Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

[P]
Operation Protective Wall

By Delirium in News
Tue Apr 02, 2002 at 09:47:49 PM EST
Tags: Freedom (all tags)
Freedom

If you read or watch any news, you know that in response to a Passover suicide bombing that killed 19, Israel launched "Operation Protective Wall," an invasion of most of the West Bank. I try as best I can to piece together the events of the past few days, mostly in the form of links to various news reports.


Dates may be slightly inaccurate due to time zone differences of the various news sources I'm pulling things from. The news media also keep changing around their URLs so some links may unfortunately point to newer articles on different topics, though I've tried to avoid that.

March 29

Israel invades Ramallah and attacks Arafat's headquarters compound (pictures, map), destroying all of it except the one office building in which Arafat remains holed up with advisors and bodyguards. From there the situation reaches a stalemate, as the U.S. extracts a promise that Arafat won't be harmed, but he remains "under complete siege". The UN Security Council adopts a resolution (14-0, Syria abstaining) calling for Israel to withdraw from the West Bank, including Ramallah. The European Union strongly condemns the operation. An eyewitness report from a Palestinian inside his home in Ramallah.

March 30

A defiant Arafat holds a candlelight news conference and asks the world to halt the Israeli attack. In response Israel closes Ramallah to reporters and says it will expel reporters found in Ramallah from the country. An Associated Press update says Israel demands all males between the age of 14 and 40 report to detention camps; more than 500 are blindfolded and have their hands tied behind their backs; the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) chases away journalists who arrive on the scene. A proposal by Sharon to expel Arafat from the West Bank is rejected by the Israeli cabinet. Another eyewitness report from a Palestinian inside his home in Ramallah.

March 31

A group of 40-50 European and Israeli civilian activists waving white flags run past IDF lines and enter Arafat's compound; a CNN reporter tags along. Several are arrested on their way out (not including the CNN reporter), while about 30 remain inside the building as a human shield for Arafat. Sharon addresses Israel (transcript). Another Palestinian suicide bomber kills at least 13 in Haifa. 25,000 lack water in Ramallah.

April 1

Israel considers exiling Arafat; U.S. Secretary of State Powell rejects the idea. Israel expands operations in Ramallah, shelling the Medical Relief Committee's headquarters. Also invades Bethlehem (photographs). A group of unarmed European and Israeli protestors in Bethlehem accompanied by a BBC camera crew is fired on by the IDF along with the camera crew; six are injured, one seriously (BBC footage, Indymedia Italy footage; downloadable mirrors for Indymedia footage: 1 2). IDF says it is hunting for Marwan Barghouti. Israeli Defense Minister Ben-Eliezer says a wider regional war is possible. Israel begins attacking Palestinian security chief Rajoub's headquarters outside Ramallah; 350-400 civilians are reported to be inside.

April 2

U.S. exerts behind-the-scenes pressure to force a cease-fire at Rajoub's complex so the civilians can escape. Not a whole lot of additional information; some CNN reporting here. Consuls from 14 EU states attempt to bring food, water, and medical supplies to besieged European citizens in Ramallah, but are denied entry. Israel invades Jenin. Heavy gunbattles in Ramallah; the IDF has shot and hit several press vehicles, and is tightening its prohibition on journalists.

Please post links to breaking news as you find them.

Sponsors

Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure

Login

Related Links
o Passover suicide bombing
o pictures
o map
o remains holed up
o promise
o "under complete siege"
o resolution
o strongly condemns
o An eyewitness report
o candleligh t news conference
o Associated Press update
o Another eyewitness report
o tags along
o arrested
o transcript
o kills at least 13
o 25,000 lack water in Ramallah
o considers
o exiling
o rejects
o shelling
o invades Bethlehem
o photograph s
o BBC footage
o Indymedia Italy footage
o 1
o 2
o says
o wider regional war
o here
o denied entry
o Jenin
o Heavy gunbattles in Ramallah
o Also by Delirium


Display: Sort:
Operation Protective Wall | 738 comments (720 topical, 18 editorial, 1 hidden)
Discussion forum, not flame forum (-1) (2.60 / 10) (#3)
by E r i c on Tue Apr 02, 2002 at 08:18:08 PM EST

Since the whole Middle East conflict is practically one of religious nature, I recommend against posting this. The only reason is because rather than discussion, I think it may tend to digress into blatant flames among folks of differing religions or nationalities.

Also, all of these accounts are incredibly biased based on the tilt of each particular news agency. I'm not sure of any accounts that can really be trusted that don't come with actual video.

Of course, I could be wrong. Do you folks think this will lead to interesting discussion?

I blame my past transgressions on Eminem's music. Reform number five is currently in progress.
Special Situation (4.00 / 2) (#6)
by CheSera on Tue Apr 02, 2002 at 08:23:36 PM EST

Although if this was posted 6 months ago, I'd agree with you, here I have to oppose. The situation in the middle east is rapidly disolving into chaos, and I think we need to discuss it. I personally want to. I have mixed feelings about this, and would welcome the opportunity to rationally debate it.


============
**TATDOMAW**
============

[ Parent ]
See comment above (1.00 / 1) (#23)
by rusty on Tue Apr 02, 2002 at 08:47:45 PM EST

This comment bears on that somewhat. I don't think another debate, rational or not (and chances are it wouldn't be) would be worth anyone's time. What will be valuable is if we keep the comments here on-topic, which is "developing events in Israel's New War," rather than let it collapse again into an open-ended flamewar about the whole long history of the conflict. I hope it works. It would be a valuable resource for me, at least.

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]
a more comprehensive discussion (4.66 / 3) (#31)
by Delirium on Tue Apr 02, 2002 at 08:55:54 PM EST

Is still active here, for those who don't want to limit themselves to just reporting.

[ Parent ]
We can still argue and flame each other (3.50 / 2) (#34)
by theboz on Tue Apr 02, 2002 at 08:58:54 PM EST

We just have to complain about the quality of the various news sources rather than the sides of the conflict.

Stuff.
[ Parent ]

Well (5.00 / 4) (#9)
by Delirium on Tue Apr 02, 2002 at 08:26:03 PM EST

I wasn't going to, but rusty recommended I do so, and it sounded like a good idea to me. I watch and read a lot of news, and it's incredibly difficult to actually piece together what's happening, even more so with a press ban on the areas in question, so I thought it would be valuable to try to piece together as much news as possible.

I do realize everything is biased, but that's why I included several different sources. Between them you get the CNN view (standard "American" bias, moderately pro-Israel), the BBC view (almost neutral, sometimes moderately anti-Israel), the Ha'aretz view (Israeli centrist view), the viewpoints of several non-militant Palestinian civilians (obviously pro-Palestinian), and the Associated Press/Reuters views (mostly dry factual information). I tried to avoid extremely biased views (the Israeli right and the Palestinian militants, for example), but it's of course impossible to really find an entirely nonbiased source.

[ Parent ]

As long as the biases cancel each other out... (none / 0) (#12)
by leviramsey on Tue Apr 02, 2002 at 08:29:54 PM EST

...I think it's good. The important thing is to read the different accounts. I read the NY Times (liberal broadsheet) and the NY Post (conservative tabloid) regularly (along with publications further out on the spectrum). I think the truth lies somewhere in between.



[ Parent ]
NYT? liberal?! Ha. [nt] (2.33 / 3) (#69)
by infinitera on Tue Apr 02, 2002 at 10:12:59 PM EST



[ Parent ]
What (3.00 / 2) (#72)
by wiredog on Tue Apr 02, 2002 at 10:15:00 PM EST

you think it's right wing?

Peoples Front To Reunite Gondwanaland: "Stop the Laurasian Separatist Movement!"
[ Parent ]
not at all (4.66 / 3) (#79)
by infinitera on Tue Apr 02, 2002 at 10:20:37 PM EST

It's not right wing, it's neoliberal. There is a distinction between liberal and neoliberal. (If you do click on the link, don't be put off by the Chosmky quote at the start, as many reactionaries are - this is a very well written essay, even according to my right-wing friends)

[ Parent ]
That article, frankly, sucks (none / 0) (#518)
by Stickerboy on Thu Apr 04, 2002 at 09:19:18 AM EST

It's op-ed passing itself off as facts. It declares every American politician to be right-wing, and then says, "Look at the 'liberal' track records! They're all right-wing!" and then declines to actually go into any specific group of politicians or set of track records that might actually prove its point. Nor does it define what it considers to be a "liberal agenda" or how we, the voting public, could examine any given politician who claims to be left-wing and see if he truly is or isn't a liberal. Not that the article truly wants us to think for ourselves; it seems content to dictate to us its version of the realities of American politics and claim any other interpretation is wrong, as it clearly must be sponsored by corporatist, elitist propaganda.

