"

As if the "Kassam-class, short-range missiles" described in the aricle had any possible defensive function.

They are loaded with ball bearings and fired off toward Iraeli towns full of civilians with the purpose to kill or maim as many as possible. And you blithely refer to this as defense.

Doesn't it ever bother you that there is no logical connection between your anti-Israel beliefs and the evidence you use to support them?

[breakaleg]

4. So, should Israel give them better weapons so the fight can be fair?

Not likely. They are fighting with what they have.

[Behind the Aegis]

6. Excuses, nothing more. n/t

[breakaleg]

8. How do you figure?

Israel is shooting at them and they are shooting back. One side is no more right or wrong than the other.

Just because Israel is a nation? Palestinians are fighting for a nation of their own, that Israel is preventing them from having.

[Behind the Aegis]

9. Fighting with what they have...

...does not excuse them keeping weapons in homes! As for Israel preventing them from having a nation, seems certain Palestinian elements are doing a bang up job in that department too! But, somehow, they seem to get a "free pass" from that responsibility from some here.

[breakaleg]

10. Where should they keep them? They are a resistance group fighting an

occupation. It's not like they have all of the same resources as the IDF. If they built a huge warehouse in the middle of town, wouldn't the IDF drop a bomb on the thing? Israel can do that because the Palestinians don't have the capability to bomb their warehouses.

You are ignoring the reality of the situation. Knowing Palestinians don't have the same resources as the IDF, you still expect them to fight the same way. Thus, making it easy for the IDF to pick them off. They would have to be idiots to do that.

[Behind the Aegis]

11. Just more excuses.

And when the Israelis drop a bomb on the house storing those arms, you and others whine about how evil and cruel the Israelis are for destroying houses. Because the Palestinians don't have the same resources, the Israelis should just give them a "free pass" to bomb Israeli cities and murder Israeli citizens? You are ignoring the reality of the situation, not I. You are expecting the Israelis to just "bend over and take it." This is exactly how the anti-Israeli propaganda works...hide weapons in homes, schools, mosques and when they are attacked or destroyed whine and complain about the Israelis attacking non-military targets. Have women and children, unarmed, come to the aid of armed and actively fighting militants, then wail and gnash your teeth when innocents, who placed themselves in harm's way, are killed! Then, the coup d'grace, complain that because it is not a level playing field, that anything the Israelis do in defense is nothing more than savagery comparable to the "understandable" use of terrorism by the Palestinians. :puke:

[breakaleg]

12. If there are women and children sleeping in that house when Israel

drops a bomb, yes I will "whine" as you put it.

Israel is the aggressor. Israel is the occupier. What exactly are they bending over and taking?

I wasn't complaining that is wasn't a level playing field. It seems you believe that they have no right to fight back.

[Behind the Aegis]

15. And yet more excuses...it just doesn't stop.

They are not responsible for anything are they? A simple yes or no will do.

"What exactly are they bending over and taking?" Are you fucking kidding me?!

"I wasn't complaining that is wasn't a level playing field. It seems you believe that they have no right to fight back."

Those are almost laughable, because you are, in fact, complaining that it is not a level playing field. And, NO WHERE did I say they didn't have the right to fight back. I said they don't have the right to use civilians as SHIELDS, which doesn't seem to be a problem in your line of thinking.

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ManiacJoe]

16. Idiots or not,

the Palestinian fighters are responsible for the deaths of the Palestinian non-combatants when they are used as human shields. The fighters know that their weapons will be targeted wherever they are stored. The fighters have the choice of storing them away from the non-combatants or among them. The fighters choose to knowingly and willingly put the non-combatants in harm's way by storing the weapons in the homes. The weapons then get destroyed as expected, and the Palestinians are upset that the human shields are dead even though the events happen exactly according to the Palestinian plan?!?! There is no excuse for the immoral act of using non-combatants as human shields.

[Phx_Dem]

7. Yes it's very illogical

but in order to reduce the mental conflict people often accept bizzare notions like these below:

"You know what? I bet they wouldn't have such a need for rockets if we quit destroying their country, killing their children and taking their land. However, I am old enough to know that we will never stop until Israel kills every Palestinian and claims Israel and Palestine as their own."

:eyes:

[NOLADEM]

13. In defense circles, mutually assured destruction/injury is a defensive posture

Having weapons that could kill them if they bomb you is a defensive weapon.

And WHAT THE HELL are our weapons filled with? Cotton candy and kisses? Some of our weapons we have fired in Iraq and elsewhere are PHOSPHOROUS weapons which incinerate the skin with a flash chemical burn, in violation of International Law.

How many of our weapons are defensive? Flares, sunbursts, patriot missile systems, missile defense shield. The VAST majority are offensive kill weapons.

If Russian tanks rolled down the streets of New York, those attacking the tanks would be freedom fighters and those hoarding the weapons would be similarly described. Israel is taking Palestinian land by force, and Palestinians are fighting back.

We don't like their methods, but who the fuck are we to say anything? We are among the worst war criminals in the world, using our forces for resource dominance and American Hegemony.

We don't allow the Palestinians to field an effective, armed army. We cut off their fresh water as a political tool. Israel retaliates in completely over the top ways whenever she is attacked, fully understanding that their response will illicit another from the Palestinians, further enabling Israel to 'justify' another disproportionate attack on civilian Palestinians, getting the Israelis closer to their goal of killing off the Palestinians and completely taking their land.


And as to your question about a logical disconnect - I am not the person calling myself a Democrat who is in favor of murderous, fascist behavior by a superpower's proxy against an aggrieved minority.

They have a good role model in America, which is part of why I think they have found such a willing partner in their quest. We killed off tens of thousands of Native Americans and banished their surviving ranks to isolated, poverty stricken reservations. Same thing going on with the Palestinian Ghettos. They have found a kindred spirit in their quest to 'settle their' land.

Many hawkish Israeli's have a sense of entitlement from the Holocaust, that they can do and act in any way they choose to 'protect their country' to prevent another such tragedy from befalling their people. This sense of entitlement will one day come back to haunt them. America will not always be able to protect her, and she is MIGHTILY outnumbered. She will one day be overrun if she does not learn to play nice with her neighbors.

But, continue to hold onto that fantasy that somehow it is right to take their land because they fight back when you do, and that hurts your feelings and kills your soldiers.

Flame on.

[IntiRaymi]

24. Why are you digging up that tired old thesis?

Israel merits criticism. To criticise it is to provide israelis a service - a bit of awareness on the part of them will go a long way towards making life in Israel less miserable.
The question, of course, is whether honesty is actually a part of this discourse. No concept of humanism can prevail in the mind of someone that is irredeemably racist.

[Stockholm]

43. Don´t worry

Fatah will soon have brand spanking new M-16's!

Democracy on the way!

[Behind the Aegis]

5. hmmm....

...and here I thought it was Hamas that held the charter calling for the destruction of Israel. I was unaware that such a charter existed in the Israeli government.

[IntiRaymi]

25. Compare actions.

Avoid hypocrisy, and face the fate of palestinians in Gaza.
Who is destroying whom?

[Scurrilous]

3. World Tribune ??

According to the article:

"The Kassam missiles were said to have been stored in a room near a house that belonged to Khaled Mohammed Al Zaanin. The center said Al Zaanin's 17-year-old son, Mohammed, was killed when he and his brother entered the room used by insurgents and tampered with the weapons."


From this they get:

"Report: Insurgents stock missiles in their Gaza homes"



WorldTribune.com: Fit to Print?

<snip>

"The New Yorker: Fit to Print? - From their This Just In department, the New Yorker has an interesting tidbit about WorldTribune.com, a news source that's recently gained some noteriety on Drudge and Limbaugh's site and radio show respectively. Seems, though, that the site doesn't have very good credentials and is more of a 'hobby site.'

Limbaugh reportedly called it "a British newspaper" on one of his radio programs, using information from the site about supposed weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

From the article:
In fact, the World Tribune is not published in the United Kingdom, nor is it, to be precise, a newspaper. It is a Web site produced, more or less as a hobby, in Falls Church, Virginia, and is dedicated to the notion, as its mission statement explains, that “there is a market for news of the world and not just news of the weird.” (Nonetheless, the site includes a prominent feature, Cosmic Tribune, with an extraterrestrial focus, and it links to a Mafia journal called Gang Land News.) Its editor and publisher, Robert Morton, is an assistant managing editor at the Washington Times and a former “corporate editor” for News World Communications, the Times’ owner and the publishing arm of the Unification Church, led by the Reverend Sun Myung Moon. (Morton and his wife, Choon Boon, are themselves followers of the Reverend Moon.) Among the World Tribune’s other recent half-ignored scoops are that Al Qaeda claimed responsibility for last month’s blackout and that a North Korean defector stressed, during a meeting in July with White House officials, the need for a preëmptive military strike against Kim Jong Il.

Morton said last week via e-mail that he founded the site as an experiment, back in 1998, while serving as a media fellow at Stanford’s Hoover Institution, a conservative think tank. “I didn’t expect World Tribune.com to last for more than a few months,” Morton wrote, but now, despite having no dedicated staff (“Everyone involved with World Tribune.com has a day job”), the site receives more than a million page views per month. And, unlike the Washington Times, which has lost at least a billion dollars in its twenty-one-year existence, World Tribune.com, in concert with the subscription-driven weekly intelligence briefing Geostrategy-Direct.com (a partner site), has paid for itself."

http://www.mallasch.com/journalism/article.php?sid=680


The article further states that "The Palestinian Center for Human Rights said insurgents keep Kassam-class, short-range missiles in homes in the northern Gaza Strip."