The Atlantic Monthly wrote an excellent article a few months back about the shifting currents of American politics, and how it takes both liberal/progressives and conservative/protectionists working with and against each other to give the American public what it wants. This diatribe by a disgruntled author couldn't hold a candle to it.

[ Parent ]
It could be (none / 0) (#545)
by Ken Pompadour on Thu Apr 04, 2002 at 12:34:17 PM EST

That the author of that article isn't American. America is one of the few Western countries who's politics, left and right, would be off the charts to the right in any other country.

...The target is countrymen, friends and family... they have to die too. - candid trhurler
[ Parent ]
i'm pretty sure.. (none / 0) (#547)
by infinitera on Thu Apr 04, 2002 at 12:48:39 PM EST

that the article leaves it an exercise to the reader. That is the whole point. Thinking is good, mmmkay? Votings records and donation records are a great starting point. I find that the first thing that surprises people is how cheap politicians are - you can buy the right to pollute for under half a mil, and federal subsidies for just a wee bit more.

-Dan

[ Parent ]
Religious Nature? No! (5.00 / 2) (#311)
by headphone on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 02:03:42 PM EST

This is not about Jews versus Muslims. Although it seems like that and the Israelis try their hardest to make it seem like that so they can get more sympathy for their cause to eliminate the Arabs from Occupied territories.

The Church of Nativity is not a Muslim mosque. Bethlehem is not a Muslim city. There are many cities in the west bank that are Christian cities and many of the Palestinian fihgters are Christian. I can think of at least one of their leaders that is not Muslim, Hanan Ashrawi.

The Israelis basically go easy on the Christian population of the Occupied Territories when the world is watching to make it seem like this is Jews versus Muslims issue.

[ Parent ]
the bunny cabal tie-in (1.06 / 31) (#7)
by Cal Bunny on Tue Apr 02, 2002 at 08:23:50 PM EST

What the media refuses to admit is that the IDF has been bought off by the bunny cabal and that Arafat is being initially targeted because of disparaging comments made about the bunny race. The Bunny Liberation Front has proclaimed a bunnifada against the PLO for this.

^cb^
HEY! (2.00 / 6) (#132)
by Baldrson on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 12:01:14 AM EST

Hey, I object! This is nothing to make fun of! This Mideast stuff is SERIOUS!!! I don't want any nukes going on in Ohio even though it is a few timezones away!!! Think of the history and tradition that could be vaporized -- like the place where the Wright Brothers built the first heavier than air craft in their bicycle shop!

-------- Empty the Cities --------


[ Parent ]

Incredible... (2.77 / 31) (#10)
by Ken Pompadour on Tue Apr 02, 2002 at 08:26:45 PM EST

I explained that I was American they said that they did not care what I was.

It's amazing more Americans don't end up dead in other countries because of their arrogance.



...The target is countrymen, friends and family... they have to die too. - candid trhurler
more amazing (1.41 / 12) (#77)
by Lenny on Tue Apr 02, 2002 at 10:19:18 PM EST

It is more amazing that the world's only superpower was born from uk outcasts. Eat your bland food and shut your jealous mouth.


"Hate the USA? Boycott everything American. Particularly its websites..."
-Me
[ Parent ]
Outcasts (2.50 / 2) (#267)
by katie on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 10:57:06 AM EST

They weren't really outcasts (they also weren't first. Not by a long chalk) - outcasts get chucked out by society. The pilgrim lot /opted/ to leave because purtian Britain was too religiously restrictive...

And there it is again: religion as a root cause of aggravation. What is it about religion as a meme that causes it to absolutely not be able to tolerate non-meme-possessers living on the same planet?

{ISTR the religiousness was Oliver Cromwell's fault, but I could be wrong on that.}


[ Parent ]
i disagree (2.00 / 1) (#423)
by Lenny on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 11:39:14 PM EST

because purtian Britain was too religiously restrictive... = outcasts.
Religion is not the cause of any aggrevation. Ignorance is. Religion is just the excuse/scapegoat/etc.

p.s. i know they weren't the first, but they were the ones who made the country what it is today.


"Hate the USA? Boycott everything American. Particularly its websites..."
-Me
[ Parent ]
What the hell are you quoting? (2.28 / 7) (#84)
by Demiurge on Tue Apr 02, 2002 at 10:23:27 PM EST

The voices in your head? How about some sources next time you break out in a tirade of ridiculous anti-Americanism?

[ Parent ]
Did you read the links? (3.00 / 2) (#100)
by Ken Pompadour on Tue Apr 02, 2002 at 10:53:19 PM EST

The indymedia link with the Palestinian's account of the Israeli armies actions.

...The target is countrymen, friends and family... they have to die too. - candid trhurler
[ Parent ]
Another indymedia link (none / 0) (#280)
by FredBloggs on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 12:35:19 PM EST

http://jerusalem.indymedia.org/

[ Parent ]
Seconding this (2.66 / 3) (#101)
by Hobbes2100 on Tue Apr 02, 2002 at 10:54:26 PM EST

Come on people.

There is a general implication that if you quote something (put it in italics) you are taking a portion of the immediately (or occassionally, a more distant) preceeding article/story/post in the thread and commenting on it.

I didn't see Ken's italic comment in the main story and I don't see any other reference, so I will second Demiurge's question. Are you quoting voices in your head, or what?

Regards,
Mark
Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes? --Iuvenalis
But who will guard the guardians themselves? -- Juvenal
[ Parent ]

Sucks to be you (1.25 / 4) (#307)
by Ken Pompadour on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 01:50:51 PM EST

Look down. I answered your question before you had a chance to spew your nonsense. Too quick on the trigger I guess, eh?

...The target is countrymen, friends and family... they have to die too. - candid trhurler
[ Parent ]
But... (4.33 / 3) (#197)
by uriyan on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 03:55:48 AM EST

The voices in your head? How about some sources next time you break out in a tirade of ridiculous anti-Americanism?

What are you talking about? The army issued instructions that noone except servicemen is supposed to be in Ramallah - no Israelis, no Palestinians and no Australians. Now the guy didn't say he was a journalist or an observer, he called himself an American because he thought being American grants him some extra rights - and that's arrogance.


gantse jahr fraylech... gantse jahr fraylech...


[ Parent ]
No... (5.00 / 3) (#212)
by Demiurge on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 05:08:18 AM EST

It's "I'm an American" as in "I'm not a Palestinian, what do you want with me?". He would have said the goddamn same thing if he was from Kazakhstan, just substitute Kazaskhstan with America.

Of course, this doesn't stop our resident xenophone from foaming at the mouth about how more Americans deserve to die.

[ Parent ]
arrogance? (3.33 / 3) (#157)
by Rahaan on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 01:45:49 AM EST

what does that have to do with arrogance?

I have no idea where the quote is from, but it sounds like it's more of a "I'm an American, therefore I'm not a Palestinian suicide bomber" type thing than "I'm American so that means you can't hurt me"


you know, jake.. i've noticed that, since the tacos started coming, the mail doesn't so much come as often, or even at all
[ Parent ]

Arrogance is in the eye of th ebeholder (1.00 / 1) (#658)
by aphrael on Fri Apr 05, 2002 at 01:24:49 PM EST

I have no idea where the quote is from, but it sounds like it's more of a "I'm an American, therefore I'm not a Palestinian suicide bomber" type thing than "I'm American so that means you can't hurt me"

This is a perception thing. I'm sure she meant it more as the former, but I can easily see where this type of comment, coming from a citizen of the country which loudly proclaims itself to be the most powerful and most important country in the world, would take it as meaning the second.

[ Parent ]

true (1.00 / 1) (#720)
by Rahaan on Sun Apr 07, 2002 at 12:19:08 AM EST

I would understand if the people searching her had considered it arrogant, but it didn't seem like they did.

Ken, on the other hand, has the ability to look at it in hindsight and realize what she meant - not take some flamebaity jab at America in general


you know, jake.. i've noticed that, since the tacos started coming, the mail doesn't so much come as often, or even at all
[ Parent ]

Bloody Easter (3.26 / 15) (#14)
by CheSera on Tue Apr 02, 2002 at 08:37:14 PM EST

I've long held mixed feelings towards the middle east conflict. Its difficult to support people who would send their own men and boys into civilan locations to blow themselves up. But its against my nature to support a powerful military government that imposes its control over a much weaker group of native inhabitants. That, and I seriously doubt the moral justification of taking the land away from the Palestinians.

I don't know if there can be peace in the middle east. There doesn't seem to be any room for negoation. Both sides want one thing. Land. Wars over land have historically bloody, and usually end with one side eliminated or under complete control of the other. The religious element adds an explosive fuel to the already devestating mix. The US has supported Isreal consistently, and I expect that it will continue to do so. However I cannot really believe that they consider the Isrealies to be blameless in the current situation. By going after Arafat they encourage the kind of irrational violent reaction that spurred their invasion.

They (the Isrealies) have a right to life. I can't support the Palestinian cause as long as it uses such brutal and horrific methods against its enemies. The end in this case cannot ever justify the means. But in the end, the Palestinian's were there first. We (the western world) put the Isrealies there. Does the horror they experienced at the hands of the Nazi's entitle them to the land that the Palestinian's lived on? I have no answers. Only questions. And fears.


============
**TATDOMAW**
============

not true (2.71 / 7) (#73)
by Lenny on Tue Apr 02, 2002 at 10:16:59 PM EST

the Palestinian's were there first.

The jews were there long before the palestinians. It was not an arbitrary piece of land that the jews chose to repolulate.


"Hate the USA? Boycott everything American. Particularly its websites..."
-Me
[ Parent ]
Man (4.00 / 2) (#75)
by wiredog on Tue Apr 02, 2002 at 10:18:03 PM EST

I hope you're wearing the asbestos underpants...

Peoples Front To Reunite Gondwanaland: "Stop the Laurasian Separatist Movement!"
[ Parent ]
it doesnt take much (1.83 / 6) (#81)
by Lenny on Tue Apr 02, 2002 at 10:21:39 PM EST

research to find out that historacally i am 100 percent correct in stating that the jews were there first. I thought it was pretty much an accepted fact in the scientific community.


"Hate the USA? Boycott everything American. Particularly its websites..."
-Me
[ Parent ]
Not disagreeing with you (3.66 / 3) (#85)
by wiredog on Tue Apr 02, 2002 at 10:26:23 PM EST

It's just that a statement like the above, however true, is going to attract massive flamage.

Peoples Front To Reunite Gondwanaland: "Stop the Laurasian Separatist Movement!"
[ Parent ]
Disgusting (4.00 / 6) (#98)
by ariux on Tue Apr 02, 2002 at 10:50:13 PM EST

Nothing kills the living, right here, right now - those who might otherwise go on to live whole and real lives - more quickly or effectively than careful, unbending attention to the needs and rights of those who are thousands of years dead.

[ Parent ]

dude, can I .sig that? (3.00 / 1) (#373)
by cyclopatra on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 06:14:41 PM EST

very well put!

Cyclopatra
All your .sigs are belong to us.
remove mypants to email
[ Parent ]

put this in your .sig (none / 0) (#448)
by Lenny on Thu Apr 04, 2002 at 01:06:17 AM EST

Bring your unbending attention to the battlefield. I'll bring modern explosives. Lets see who kills the living faster...you or me...


"Hate the USA? Boycott everything American. Particularly its websites..."
-Me
[ Parent ]
except for bombs and bullets (none / 0) (#441)
by Lenny on Thu Apr 04, 2002 at 12:56:23 AM EST


"Hate the USA? Boycott everything American. Particularly its websites..."
-Me
[ Parent ]
Ah, but... (none / 0) (#605)
by ariux on Thu Apr 04, 2002 at 10:03:26 PM EST

...such priorities are what place the finger on the trigger.

[ Parent ]

nice try (none / 0) (#642)
by Lenny on Fri Apr 05, 2002 at 08:49:49 AM EST

the priorities are much more recent. much like gang activity, each action is a reaction to the other side having inflicted a casualty.


"Hate the USA? Boycott everything American. Particularly its websites..."
-Me
[ Parent ]
Not 100% (4.12 / 8) (#106)
by physicsgod on Tue Apr 02, 2002 at 11:11:25 PM EST

Before the Jews were the Cannanites, who were forced out of their homes by an invading....jewish....army. Why does this sound so damn familiar?

--- "Those not wearing body armor are hereby advised to keep their arguments on-topic" Schlock Mercenary
[ Parent ]
Not first, not even second. (4.00 / 1) (#388)
by annenk38 on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 07:43:41 PM EST

Recent archaeological finds in the Dead Sea area include Neandertal remains that date back as far as 100000 years. The best evidence supported by ancient writing is biblical literature. Here's an excerpt from Deutoronomy 7:
7:1 When the Lord your God brings you to the land that you are going to occupy and forces out many nations before you--Hittites,1 Girgashites,2 Amorites,3 Canaanites,4 Perizzites,5 Hivites,6 and Jebusites,7 seven8 nations more numerous and powerful than you-- 7:2 and he9 delivers them over to you and you attack them, you must utterly annihilate them. Make no covenant with them nor show them compassion! 7:3 You must not intermarry with them. Do not give your daughters10 to their sons nor take their daughters for your sons, 7:4 for they will turn your sons away from me to worship other gods. Then the wrath of the Lord will erupt against you and he will soon destroy you. 7:5 Instead, this is what you must do to them: You must tear down their altars, shatter their sacred pillars,11 cut down their sacred Asherah poles,12 and burn up their images. 7:6 For you are a people holy to the Lord your God. He13 has chosen you to be a people prized14 above all others on the face of the earth.


And if my left hand causes me to stumble as well -- what do I cut it off with? -- Harry, Prince of Wales (The Blackadder)
[ Parent ]
yep (none / 0) (#420)
by Lenny on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 11:33:40 PM EST

that's what they believe. thats why they're there. thank you for making it so clear.


"Hate the USA? Boycott everything American. Particularly its websites..."
-Me
[ Parent ]
"They"? (none / 0) (#618)
by ariux on Fri Apr 05, 2002 at 02:06:59 AM EST

And just what do you mean by that?

[ Parent ]

And before the Jews (3.25 / 4) (#126)
by Delirium on Tue Apr 02, 2002 at 11:53:07 PM EST

Were the Canaanites. So we should give the land back to them, I suppose?

And before the Turks had Istanbul, the Greeks had Constantinople, and you don't see anyone giving it back to them either...

[ Parent ]

Tell you what I see (4.50 / 6) (#128)
by ariux on Tue Apr 02, 2002 at 11:57:45 PM EST

People remembering their pasts, and forgetting their futures.

[ Parent ]

Give it to the Canaanites (3.20 / 5) (#171)
by stevefuzzy on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 02:36:59 AM EST

Good valid argument about the Canaanites. Give it to them; they have 1st right to the land. One problem: there ARENT any Canaanites around, are there? But there are lots of Jews. And there is PROOF that this was their land, isn't there? Coins, art, etc. Can you produce any equivalent ancient Palestinian/Arab proof?

How many Christian countries are in the world?
How many Moslem ones?
How many Jewish ones?
This is the ONLY country the Jews want, and it used to be theirs.
The Palestinians are a fictitious ethnic group, and have no legitimate claim to the land. Let them live in one of the many other Arab countries, if they do not want to live under Israeli rule.

[ Parent ]
One problem (3.00 / 6) (#184)
by marx on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 03:02:48 AM EST

But there are lots of Jews. And there is PROOF that this was their land, isn't there?

How do you test if someone is really a Jew?

You can look at skin color, and if someone has black, yellow or red skin, then they're obviously not Jews, and have no right to live in Israel. To be more accurate is more problematic though. I know some methods were being developed in Germany some decades ago, but for some reason they never caught on in the rest of the world.

Join me in the War on Torture: help eradicate torture from the world by holding torturers accountable.
[ Parent ]

Really? (4.00 / 2) (#285)
by daelstorm on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 12:44:49 PM EST

I'd suppose Ethiopian Jews and Chinese Jews might have a problem with that. Judaism is a religion, not an ethnic group. The hundreds of thousands of non-violent christians, druze, muslims and secular groups are not allowed to live in Israel, hmmm? I live in an Arab city in "Israel." The people here are mainly sane and don't kill others at the drop of a hat. Many consider the violent, suicidal militants to be insane and fighting a useless war for no purpose.

[ Parent ]
Misunderstanding (3.00 / 4) (#292)
by marx on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 01:17:36 PM EST

Judaism is a religion, not an ethnic group.

You and I might think that, but the anti-Palestinians don't. Their argument is that Jews lived in Israel (and surrounding territories) thousands of years ago, and thus have a right to that land. I was only pointing out the problem of determining who the descendants of those people are, and the consequences of following that argument.

Join me in the War on Torture: help eradicate torture from the world by holding torturers accountable.
[ Parent ]

Marx-- (none / 0) (#623)
by ariux on Fri Apr 05, 2002 at 03:00:02 AM EST

How many Jews have you met? Also, how many right-wing fliers do you read?