PCHR report for the week in question:

Weekly Report: On Israeli Human Rights Violations in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (24 - 30 August 2006)

http://www.pchrgaza.org/files/W_report/English/2006/31-08-2006.htm

[oblivious]

19. You're right. Terribly dishonest headline.

I wasn't able to find this report on the website of the original source either:
http://www.pchrgaza.org/index.htm
http://www.pchrgaza.org/solidarity.htm

A few other sources of worldtribune.com:
The Drudge Report
WorldNetDaily
NewsMax.com

Classy!

[Scurrilous]

21. CosmicTribune

[Englander]

36. MarsTribune?

?click

[Tom Joad]

22. I did post something that actually came from PCHR. You can see it

herer
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x153104

[Englander]

53. More from PCHR

06 November 2006

IOF Kill a Palestinian Child and Injure 7 Others, including a Girl, in a Failed Extra-judicial Execution Attempt

In a new Israeli Occupation Forces (IOF) crime reflecting disregard for the lives of innocent civilians, a Palestinian child was killed and 6 others were injured, one seriously, in an Israeli air strike on the town of Jabalia in the north of the Gaza Strip. A teacher was seriously injured in the same strike. The victims were on their way to school when IOF fired a surface-to-surface towards the Jabalia Youth Club during the morning traffic of school children. The IOF rocket was fired after Palestinians fired rockets at Israel from the area in the pre-dawn hours. This crime is a continuation of the IOF aggression on the Gaza Strip, especially the northern part. Over the 6 days of this recent aggression, 45 Palestinians have been killed, including 27 unarmed civilians. Ten of these victims are children, and two are women. In addition, 184 Palestinians have been injured, including 50 children and 46 women.

PCHR's preliminary investigation into this incident indicates that at approximately 6:45 on Monday, 6 November 2006, IOF fired a surface-to-surface towards the Jabalia Youth Club near the intersection separating Jabalia and Beit Lahia. The rocket fell 15 meters away from a minibus at the intersection transporting children to the Andera Ghandi Kindergarten in Beit Lahia. The teacher Najwa Awad E'khlayyef (20) was sitting near the open rear door of the minibus waiting for children to board. She was seriously injured, and later transported to the ICU unit in Shifa Hospital for treatment. In addition, students from Ahmad Shoqeiri School were on their way to school in Beit Lahia. One of these students was instantly killed: Ramzi Merfiq El-Shrafi (16). Six other students were injured, one of them seriously. The kindergarten children also suffered shock from the explosion.

PCHR is extremely concerned over the serious IOF escalation, and:

- Condemns this crime, which is a continuum of IOF war crimes in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT) that reflect Israeli disregard for the lives of innocent civilians. These crimes are considered a form of reprisal and collective punishment that violate article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention;

- Points to the fact that IOF does not use proportionality and necessity in the use of force against Palestinian resistance activists in civilian neighborhoods, which causes casualties among the civilian population and destruction of their property.

- Calls upon the international community to immediately intervene to stop these crimes. The Centre reiterates the call to the High Contracting Parties of the Fourth Geneva Convention to fulfill their obligations and ensure that it is respected under all circumstances. The Centre reminds the High Contracting Parties of their obligation under article 146 of the convention to prosecute criminals suspected of perpetrating serious violations of the convention. It is noted that serious violations are considered war crimes in article 147 of the convention and the optional protocol additional to the convention.

http://www.pchrgaza.org/files/PressR/English/2006/123-2006.htm

[Englander]

58. From PCHR

Human Rights Violations in Occupied Palestinian Territory 2-8.Nov.

http://www.kibush.co.il/show_file.asp?num=17319

[Englander]

46. So, WorldTribune are lying?

Shocked, I tells ya.

But, at least the posting of this article means that PCHR are considered a credible source. Usually,
any sources that are Palestinian, or supportive of the rights of the Palestinian people, are
ridiculed, or labeled propagandists. It's good to see that PCHR are now considered credible,
unforunately the article that used PCHR as a source, was just making shit up.

[msmcghee]

14. This thread . . like all the others . .

. . carries on with monotonous assertions that the Israelis are brutal occupiers out to "kill every last Palestinian before they are finished". It becomes boring, inane and so predictable after a while.

Here's a suggestion for the many anti-Israeli posters who so dutifully post virtually any article that could possible show that Israel are the bad guys and the Palestinians innocently defending their homes and land from occupation.

Attacking others to take their land and resources - and killing enemies who attack you to defend your land and resources is what people have been doing since there were creatures we call human. Of course, Israel kills Palestinians and of course the reverse is true as well. They are at war.

Listing these events - these skirmishes in the war - as evidence that one side is right and the other wrong is nonsense. I have previously tried to bring the question of morality into the discussion in terms of offense and defense. I happen to believe (as most of the sane world believes) that it is immoral (and illegal) for one nation or group to attack another - in the sense of initiating hostilities. Disagreements should be handled through negotiation in some higher court - like the UN. Conversely, it is moral (and legal) to use military force to stop another nation from attacking you - and preventing them from doing so in the future once they break that rule.