[ Parent ]

claim to the land (3.85 / 7) (#188)
by Delirium on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 03:12:09 AM EST

The Palestinians have a valid claim to the land, because they currently live there. They had a valid claim to all of British Palestine in 1920 because they currently lived there. For a bunch of Europeans to come in saying that they used to live here 3000 years ago so that gives them the right to drive out its current residents strikes me as a bit immoral.

Note that many current Jews aren't even descended from the ancient inhabitants of the region; I can convert to Judaism, but that's only a change in religion, it doesn't give me any claim to a country.

[ Parent ]

gotcha (1.00 / 1) (#427)
by Lenny on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 11:58:14 PM EST

they used to live here 3000 years ago so that gives them the right to drive out its current residents strikes me as a bit immoral.
A bit immoral? Ever read the bible? The first 5 books to be exact? Religious books are the source of morals, right? Well, the first 5 books of the bible read as a deed giving ownership of Israel to the jews. Guess what holy work the jews read...you got it, the first 5 books of the bible, or Torah.


"Hate the USA? Boycott everything American. Particularly its websites..."
-Me
[ Parent ]
I disagree (5.00 / 2) (#429)
by Delirium on Thu Apr 04, 2002 at 12:03:10 AM EST

I don't believe religious books are the source of morals. I especially don't believe that particular interpretations of religious books are the source of morals -- if I did, I'd have to accept suicide bombings as moral; after all, several Sheiks have said they are.

But I consider suicide bombings to be immoral, and I consider driving an area's inhabitants out of their homes for religious reasons to be immoral. If Muslim or Jewish extremists disagree with me on either point, then so be it.

[ Parent ]

you dont have to believe (none / 0) (#431)
by Lenny on Thu Apr 04, 2002 at 12:13:28 AM EST

If Muslim or Jewish extremists disagree with me on either point, then so be it.
There are approx. 12 million jews in the world today. Just about all of them believe in the Torah. They believe that Israel belongs to them and was given to them by god. I am not saying that the Torah is right or wrong. I am saying that the believeing force here is more than jewish extremists. It pretty much goes across the board.


"Hate the USA? Boycott everything American. Particularly its websites..."
-Me
[ Parent ]
Not *all* (none / 0) (#433)
by Delirium on Thu Apr 04, 2002 at 12:24:00 AM EST

They (almost) all believe in the Torah, yes. But not everyone who believes in the Torah is a Zionist. As I recall, the land of Israel was given to the ancient Jews by God. But it was prophesied that the temple would be destroyed and they would be driven out of the land (both of which happened), but would eventually return triumphantly, led by the Messiah, and rebuild the Temple.

I understand this is the reason the Satmars and several other ultra-religious Jewish sects are anti-Zionist, since they see mortals attempting to do the work that should be done by the Messiah (rebuilding Israel) as blasphemous.

Now certainly most Jews are Zionists, but I'm not sure how much of this is a political and/or cultural belief (i.e. a desire for a homeland) and how much of this is a geniune religious belief.

And even if it is a geniune religious belief, that doesn't mean I can't condemn it as immoral. As the suicide bombing example illustrates, there are plenty of genuine religious beliefs which are completely and thoroughly immoral.

[ Parent ]

part of the reason (none / 0) (#438)
by Lenny on Thu Apr 04, 2002 at 12:52:13 AM EST

for making a homeland when they did was the holocaust. I know bringing hitler or the nazis into any conversation means you automatically lose on k5, but the jews saw what happened when they did not have a home country with which to defend the jews as a people. I know that is not the only reason, but they have been persecuted everywhere else. Yes, part of the reason may be political/cultural/insert non-religious reason here/etc., but who can blame them?


"Hate the USA? Boycott everything American. Particularly its websites..."
-Me
[ Parent ]
I tend to agree (none / 0) (#444)
by Delirium on Thu Apr 04, 2002 at 12:59:36 AM EST

I certainly think that was part of the problem, though Zionism started long before World War II (or even World War I). But even before WWII there was, as you note, discrimination in Europe against Jews. But the problem here, as the Arabs are fond of pointing out, is that you are essentially solving a European problem at the expense of the Arabs. The vast majority of the Jews currently living in Israel are European in origin, so from the Arab perspective it was millions of Europeans moving into their homeland. The fact that these particular Europeans were discriminated against by the Europeans with power understandably fails to impress the Arabs.

[ Parent ]
well... (none / 0) (#446)
by Lenny on Thu Apr 04, 2002 at 01:03:45 AM EST

I don't think I would be too far off to say that the arabs hate the jews far more than the Europeans ever did (except for that hitler thing).


"Hate the USA? Boycott everything American. Particularly its websites..."
-Me
[ Parent ]
Now they do (none / 0) (#457)
by Delirium on Thu Apr 04, 2002 at 03:23:30 AM EST

But that's almost exclusively because the Jews decided to make a homeland in a place where Arabs were living for hundreds of years. If somebody made a country where I was living and kicked me out of it I'd be pretty pissed too.

As far as I know there was no hostility between the Jewish and Arab residents of the region until the beginning of the Zionist movement, and no large-scale hostility until Zionist militias began organizing in earnest in the 1930s.

[ Parent ]

They used not to (none / 0) (#459)
by Oblom on Thu Apr 04, 2002 at 03:46:11 AM EST

Till muftij of Jerusalem Fejsal Hussejni in 192? started to spread the rumor that jews are going to very-soon-now to destroy Al-Aksa following by wiping out jewish community in Hebron that were existing there forever. Till this point Arabs/Beduins and Jews were happely coexisting there. The "Zionist militians" started organising only after this occasion for self defence.


And may I ask you what exectly Zionism means for you ?

[ Parent ]
Er... (none / 0) (#619)
by ariux on Fri Apr 05, 2002 at 02:17:11 AM EST

Just how many Jews do you know, Lenny? Have you looked in their mouths? You may be surprised not to find fangs there...

[ Parent ]

huh? (none / 0) (#641)
by Lenny on Fri Apr 05, 2002 at 08:48:26 AM EST

I know many jews. I don't understand exactle what you mean.


"Hate the USA? Boycott everything American. Particularly its websites..."
-Me
[ Parent ]
well that would make a hebraic "jihad"! (none / 0) (#727)
by KiTaSuMbA on Sun Apr 07, 2002 at 05:01:30 AM EST

The bible, the koran, my *ss! By what reason you define any religious document as *LAW* to rule the lives of people?
Ever read the koran? Fanatics say it demands that they should kick every non-muslim *ss out of the world.
Ever read the bible? Fanatics say jews should kick every non-jew *ss out of the chosens' land (chosens? arn't you a bit arrogant here?).
Ever read the 12 evangelions? Fanatics say (more like said) they should kick every non christian *ss out of the "holy sites" and search for the holy graal.
Which leaves us with the conclusion that the 3 more important monotheistic religions (or at least their warm followers) have the implicit intent of getting rid of each other.
Enough!
I'm going back to paganism, at least I'll get laid and drunk instead of getting killed.
Happy holy wars everybody!
There is no Dopaminergic Pepperoni Kabal!
[ Parent ]
The Jews converted to muslims (2.80 / 5) (#170)
by Hopfrog on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 02:31:05 AM EST

What is so difficult about that. The region was only jews in the beginning. Then Christ came and converted a large number to christian. Then Muhammed came and converted a large number to muslim.

In the meantime, some Russians and Europeans had been converted to judaism. Now, 1400 years later, these russians and europeans come back to claim this land, because they were not liked in their homelands.

If you don't think this is true, please post references.

Hop.

[ Parent ]

RE: not true (4.00 / 6) (#203)
by Jovec on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 04:17:27 AM EST

The jews were there long before the palestinians. It was not an arbitrary piece of land that the jews chose to repolulate.
It doesn't matter who was there first. For a large period of time, a strong enough country or peoples could conquer another and claim their land. At some point, the world decided that this practice was no longer acceptable. That point seems to be around the beginning of the 1900s, especially since two world wars were fought in large part over land expansion.

At 1900, there were something like 500,000 Palestinians living in Palestine, and 15,000-45,000 Jews. By 1947, only about 11% of Palestinian land was under Jewish ownership. In 1946, there were about 600,000 Jews living in Palestine, to 1,200,000 Palestian (Arabs). Do you think 2/3 of the population, that owned 90% of the land, wanted to give all that away for the formation of a Jewish state? It's one thing for Jews to want a homeland, but it's quite another to displace the existing population to do it, a population living there for some 2000 years.

-Jovec

[ Parent ]

Good thing you mentioned it (none / 0) (#739)
by Peaker on Fri Apr 12, 2002 at 11:12:04 AM EST

They forgot they could just find that known piece of empty land just waiting to be settled, to live on happily.

[ Parent ]
Who was there first. (3.50 / 4) (#238)
by katie on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 08:26:50 AM EST

At the time of the partition, it was ours (British). And I'm under the impression we had to be asked several times to let go of it.

I was also under the impression that a huge great area was set aside for the Arab/Muslim population, along with another lump for the Arab&European/Jew population (The Arab/Christian population was small enough to be left to find their own place).

So, why aren't the current "Palestinians" - the descendents of the Arab/Muslim segment, sat in TransJordan - the partioned bit set out for them?

Was splitting the population into just two too arbitrary a decision? Did they not get on with the then-Jordanians? Or did they just not want to move?



[ Parent ]
not transjordan (3.25 / 4) (#269)
by Delirium on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 11:13:48 AM EST

So, why aren't the current "Palestinians" - the descendents of the Arab/Muslim segment, sat in TransJordan - the partioned bit set out for them?
Because this wasn't the bit set out for them. The bit set apart for a Jewish state comprised approximately half of the area currently held by Israel and the Palestinians combined, and did not include Jerusalem (East or West), which was to be an international city under U.N. control. After the fighting settled down in 1948, Israel actually ended up with approximately 20% more terroritory than it had been allocated, including West Jerusalem; the Arabs retained approximately 75% of the territory they had been allocated (West Bank + Gaza Strip) with the addition of East Jerusalem. Since then of course Israel has ended up with another good chunk of the territory they were not allocated...

[ Parent ]
military buffer (3.00 / 1) (#425)
by Lenny on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 11:51:44 PM EST

Since then of course Israel has ended up with another good chunk of the territory they were not allocated...
Maybe you hadn't heard about the arab countries attacking Israel...starting on DAY 1! And several times since. They hold the land to be better prepared to defend themselves. If the arabs had not attacked them in the first place, they would not need the buffer. Think about it, if someone attacks me, fuck them, I'm taking their land. And the people who whine about the UN telling Israel what to do, fuck them! What have they done to prevent palestinian suicide bombings? nothing.


"Hate the USA? Boycott everything American. Particularly its websites..."
-Me
[ Parent ]
I'm quite aware of the history of the region (4.00 / 1) (#426)
by Delirium on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 11:57:10 PM EST

And it's no longer, with the possible exception of the Golan Heights (because Syria is still hawkish), justifiable as a military buffer zone. Egypt does not even have tanks in the Sinai peninsula, much less bordering Israel, and they don't have a military even close to capable of rivaling Israel's. Jordan has no desire at all for war with Israel, and their army is even weaker than Egypt's anyway. Hell Jordan doesn't even like the Palestinians that much themselves -- they don't want to capture the West Bank.

And even if it were a military buffer, that does not justify the settlements -- the Fourth Geneva Convention, which Israel has signed, specifies that such captured territory can be held as a military buffer, but the occupying power cannot transfer any of its civilian population into the occupied region.

Since at least Menachem Begin, the real reason for keeping the territories quite clearly seems to be an expansionist belief that these are part of Eretz Yisrael, so a desire to colonize them, eventually displacing their current 3m+ Arab inhabitants. Hence the continual refusal to even call it the "West Bank" amongst the Israeli right -- it's "Judea and Samaria."

[ Parent ]

how many... (2.00 / 1) (#428)
by Lenny on Thu Apr 04, 2002 at 12:00:54 AM EST

arab countries even recognize Israel as a country?


"Hate the USA? Boycott everything American. Particularly its websites..."
-Me
[ Parent ]
The relevant ones (4.00 / 1) (#430)
by Delirium on Thu Apr 04, 2002 at 12:06:50 AM EST

Jordan and Egypt are the two Arab states bordering the West Bank and Gaza Strip, respectively, and both recognize Israel and have a peace treaties with Israel (including non-militarization treaties, prohibiting Egypt from deploying forces in the Sinai peninsula and prohibiting Jordan from deploying forces along the Jordan River).

I believe there's a third Arab state that has normal relations with Israel, but I can't remember which one it is (Morocco?). In either case, the only bordering states which don't are Lebanon and Syria, which is why I made an exception for the Golan Heights as a justifiable military buffer zone.

And I don't think even Sharon will try to claim that Israel's settlements are for military reasons.

[ Parent ]

why is that? (1.00 / 1) (#432)
by Lenny on Thu Apr 04, 2002 at 12:18:38 AM EST

Jordan and Egypt are the two Arab states bordering the West Bank and Gaza Strip, respectively, and both recognize Israel and have a peace treaties with Israel
Neither country was capable of mounting a successful attack on Israel, but they attacked them none-the-less. They both knew that. The whole world knew that. But the people in their countries wanted the jews to be exterminated. The attack was made to appease the bloodthirsty arabs. Now Egypt is taking hostile steps. Iraq has been talking shit. But I'm sure you;re right, nothing to worry about.


"Hate the USA? Boycott everything American. Particularly its websites..."
-Me
[ Parent ]
Egypt isn't that dumb (4.00 / 1) (#435)
by Delirium on Thu Apr 04, 2002 at 12:29:52 AM EST

Egypt gets $3 billion annually in American aid; with their shitty economy they simply cannot afford to risk losing this aid by attacking Israel. And even if they did, it would be an utter failure. Nothing to worry about for Israel either way -- either Egypt doesn't attack (most likely), or Egypt attacks and has its forces completely destroyed, probably by the IAF before the tanks even make to the other side of the Sinai.

As for hostile steps, all Egypt did was make symbolic noises. They didn't even expel the Israeli ambassador in Cairo or shut down their embassy in Tel Aviv (the ambassador has been recalled to Cairo since last year, but the embassy is still functioning with the next-in-charge at the head). They've certainly not threatened to do anything militarily. And Jordan hasn't even done that much -- they've threatened to take "unspecified diplomatic steps," but are reportedly reluctant to actually downgrade any diplomatic relationships.

Iraq I agree would invade Israel if they got the chance. But how exactly are they going to do that? They can't even move forces around within Iraq much without the U.S. shooting at them; it'd be quite a feat to make it 300 miles across either Syria or Jordan to reach Israel without having tank columns destroyed by the IAF (assuming the unlikely event of either Syria or Jordan granting Iraqi troops passage through their country).

[ Parent ]

Egypt is not that dumb...but (2.00 / 1) (#437)
by Lenny on Thu Apr 04, 2002 at 12:48:33 AM EST

Egypt isn't that dumb
IMO, Eqypt is doing what they are doing to gain supporters. I think it is a symbolic step, now...They want the other arab countries to follow suit. Dont forget that many of these countries WERE that dumb...they have a history of being that dumb...Eqypt, Syria, Jordan, Iraq. The arab league has made its boldest threats recently concerning Israel. It seems to me that Eqypt is lighting the match, hoping others will fan the flame.


"Hate the USA? Boycott everything American. Particularly its websites..."
-Me
[ Parent ]
I'm not that sure (none / 0) (#440)
by Delirium on Thu Apr 04, 2002 at 12:54:43 AM EST

I think what Egypt is doing is more for internal political reasons than because of actual anger at Israel on the part of its leadership. For years Mubarak has been an authoritarian dictator, and Egypt's economy has been horrid, so he's been attempting to deflect criticism of his overall quite shoddy rule by drumming the Palestinian issue home all the time. And at the same time he tries to justify his massive military spending by boasting of how strong Egypt is. So if his own state media are telling everybody that: 1) the Palestinian issue is the foremost issue of importance to Egyptians; and 2) The Egyptian military is very strong; then the average Egyptian might be wondering "so why aren't we using it to help the Palestinians?" So Mubarak seems like he's being pressured to act by his own people, partly through his own missteps. I don't think he'll actually go through with an invasion though. He should well remember what happened last time Egypt tried that, as you note, and this time it'd be even worse, because Egypt is dependent on the U.S. now in a way it wasn't in 1967.

[ Parent ]
well put (none / 0) (#443)
by Lenny on Thu Apr 04, 2002 at 12:59:02 AM EST

and good night


"Hate the USA? Boycott everything American. Particularly its websites..."
-Me
[ Parent ]
At this point (none / 0) (#568)
by Cro Magnon on Thu Apr 04, 2002 at 04:55:58 PM EST

Does it really matter who was there first? The fact is, either they reach some sort of agreement that both sides can accept, or they keep killing each other until one side is totally exterminated! Considering which side would lose in a no-holds-barred war, I think the Palestinians need to unstrap their suicide bombs.
Information wants to be beer.
[ Parent ]
A recommendation (4.51 / 27) (#19)
by rusty on Tue Apr 02, 2002 at 08:42:52 PM EST

There's no way for me to enforce this, nor would it be appropriate for me to do so, so consider it merely as a polite request.