It is often difficult to sort these things out after they occur - as hostile attacking nations will usually do what they can to make it appear that they are defending themselves and were provoked. It isn't necessary for them to have proof - just to cloud the waters enough so that their ideological allies and apologists can make claims in some international venue.

This is the story of conflict in the world, certainly for the last fifty years or more - and the history of the I/P region for sure.

But, usually, with a little examining of the facts, it is possible to discern right from wrong - if one is actually interested in that.

If you want to show that the Palestinians are pure of heart and that Israel is the hostile aggressor (which is the underlying theme of almost every one of your posts) then show me objectively what Israel has done that reveals their desire to destroy those Arabs and others living in the occupied territories.

You could start with one of Pelsar's favorite topics which still, no-one has successfully answered - why, when Israel left the Gaza, lock, stock and barrel - did Hamas begin almost immediate firing of Kassams into Israel from northern Gaza (that continues to this day). Or use any other example that shows strategically that Israel wants to rid the OT of all non-Israelis so they can take it over - as you maintain.

I'd like to see a common sense, logical argument. You are obviously quite certain it is true. I therefore would hope you have some common sense, logical argument to support your conclusion - and not just more partisan rhetoric.

I am making the assumption that if this conflict is ever resolved it would have to be based on some determination of right and wrong according to some objective criteria. For example, if Israel's actual intentions are to take land from others and kill them (as many here maintain) so as to take that land as part of greater Israel, then I and many others in the world would agree that that would justify the occupiers of that land to resist however they can (if not for the world to isolate Israel financially and militarily). OTOH, if Israel's intention is to prevent the Arab residence of the West bank from firing missiles into Tel Aviv, then there would be obvious justification for Israel maintaining some military control of the West Bank - absence any effort by the UN to do it for them.

If you can't do that then you are simply acting as partisans in this war. You are simply defending your side - regardless of any questions of right and wrong that would be of interest to someone actually interested in world peace and some long term resolution to this agonizing and endless conflict.

That's OK - but you should drop the pretense that you have some standing to claim that Israel is wrong for defending the lives of her citizens from Palestinian attacks - and honestly admit that your intention is to defend all Palestinian hostile actions against Israel - no matter any questions of right or wrong.

Can anyone here provide such an argument based on evidence and reason?

[msmcghee]

17. I guess I should have expected that no-one here . .

. . would want to try to explain the reasoning behind their irrational beliefs that Israel is the aggressor in Gaza and the West Bank and the out-gunned Palestinian militias are bravely defending their people from Israel's attacks - resisting an unjust and brutal occupation.

You'd think with such strong anti-Israel beliefs and statements they'd be able to explain their reasoning in a few simple, irrefutable sentences that would make sense to an impartial observer.

I guess that's good that they can't - since some who follow these posts might have thought that with such strong anti-Israel beliefs and statements - there was some reason or logic behind their assertions.

Now, those who really care about justice and truth will know better.

[pelsar]

18. no...you will not get a rational argument...i never do.

what you will get is the "67 religion." Like all religions and their zealots, if ones questions the base belief, there is simply nothing to discuss, hence you will never get an answer. Question a fundamentalists belief in jesus, in the ownership of the westbank, in allah...and they simply have nothing to discuss with you. Same is true of the "67 religion"...its not a matter of logic and reason, its a matter of belief. The difference between the 67 religion and other fundamentalists is the admittance of its religious character. Fundamentalist jews, christians, muslims etc can look around and show how its "self evident" that their belief is the only truth, and its clear to us that it is no more than a belief that cant be questioned-because its a belief.

the "67 believers" have a problem. They claim their belief is based on "human rights, laws, evidence, etc....western culture and tools....but as you noticed and as i too have noticed, they cannot respond to the challenge of proving their belief, because in using western tools, it simply will not hold up.


For those knowledgeable in the history of the conflict, its obvious that the israel is not trying to make the Palestinian disappear, has left Palestinian population centers, geographic areas, returned to the 67 line at places, etc, all to no avail. The Palestinians and their friends and allies have continuously taught in various sytles that israel is not to be accepted" have used human shields in the beginning in various forms and have now sunk even lower by employing active human shields. To mention this is to cause great excitement that israel is shooting unarmed women, details such as their entry in an active combat zone to shield the shooters seem to be irrelevant. Something that is not accepted in the western world, within the western society. Western values in the western world demands not just logic and reason but also the idea that if one criticizes then one should provide alternative answers as well....that we never get from the "67 fundamentalist" because such suggestions will in fact will conflict with other beliefs of the "67 crowd"

and example are the kassams:
the "67 crowd" may mention the kassams are bad, but wont go beyond that, Since they are trying to kill israelis living within the 67 lines. One would think this is a problem for them...as are the Hizballa (for the same reason). But not a serious one. For fundamentalists any problem area has a ready made answer: "its gods will". For our 67 fundamentalist we have something else...only i dont know what it is. Every time I ask I never get an answer. I'm assuming because i've touched upon the base belief and either one believes or one doesnt, but to discuss it, is no more than blasphemy.