I suggested Delerium post this story, due to the difficulty of piecing together the few, widely scattered real news reports about the current situatuin in Israel. It's basically just hard to find the news about it, due to the banning of reporters and general media blockade going on in the occupied areas.

We all know the Israel/Palestine conflict is a highly emotional one, with opinions and emotions running high on all sides. Therefore, I suggest that if you have an opinion about the conflict, just this once, that you keep it to yourself, and make this thread about solid news relating to the ongoing situation.

Another Israel/Palestine flamewar won't help anyone, and will cause a lot more bad feelings all around. I would really like to see a thread about this that decides to devote itself to gathering and disseminating solid information, instead of yet another rehash of all the opinions.

Like I said, this is not a mandate. Just an idea. If you think it's a good idea, I encourage you to follow it. Thanks. :-)

____
Not the real rusty

The problem with that (4.83 / 6) (#24)
by Woundweavr on Tue Apr 02, 2002 at 08:47:53 PM EST

I don't know if thats going to be possible. People will report something occuring, and, as with all things, it will be colored by the poster's opinions. Its unrealistic to expect k5'ers of all people to put aside their opinions. Then someone will respond with a "thats not how it really happened" post and back and forth ad nauseum.

The story is still worth while but I full expect a flame war too.

[ Parent ]

Well (3.20 / 5) (#27)
by rusty on Tue Apr 02, 2002 at 08:51:24 PM EST

That may be. If people express their opinions through actual news links (like here), at least we can judge the reliability of the source ourselves, and maybe avoid some of the usual personal vitriol?

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]
Unfortunately (4.33 / 3) (#33)
by Woundweavr on Tue Apr 02, 2002 at 08:56:46 PM EST

Then you get posts like these that just say the news organizations are biased and such. Which is a flamewar almost as bad.

I guess what I'm trying to say is just ignore the flamers and try to get some actual information from whats left.

[ Parent ]

Yeah (2.66 / 3) (#71)
by rusty on Tue Apr 02, 2002 at 10:14:25 PM EST

Just trying to encourage peace in the Lower Page here.

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]
shut up, you're wrong (4.40 / 5) (#271)
by suick on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 11:24:28 AM EST

I totally disagree with your opinion and I will hate you until the day you die by my hand. After that, I suppose I'll be mildly regretful, and I'll eventually come to realize it wasn't you I had a problem with, but rather your opinions and ideas. I will take your orphaned daughter and raise her as my own, teaching her love, tolerance, and acceptance, in an effort to make amends for my horrible crime. At some point in there, some really dramatic stringed music will get played and the audience will cry.

order in to with the will I around my effort sentences an i of more be fuck annoying.
[ Parent ]
Excellent (3.00 / 2) (#361)
by rusty on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 05:41:14 PM EST

Can we get John Woo to direct it?

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]
Hey Rusty (none / 0) (#406)
by suick on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 10:07:43 PM EST

I hate your site.

I'm not leaving though.

order in to with the will I around my effort sentences an i of more be fuck annoying.
[ Parent ]
I voted "abstain" (3.50 / 2) (#38)
by wiredog on Tue Apr 02, 2002 at 09:09:24 PM EST

Would've voted -1, since I've seen these links in the diaries, but if our Fearless Leader wants it, well, I won't oppose.

Good bloody luck avoiding the flamewar. I've already zeroed one content free flame.

Bug report: Seth's latest got posted to section and double quotation mark was replaced with the " It looks funny.

Peoples Front To Reunite Gondwanaland: "Stop the Laurasian Separatist Movement!"
[ Parent ]

Arrgh! (5.00 / 1) (#40)
by wiredog on Tue Apr 02, 2002 at 09:11:25 PM EST

The quotation was replaced with &quot semicolon.

The escaped markup (done as "ampersand amp semicolon quot semicolon" showed up in preview, but not when posted. Arrgh. "

Peoples Front To Reunite Gondwanaland: "Stop the Laurasian Separatist Movement!"
[ Parent ]

it's a little scoop bug (5.00 / 1) (#44)
by mauftarkie on Tue Apr 02, 2002 at 09:24:47 PM EST

When using amp characters, you need to retype them after every preview due to the way Scoop parses text. I have the same problem with code I've personally written, too. It's a toughy to solve. At least, I haven't figured it out yet.

--
Without you I'm one step closer to happiness without violence.
Without you I'm one step closer to innocence without consequence.


[ Parent ]
But (5.00 / 1) (#45)
by wiredog on Tue Apr 02, 2002 at 09:25:59 PM EST

Why does the title in Seth's story get screwed up? It's ok in the story itself, but not in the story listing.

Peoples Front To Reunite Gondwanaland: "Stop the Laurasian Separatist Movement!"
[ Parent ]
Dunno (5.00 / 1) (#47)
by mauftarkie on Tue Apr 02, 2002 at 09:31:06 PM EST

But widening my browser I see an extra space:
Spam "protection&quo t; - a modest proposal
by Seth Finkelstein
Technology::Humour

--
Without you I'm one step closer to happiness without violence.
Without you I'm one step closer to innocence without consequence.


[ Parent ]
YASB (5.00 / 1) (#51)
by wiredog on Tue Apr 02, 2002 at 09:34:50 PM EST

Yet Another Scoop Bug.

Because, if you click on it, you see: 'Spam "protection" - a modest proposal'

Scoop must be inserting a space in there for some reason.

Peoples Front To Reunite Gondwanaland: "Stop the Laurasian Separatist Movement!"
[ Parent ]

Ah damn (3.00 / 2) (#74)
by rusty on Tue Apr 02, 2002 at 10:17:10 PM EST

Yeah, it's the "don't allow page widening titles" fix. It instrts a space when there's a single word longer than (IIRC) 15 or 18 characters.

The odd thing is that Scoop doesn't filter quotes like that in story titles, that I know of. Well, maybe it does. But I didn't think it did. Anyway, yeah, bug. Damn computers.

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]

Easy Fix! (said the guy who isn't going to fix it) (5.00 / 1) (#83)
by wiredog on Tue Apr 02, 2002 at 10:23:23 PM EST

Since I don't know the code, or perl.

Still. Just have the DontAllowPageWideningTitles() function check to see that is isn't inserting the space between an ampersand and a semicolon.

Yeah, that could be abused by, for instance, someone putting """"""""" in a title. But the queue should take care of those sorts of abuses.

Peoples Front To Reunite Gondwanaland: "Stop the Laurasian Separatist Movement!"
[ Parent ]

Idea (none / 0) (#697)
by gullyo on Sat Apr 06, 2002 at 12:13:42 AM EST

Yeah, that could be abused by, for instance, someone putting """"""""" in a title. But the queue should take care of those sorts of abuses.

Or DontAllowPageWideningTitles() could check to see if there are many instances of a character like " in a row, and add spaces appropriatly, but not otherwise.

[ Parent ]

An idea (2.00 / 3) (#263)
by President Steve Elvis America on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 10:33:22 AM EST

If you want to keep this strictly to the topic of reporting the news and not arguing, would you suggest handing out zero ratings to those who only want to argue? I agree that this should be about reporting the news rather than arguing about the situation, so I think it would be a good idea to rate the arguers to zero since they are off topic.

Sincerely,

Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America
[ Parent ]

More info. (3.43 / 30) (#21)
by Apuleius on Tue Apr 02, 2002 at 08:45:10 PM EST

Some things found in Arafat's digs: fake shekels and plates for making more, fake dollars (probably Superbills from Iran, but we'll see), and correspondence from the Al Aqsa brigades asking for money to arrange logistics for further terror operations.

Further abuse of the norms of war on part of the Palestinians: Gunmen forced their way into the Church of the Nativity, forgetting that if you want your enemy to hold a place sacred, you have to hold it sacred too. For reasons as yet unknown, Palestinian gunmen tried to use the party of antiglobalisation activists and journalists as cover to escape from Arafat's besieged digs. Now, thanks to this, journalists all over the territories are in danger. Yet another abuse of ambulances detected here, adding to a long-held pattern,

More to come, needless to say.




There is a time and a place for everything, and it's called college. (The South Park chef)
comments (4.40 / 5) (#26)
by Delirium on Tue Apr 02, 2002 at 08:49:39 PM EST

For reasons as yet unknown, Palestinian gunmen tried to use the party of antiglobalisation activists and journalists as cover to escape from Arafat's besieged digs.
That particular incident is still being investigated, and even the Jerusalem Post article you linked to only says "suspected." The first response from the Israelis was that the protestors were arrested because they entered a closed zone; hours later reports began surfacing that "more people exited than entered," but no confirmation from any major media sources I could find. The CNN reporter with the group was also inexplicably not arrested.

Thanks for the first link, a rather interesting inventory.

In general I avoided the Jerusalem Post because it has a reputation of being rather decidedly right-wing in its biases, so I stuck to more centrist sources (CNN, BBC, Ha'aretz, etc.).

[ Parent ]

Don't be fooled; CNN isn't centrist (NT) (2.40 / 10) (#29)
by Ken Pompadour on Tue Apr 02, 2002 at 08:53:01 PM EST



...The target is countrymen, friends and family... they have to die too. - candid trhurler
[ Parent ]
not centrist per se (3.50 / 2) (#30)
by Delirium on Tue Apr 02, 2002 at 08:54:33 PM EST

But not quite as non-centrist as the Jerusalem Post is. I'd say in its reporting it tends to follow US foreign policy positions more than anything else, which currently is a moderately pro-Israeli position.

[ Parent ]
Funny I find CNN and BBC blatantly pro-Palestinian (3.50 / 2) (#169)
by stevefuzzy on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 02:26:47 AM EST

BBC much more so than CNN, but even CNN exhibits a pro-Palestinian bias. Just IMHO.

[ Parent ]
CNN pro-Palestinian ? (4.00 / 2) (#180)
by Betcour on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 02:55:44 AM EST

You must be joking ! Read this column for example. CNN is following closely the US governement line (whatever happened to journalism and the independance of medias ?) and the US governement line is "Arafat is a terrorism, Israel is our ally no matter what horror they do".

[ Parent ]
Poor column (4.00 / 1) (#302)
by elefantstn on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 01:40:39 PM EST

I followed your link, and all it was was an extended whine that CNN does not use the term "illegally unlaterally occupied territories" to describe any disputed area.

[ Parent ]
BBC bias. (5.00 / 4) (#233)
by katie on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 08:13:41 AM EST

Watching it this morning, the BBC was being a bit, erm. Disapproving of the Isreali actions. Having said that they do seem to oscillate - some weeks they seem pro-Israeli, some weeks pro-Palestinian.

I suspect the BBC is a bit peeved about the incident the other day where a BBC reporting crew was shot at. Quite a lot.

They (fairly understandably) don't like that sort of thing, and extrapolating out, you can see where they might have got the impression the Israelis might be being a bit fast and loose with the firepower.

Frankly, I'm surprised we don't just get "And in other news, someone broke the current ceasefire and people have died. But you guessed that" tagged on the end of all the news bulletins. I'm not convinced that at any time during these recent ceasefires has EITHER side stopped shooting at each other and the whole thing is getting repetitive.

I don't think there is a sensible locally derivable solution. Arafat is the only person the Israelis CAN negotiate peace with. And he's either unable or unwilling to control the extremists. In those circumstances I don't see how either side can get anywhere. It's going to take outside intervention: but that's going to involve both the US stopping Israel and Syria/Eygpt stopping Hamas, and I can't see that happening, so this is going to keep on being boring for a lot of lives yet.



[ Parent ]
I hope you like zeros, bitch. (2.00 / 30) (#28)
by Ken Pompadour on Tue Apr 02, 2002 at 08:51:51 PM EST

gunmen tried to use the party of antiglobalisation activists and journalists as cover to escape from Arafat's besieged digs. Now, thanks to this, journalists all over the territories are in danger.

Oh no, Palestinians tried to avoid becoming road kill! THOSE BASTARDS!



...The target is countrymen, friends and family... they have to die too. - candid trhurler
[ Parent ]
Calm down. (2.50 / 8) (#32)
by Apuleius on Tue Apr 02, 2002 at 08:56:41 PM EST

If they didn't want to be roadkill, all they had to do was turn themselves in.


There is a time and a place for everything, and it's called college. (The South Park chef)
[ Parent ]
Turn themselves in? (2.66 / 18) (#35)
by Ken Pompadour on Tue Apr 02, 2002 at 08:59:15 PM EST

So they can be killed or imprisoned for life?

Are you joking, or are you scum? Serious question.



...The target is countrymen, friends and family... they have to die too. - candid trhurler
[ Parent ]
Yes, turn themselves in. (2.75 / 12) (#37)
by Apuleius on Tue Apr 02, 2002 at 09:05:31 PM EST

So they can be imprisoned, probably for life, if they are on ISrael's wanted list, and released within hours if not. Stark choice when one is a terrorist, no?


There is a time and a place for everything, and it's called college. (The South Park chef)
[ Parent ]
Here's the Zero I was promising (1.80 / 21) (#39)
by Ken Pompadour on Tue Apr 02, 2002 at 09:09:42 PM EST

You earned it.

...The target is countrymen, friends and family... they have to die too. - candid trhurler
[ Parent ]
Because it isn't the end of the world. (4.50 / 6) (#43)
by Apuleius on Tue Apr 02, 2002 at 09:24:36 PM EST

200 Palestinians surrendered in Rajoub's compound, as brokered by the US. Those who are not wanted will be released.


There is a time and a place for everything, and it's called college. (The South Park chef)
[ Parent ]
To recap (3.46 / 15) (#48)
by Ken Pompadour on Tue Apr 02, 2002 at 09:31:12 PM EST

Those bastard Palestinians, who are likely to be imprisoned for life by Israel, try to escape so that they don't become political prisoners. By doing what any human would do, you think they're dangerous? Are these people even human to you, or do you consider them nothing more than animals?

...The target is countrymen, friends and family... they have to die too. - candid trhurler
[ Parent ]
Political prisoners? (3.85 / 7) (#49)
by Apuleius on Tue Apr 02, 2002 at 09:33:45 PM EST

If you organise terror attacks, you are not a political prisoner. And if you abuse the trust both sides are giving to journalists, you endanger all journalists in the region. Now, do I regard these people as human? Yes, of course. That is why I hold them responsible. They have a choice on whether or not to conduct terror attacks. They have a choice whether or not to turn themselves in. It's called "free will."


There is a time and a place for everything, and it's called college. (The South Park chef)
[ Parent ]
Ahem (3.66 / 6) (#158)
by fhotg on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 01:46:19 AM EST

Reading through most of the diverse sources presented in the comments here, I get the serious impression, that "turning themselves in to the IDF" in the current situation would be less "free will" than "suicidal". And these guys sure know more spectacular ways to cross over.

And you, Apuleius, do you read other texts than those published by the Jerusalem Post, occassionally ?

[ Parent ]

Get real. (3.00 / 2) (#287)
by Apuleius on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 12:54:36 PM EST

Not suicidal at all. Israeli prisons are pretty damn cushy.


There is a time and a place for everything, and it's called college. (The South Park chef)
[ Parent ]
self (1.00 / 2) (#349)
by fhotg on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 04:15:12 PM EST

Even if they wanted to, they couldn't put them all into prison. There is not enough space. When the smoke clears, there will be more dead "terrorists" people were anticipating.

Soldiers are murderers

[ Parent ]

Forgot one thing (3.40 / 5) (#179)
by Betcour on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 02:51:34 AM EST

Torture is legal and widely used (and abused) by Tsahal and the police. That and being emprisoned for life without even a fair trial (Israel doesn't bother about legality that much...) and you can see why most people would rather die fighting than turn themselves in.

[ Parent ]
Easy to avoid. (2.33 / 3) (#289)
by Apuleius on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 01:04:01 PM EST

Answer your damn interrogators.


There is a time and a place for everything, and it's called college. (The South Park chef)
[ Parent ]
interesting (2.80 / 5) (#189)
by eLuddite on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 03:16:25 AM EST

if they are on ISrael's wanted list,

What is your opinion on the fate of Israelis found on Palestinian lists?

Let me understand your offer, here. Israel gets to compile lists of Palestinians it hasnt already killed?

Wait, wait, I think I got it. Israel kills terrorists every day, several times more than terrorists kill Israelis, but it isnt killing all of them because there's still names on the list. And since Israel kills only terrorists, their lists can be trusted to contain only terrorists. It's a paragon if simplicity, really: see a dead Palestinian, scratch his name off the list.

No wonder Israel does not have a problem with terrorists -- it knows who all of them are!

---
God hates human rights.
[ Parent ]

It doesn't have to be for life. (3.75 / 4) (#265)
by katie on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 10:46:28 AM EST

Convicted IRA members are being released (on licence, true, but released) as part of the peace process there.