but thats how it is with all fundamentalists..be they on the right or left

[msmcghee]

20. That's what is sad about this.

My purpose is not to embarrass anyone about their strong beliefs - which to me are the general case of the religious-like beliefs you describe. We all guide our lives and behavior decisions by our beliefs. Beliefs are not what we say to others - they are what exists inside us emotionally. We have no choice but to be true to the emotional essence of the strong beliefs we all hold.

The words we use to describe and defend those beliefs socially are second-hand artifacts. They are not the beliefs themselves which only exist in emotional form inside us. It is those emotional beliefs that we are designed to defend at all costs. It is those emotional beliefs that cause wars and suffering - when those who hold them are not willing to examine them objectively. That can be a painful process but it is the cost we must pay for a peaceful world - if we value that.

Also, we use them (the words) for purposes other than defense and description. For example, we use them to gain social acceptance from those whose approval we value. In argument we disguise them as reason and use them to justify our strong emotional beliefs to ourselves and others. Some of us are pretty good at that.

The essential strong beliefs on display in I/P are perhaps:

a) that Israel is virtuous and moral, defending their lives and land and conversely that the Palestinians are corrupt, have illicit intentions and are acting deceitfully

b) that the Palestinians are moral and virtuous, defending their lives and land and Israel is corrupt, has illicit intentions and is acting deceitfully

These each may seem simplistic and totally one-sided, allowing for no grey areas - but strong emotional beliefs are seldom logically clear or coherent - and no words can ever describe the reality of the emotional beliefs that exist inside us, anyway. Emotions are not really capable of nuance - but it is the emotions that we must follow.

That's one of the main reasons why there has always been so much war and death and suffering in the world. But, humanity has also become slowly more enlightened - and where that has happened - there is greater happiness and less death and suffering. IMO enlightenment can be described as the use of reason and objectivity to overcome the strong emotions that exist in us and tend to rule our lives. It is the emotional commitment to objectivity in our beliefs.

The purpose of my sub thread post was to attempt to get those here who value (have an emotional commitment to) objectivity in their beliefs to examine the actual objective reality of those beliefs - and to state my own readiness to do the same. I admit that some part of my beliefs in this area is emotional rather than objective and I'm willing to try to separate that from my assertions. It would be truly sad if no-one here is willing to expose their strong beliefs about I/P to such scrutiny. It would pretty much be an admittance that there is no rational basis for those beliefs.

But, if anyone wants to engage (hopefully pelsar, PhxDem, BtA and others would help me out) we need to proceed without emotional words or sarcasm or accusations on either side. Using logic and reason to explore one's beliefs is very difficult as they are like oil and water - but emotionality in our statements is sure to destroy any possibility of success.

I'll start by describing my own emotional distaste for bullies who always use physical force and intimidation to get their way in the world - whether on the playground or on the land of the ME . Also, that from studying the history of I/P - I almost always see Arabs in the role of the bully - and Israel almost always preferring some peaceful, negotiated solution. I see Israel's current measured military responses as the reluctant result of their disillusionment with repeated attempts for over sixty years to settle differences with her Arab neighbors peacefully. Perhaps, it is my strong emotional beliefs and not my objectivity that causes this perception. Show me where I am wrong.

Anyone game?

[pelsar]

32. to seperate the emotion from the objective.....

i admit that its difficult but not impossible.....the first step is simply the recognition of the two aspects existing side by side in "different percentages". Whereas i have a very difficult problem in even trusting the palestenains, and i really cant say how much of that is emotional or objective, my rational western side tells me that to make peace you have to get over it and try....and so i am willing, which is why i was for the gaza pullout, why i was for pulling back out of lebanon......Logic, a look at the palestenain society, its short history led most of us to believe that the gaza pullout would probably result in more missles on israel (and a failed society), and emotionally it was difficult to digest (admiting that we are wrong)...but here western thought prevailed which said: give them the chance they never had before, maybe they'll surprise us and make something positive out of it. Maybe all of those screaming that "its the settlements/67 border may be right"......so as much as it hurt, we pulled out.....


as far as the I/P conflict here at the DU, i would suggest that my experience here will show that the anti-israeli/pro palestenain crowd will not join in with some constructive or introspective comments....theirs is an emotion charged viewpoint, not one born out of western logic, actual facts and rational thought. Which is why such words are raped to make them fit their viewpoint: colonialism, ghetto, holocaust, massacres, apartheid, etc

[Phx_Dem]

33. As it relates to the I/P situation

I have a very strong negative opinion about the notion of splitting up J-lem as part of a negotiated settlement between the Israelis and Palestinians. Now don't assume that I think that only Israelis should live in J-lem, I think the diversity there is a good thing, but I cannot ever see J-lem as a shared capitol, however, I have recognized that much of my opinion is emotionally based and not particularly rational.

I imagine that my opinion is shared by a lot of Israelis and jews, and wonder if using this as a bargaining "chip" by the Pal leadership is not intended as a deal-breaker for any comprehensive agreement.

[msmcghee]

34. An interesting view. Thanks for sharing it.

Since I am neither Jewish nor an Israeli I don't have many deep emotional feelings about Jerusalem. I am interested in what others, especially Jews, Israelis, and Palestinians think about the resolution of that question.

You said, "I imagine that my opinion is shared by a lot of Israelis and jews, and wonder if using this as a bargaining "chip" by the Pal leadership is not intended as a deal-breaker for any comprehensive agreement."

Do you mean that if the PA leadership ever ends up with a peace offer "that they can't refuse" in the eyes of the world - that they'd then demand to have control of Jerusalem as part of that offer which is of course, a deal breaker?

If that's what you mean, I'd say that right now there really is no PA leadership. Instead, there are centers of political influence that are struggling to establish their control - amid the chaos of one group or the other attacking Israel and inviting retaliation. (Note that this is my second-hand impression. I'm sure pelsar could provide a better description of the reality there.)

If someone like Arafat were still in power I could see the sense in that strategy - from the PA pov. As it is, I think the actors in the OT are now more concerned with having a population that is even governable in some sense - and their own influence over that population - than they are in thwarting some possible future peace offering from Israel (or more likely some third party).

Maybe the best thing to happen would be for Gaza to self-destruct. Many Arabs would probably die at Arab hands - but perhaps some cohesive state apparatus would arise from the ruins - some leader who could gain the allegiance of a workable majority. Perhaps only some catastrophe like that would be a sufficient catalyst to cause the Palestinians to see their fantasy of victory over Israel for the self-destructive mirage that it is - and actually become open to some form of peaceful coexistence.

I'll admit I have trouble clearly seeing the reality of the day-to-day situation on the ground in Gaza. It seems so unreal from the news reports I read. But I learn a lot here from people like pelsar. Perhaps he could add his views on this.

[Phx_Dem]

35. Your interpretation of my stmt is correct

In the recent past both Meshal and Haniya have talked about a Palestinian capital in J-lem, I don't know how serious they are about this idea but it seems as though it's part of an attempt to re-set the negotiations outside of the current context of the roadmap etc, or derail them altogether.

I agree that there is no one right now for Israel to negotiate with, but with a far more active US role (and maybe Egypt and Jordan) perhaps progress can be made.

The current situation in Gaza is horrible, I don't know what Israel can do on it's own to improve the situation. To me it's seems like a simple request on Israels part to have Hamas recognize the right for Israel to exist, but as we have seen, the Pal leadership would rather try to deal with the consequences of underfunding the gov. than accepting Israels place in the ME.

[pelsar]

39. Jerusalem divided....

I see jerusalem as an historical city to the area with all kinds of old stuff that has all kinds of meanings to all kinds of people all over the world. That means that whoever is in charge has a lot to take care of.

I really have no real emotional attachment to Jersualem that it HAS to be israeli, but i am a bit of an fanatic when it comes to civil rights. Meaning whatever the meaning of the rocks, everyone should have access to not just their own little holy corner but others as well (religious toursim?).

In that light the arabs have an absymal record....whereas the israelis have a far better one in protecting the various sites.

Intl city?..i'm not really sure what that means, the arabs in E.Jerusalem by virtue of the pressue to get israeli IDs (they dont have to) have made it clear they prefer israeli rule (there was rush on israeli IDs during oslo).

are they any cities that have "intl rule"....i wonder, who is incharge of picking up the garbage? the UN?

and gaza?
they have to rid themselves of their fantasy of "wiping israel off the map"...how they will get there, i suspect is an internal intifada. Intifada I was spontanous (i believe it was a car accident that sparked it). sort of "enough is enough" and have them march on their govt en mass, but it has to cross their own internal tribal lines, and to do that, they really have to have "had enough".

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[IntiRaymi]

26. Colonialist past is not a moral past.

The rest are just words.

[Lurking Dem]

30. And Islamic colonialism?

[Englander]

37. Lol!1!

*rofl*

[Lurking Dem]

40. ~

Okay. Tell me how, historically, Islam spread?

[Englander]

45. Like, Lol!1!

But thanks for replying to one of my posts, for the first time ever, I think.

Any thoughts on WorldTribune, or the colonialism that's actually occuring in this century? Y'know,
those settlements in the West Bank?

[Lurking Dem]

47. He was talking about the past.

So that was what I addressed.

I don't consider what is going on currently to be "colonialism" but the settlements should be dismantled.

[Englander]

51. Really?

I don't consider what is going on currently to be "colonialism" but the settlements should be dismantled.

You can't seriously expect me to actually believe that. I'm sure I saw you describe the 'disengagement' from Gaza as ethnic cleansing, in July, I think it was.

{searches archives}

Yeah, you did.

'Lurking Dem (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Fri Jul-14-06 09:49 PM
Response to Reply #37
45. Do try and keep up.

Israel, in a bid for peace and as the primary platform of the Kadima Party, left Gaza a year ago.

Ethnically cleansed Gaza of Jews.

Pulled up stakes.

Left.

There was no occupation in Gaza.'

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=2389020#2389796

[Lurking Dem]

54. You so totally missed the point of that post.

[Englander]

55. No, I bet I didn't.

I'd say the intention was to abuse language, in a vaguely patronising manner, in keeping with the
other posts there, that rewrote history, fabricated fantastical fantasies, & otherwise catapaulted
the propaganda. I didn't say you believed there was ethnic cleansing, I said you described what
happened as ethnic cleansing, there's a difference in the two statements. I don't believe that you
think what happened was ethnic cleansing, neither do I believe the statement that 'the settlements
should be dismantled'.

[Lurking Dem]

56. So why should I talk to you?

If you aren't going to believe anything I say there is truly no point.

Bye.

[Englander]

57. Is that a promise?

Is that something I can believe, that you're really not going to 'talk to me'?

[Englander]

52. Here's an article that spells it out.

'Is There a Solution?
By Anthony Lewis


In the days after the 1967 war, when Israel was celebrating its great victory, an Israeli I know warned that triumph could lead to disaster. Capture of the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip, he said, would tempt Israel to settle those territories. That would mean colonialism, with all its arrogance and inhumanity. It would undermine the character of Israel.

And it came to pass. The settlement process, carried on for more than three decades, has been sustained by colonial methods: suppressing the local population, seizing land, giving settlers superior legal status. The consequences have been as my Israeli friend foresaw, corrupting. Now the attempt to extend Israel's dominion threatens its hard-won asset of international legitimacy.

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/15280

[msmcghee]

31. Let's get the terms right.

Colonialism is when a more advanced state moves in and with military force and intimidation takes over a less advanced, indigenous state with little or no ability to defend itself, usually in order to control their resources.

Israel was formed as the result of negotiations and diplomacy - not force of arms. This was the first resolution of the newly formed United Nations. Opposite to your assertion, the creation of the state of Israel was the modern world's first major attempt to end colonialism and replace it with reason and law.

The pre-partition Jews in Israel were not an advanced state compared to the Arabs there. They were a minority and had no great wealth or resources other than the farms and kibbutz they had created with their own sweat and labor. They were also not an outside state moving in - they were indigenous to the region although many had recently emigrated there - just as many Arabs had also recently emigrated there.

They were not after the Arab resources either since neither the Israelis nor the Arabs had any to speak of. They only wanted to create a state for their people (in a territory that no-one in the world recognized then as a state) and where Jews had lived contiguously for thousands of years.

In an attempt to resolve a difficult problem as fairly as possible the UN partition plan proposed that two states be created in the "Palestine Territory". The act of partition would have given the Arabs a similar tract of land alongside Israel.

Again, Israel was and is not a colonial state. Israel was created through an act of international law and diplomacy.

The Arab League attempted to use military force to destroy Israel almost immediately after it was created - and almost succeeded. But even that was not an act of colonialism. It would be better described as an act of ethnic cleansing or perhaps attempted genocide - as many Arab leaders described it at the time. The Arab League also refused to allow the creation of the state of Palestine as that would have acceded to the UN partition plan that created Israel.

If we're going to discuss this let's drop the emotional sloganeering and deal with the actual facts.

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[IntiRaymi]

42. Rebutting you is fun!

The Balfour Declaration of 1917

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balfour_Declaration,_1917

(I love Wikipedia, the world at my fingertips)

"The Balfour Declaration of 1917 was made in a letter dated November 2, 1917 from the British Foreign Secretary Arthur James Balfour to Lord Rothschild (Walter Rothschild, 2nd Baron Rothschild), a leader of the British Jewish community, for transmission to the Zionist Federation, a private Zionist organization, on the partitioning of the Ottoman Empire in the aftermath of the World War I. The letter stated the position, agreed at a British Cabinet meeting on October 31, 1917, that the British government supported Zionist plans for a Jewish "national home" in Palestine, with the condition that nothing should be done which might prejudice the rights of existing communities there."

Q. Why did the british abrogate this power for themselves?
A. COLONIALISM.

Ever hear of Arthur Koestler? He has a pretty cool quote:
"one nation solemnly promised to a second nation the country of a third."

....

"..Israel was created through an act of international law and diplomacy."

And, anyways, hasn't the U.N. always been a circus? What happened to Resolution 242?

[Phx_Dem]

49. Your missing the point

The colonialism in the ME was the result of G. Britain's and others involvement. The early zionists had nothing to do with what England did or didn't do.


"In his November, 2002 interview with the New Statesman magazine, the UK Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, has blamed Britain's imperial past for many of the modern political problems, including the Arab-Israeli conflict. <2>

"The Balfour declaration and the contradictory assurances which were being given to Palestinians in private at the same time as they were being given to the Israelis—again, an interesting history for us, but not an honourable one," he said."

[IntiRaymi]

50. I don't think I am missing the point.

The influence that the early Zionists, and by that I mean specifically Rothschild, has instrumental in setting British policy later on.
Or, to go to a related context - there are good historical reasons for what the Amabassador to Australia said in that flap - Israel & Australia are outposts who owe their existence to acts of British colonial influence.

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

48. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Tom Joad]

28. Not only is this a lie, it is an old lie.

The report it cites is from August, more than 2 months ago. Of course, since the report was just rewritten to fit the editorial extreme rightist slant of WorldTribune, i suppose one can debate it is a new lie about an old report.
Of course, it attributes things to this report that is not actually in it.

What next? Why not from World Weekly News... as much credibility as the World Tribune...

Cash-Strapped NASA Readies Space Needle For Launch
Big Foot Tracks Indicate Salsa Lessons!

Here's the best one:

Labor Activists Protest Outsourcing to Planet with 40-Hour Day, 940-Day Year.
Thought that would go under Labor forum, i think.
http://www.weeklyworldnews.com/

[Tom Joad]

29. ...

[Englander]

38. A couple of links about PCHR;

Why would anyone want to fabricate claims about this ngo, or catapault propaganda about this ngo?

Robert F. Kennedy Memorial;

Award Winning Palestinian human rights advocate blocked from visiting Washington, DC by the US Administration
RFK Memorial calls on members of the media and human rights community to ask State Department officials how this could happen

Washington, DC - 1991 Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights Award winner, Palestinian human rights lawyer Raji Sourani, has been stuck in Gaza despite plans to meet numerous U.S. officials from March 24th -30th. The United States Department of State has not granted Sourani a travel visa to the US though he has confirmed meetings with high-ranking officials at the Department of State, the National Security Council, an advisor to President Bush, The International Republican Institute, and The Heritage Foundation. In a letter addressed to Sourani, the U.S. Consulate in Jerusalem required him “to obtain an Israeli police certificate” before his application could move further.

“International law is not a potluck dinner, the U.S. can’t simply pick and choose when to apply it and when to ignore it,” said Todd Howland, Director of the Robert F. Kennedy Memorial Center for Human Rights whose organization was facilitating Sourani’s visit. Howland went on to say, “on one hand the US government asks a Palestinian wanting to visit the U.S. to obtain a police certificate from Israel, a country that international law holds is illegally occupying its territory. On the other hand, the U.S. government does not address the fact that Israel has obligations, regardless of the legitimacy of the occupation, to the health and welfare of those living in Gaza based on the Fourth Geneva Convention - obligations its present closure of the border crossings contradict.”

UN Security Council Resolution 242 (S/RES/242), unanimously adopted on 22 November 1967 by all members of the Security Council, including the US, called for the “withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict.” “Forcing a Palestinian to obtain a police clearance from an occupier who was instructed to withdraw over 35 years ago is absurd,” added Howland.

http://www.rfkmemorial.org/legacyinaction/1991_Raji_visa/

________________

International Commission of Jurists;

Mr. Raji Sourani was elected to the Commission in April 2003 and to ICJ's Executive Committee in April 2006. His involvement with the ICJ dates back to 1996, when he became the Director of the Palestinian Center for Human Rights, an ICJ affiliated organisation.

He was the Director of the Gaza Centre for Rights and Law from 1991 to 1995. Prior to this, he established his own law firm in 1983 to defend Palestinians in Israeli Military Courts and in the course of his work was arrested both by the Israeli and Palestinian authorities numerous times. In 1988 he was an Amnesty International Prisoner of Conscience.

Mr. Sourani is an International Board Member of the International Federation of Human Rights and an Expert Member of the International Council of the International Human Rights Law Group.

Mr. Sourani has received numerous awards for his work, including the Bruno Kreisky Prize for Human Rights in 2002, a Human Rights Prize awarded by the Republic of France in 1996 and a joint laureate of the Robert F. Kennedy Memorial for Human Rights Award in 1991.

Mr. Sourani studied law at Beirut and Alexandria Universities.

http://www.icj.org/article.php3?id_article=2858&id_rubrique=13&lang=en

[Englander]

59. PCHR weekly report.

Weekly Report: On Israeli Human Rights Violations in the Occupied Palestinian Territory
http://www.pchrgaza.ps/files/W_report/English/2006/16-11-2006.htm