Think of it more as "for the duration" and it makes more sense.



[ Parent ]
Why can't we rate users? (2.50 / 6) (#88)
by Demiurge on Tue Apr 02, 2002 at 10:35:04 PM EST

Or perhaps have a composite user rating determined by the rating off all comments they've made in the past X weeks?

Hopefully, hate-filled vitriol spewing lunatics like Ken would be discouraged by something like this.

[ Parent ]
It's up to the site admins (4.00 / 3) (#97)
by wiredog on Tue Apr 02, 2002 at 10:48:57 PM EST

Every once in a while Rusty or someone will take action against someone whose actions have been particularly egregiously bad. Simply rating Ken's comments to 0 will result in him losing the ability to do so.

The system works fairly well. Better than some others I can think of...

Peoples Front To Reunite Gondwanaland: "Stop the Laurasian Separatist Movement!"
[ Parent ]

Ah yes (2.66 / 12) (#114)
by Ken Pompadour on Tue Apr 02, 2002 at 11:27:54 PM EST

Defending a person's right to attempt to escape from life imprisonment or death is hate-filled vitriol.

Brilliant.



...The target is countrymen, friends and family... they have to die too. - candid trhurler
[ Parent ]
Listen up Ken. (4.75 / 4) (#234)
by wiredog on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 08:15:19 AM EST

Defending a person's right to attempt to escape from life imprisonment or death is not hate-filled vitriol.

But I hope you like zeros, bitch. and Here's the Zero I was promising. You earned it. are.

Peoples Front To Reunite Gondwanaland: "Stop the Laurasian Separatist Movement!"
[ Parent ]

Better hold off on that... (4.57 / 7) (#168)
by scruffyMark on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 02:16:44 AM EST

Very few people seem to be putting their best foot forward just now. Fancy that. Even dedicated pacifists can get a little aggressive when it seems the only thing more common than poor sods in the Mideast murdering one another, is lucky bastards in the West abusing freedom of the press to shift all the blame onto 'their' side while openly or tacitly endorsing murder committed by 'ours'.

Perhaps we should wait until it's possible for a sane person to read the newspaper without shredding it in rage, or bursting into tears. Temperate voices will return of their own accord then, I hope.

[ Parent ]

And a followup on the stash found. (4.80 / 5) (#52)
by Apuleius on Tue Apr 02, 2002 at 09:35:44 PM EST

It was in the office of the PA's finance honcho, Fouad al-Shoubaki, so says CNN. The usual Palestinian denials are of course being announced.


There is a time and a place for everything, and it's called college. (The South Park chef)
[ Parent ]
In word format. (5.00 / 1) (#76)
by Apuleius on Tue Apr 02, 2002 at 10:18:54 PM EST

A more complete inventory. (I do not have a doc decoder on my box.)


There is a time and a place for everything, and it's called college. (The South Park chef)
[ Parent ]
How meaningless (1.50 / 2) (#163)
by fhotg on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 01:55:06 AM EST

I could have written that report in an hour. What makes anybody think the IDF couldn't find a fabricated document, when they are deemed to be able to plan to accidently kill somebody ?

[ Parent ]
Previous Israeli forgeries? (3.66 / 3) (#182)
by hawaii on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 02:57:37 AM EST

I could have written that report in an hour. What makes anybody think the IDF couldn't find a fabricated document, when they are deemed to be able to plan to accidently kill somebody ?

Are you really not able to tell the difference between official Israeli and IDF policy, and an independent media outlet's polling question?

If you doubt the sincerity of Israeli claims on this evidence, can you list specific incidents where Israeli officials have actually created such forgeries? Specifically, forgeries that were in attempt to mislead the public.

[ Parent ]

Holy Gullability (3.50 / 2) (#281)
by fhotg on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 12:36:32 PM EST

If you doubt the sincerity of Israeli claims on this evidence, can you list specific incidents where Israeli officials have actually created such forgeries? Specifically, forgeries that were in attempt to mislead the public.
Since ancient times, misinformation and propaganda are recognized as elementary and importants parts of any war-like conflict. Examples are abundant. Now the Israelis really know their shit when it comes to how to fight and their intelligence/propaganda agencies are not exactly known to be a bunch of uncapable sissies, like other countries counterparts.

Given the international critique, hell even without it, this "evidence" is exactly what they have to present and what they want to present. In this situation, they can easily claim anything and nobody is able to prove the contrary. Even if they would find something like this, they sure would doctor it to make it perfect. Unless they are complete fools.

So it's your turn to back up your implied claim that they are complete fools and would not use the opportunity.

In this situation, every info from IDF (and certain Palestinian sources) is meaningless by default for anybody who doesn't believe anything that's printed.

[ Parent ]

When will you accept evidence as truth? (3.33 / 3) (#309)
by hawaii on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 01:51:57 PM EST

So it's your turn to back up your implied claim that they are complete fools and would not use the opportunity.

Give me a fscking break. You can deny any evidence you want all day long and still claim that nothing has been proved. This is exactly what the Holocaust deniers do. Any shred of evidence supporting the Holocaust is denied as a forgery or fake. All the nazi pictures, all the nazi films, the nazi records, the tattoos on peoples arms, the testimony of survivors. Nothing but items of a vast conspiracy theory, according to the Holocaust deniers.

You can sit here and categorically deny any evidence presented before you as a forgery or fake. You can say the entire world history you've witnessed is fake, as there's no evidence to prove it.

You can also pull the Descartes question. There is NOTHING you know that exists except for the fact that you are alive. Everything else can be a dream or a hallucination. THe only certainty - I think therefore I am.

Come on, where do you draw the line?

I asked a question. Has Israel ever fabricated evidence before to sway opinion, as you're accusing them of doing now? The PA has already said this proof is an Israeli fabrication. But they also said that about the Karina A ship, which they've later accepted as being involved with PA officials. This has also occurred with other terrorist activities and items.

[ Parent ]

When there is evidence ... (5.00 / 1) (#345)
by fhotg on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 04:10:31 PM EST

Evidence, in this case for example, would mean the papers found were given to the public in form of document experts or whatever who are impartial and testify that it's for real.

Of course this will never happen, because the spin of the affair now is important, and history will have made that detail unimportant by the time anybody will have the opportunity to figure out the truth. But history might have been influenced by whatever they are selling as truth now.

I do not even claim that the direct involvement of Arafat in suicide-attacks organizing or whatever these finds are supposed to prove are untrue. I just don't know. And nothing one of the fighting parties officially sais can change this. Cause they are both lying by default. It's war. It has been always like that and there is a reason for this.

Your question: I don't know about evidence fabricated by Israel before.I don't care. I suspect yes, they're paying their Mossad for something right ?

My question: Is there any reason to believe that the rules of engagement suddenly changed and fighting parties will tell nothing but the truth about what's going on ? It would be the first time in human history.

In the end everybody makes his own truth, some believe in the bible, others in press releases by the IDF, I'm incompatible with both.

List of people comparing me to a holocaust denier:

  • Baldrson
  • Hawaii


  • [ Parent ]
    Clarification (3.00 / 1) (#355)
    by hawaii on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 05:14:56 PM EST

    List of people comparing me to a holocaust denier

    Please don't misunderstand me. I didn't call you a Holocause denier, and didn't intend to. I guess it's sort of a Godwin's law kind of thing that makes this thread now invalid ;-)

    In my defense, if I called you a Holocause denier, did I also call you Descartes? Or at least a rationalist (in the philosophical logical definition)? :-)

    I was pointing out that merely rejecting evidence until it is undeniably absoluely proven is not really a practical stance. I'm a physicist, and all physics results must be stated to within known uncertainties and confidence levels. The skeptic can still say that any non-zero uncertainty means that the result isn't valid, even though there is an astronomically small chance that said result isn't within said uncertainties.

    At some point, in order to be practical, one must accept uncertainty as a fact of life. I say look at past histories. How often has Israel lied to the public about 'evidence'? How often has the Palestinian Authority? I know the PA has (for instance, Karine A). I don't know of any times Israel has.

    So, anyway, my main point is that I wasn't calling you a Holocaust denier, and I hope you believe me and can remove me from that short list you've said. I was pointing out that denial of ALL evidence is the method of choice for Holocaust deniers, because NOTHING external can be proven to be absolutely undeniably indisputably true. And likewise, I wanted to relate to you that at some point you must accept non-zero uncertainties with all data.

    [ Parent ]

    accepted (4.00 / 1) (#381)
    by fhotg on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 06:51:25 PM EST

    I also agree on what you're saying about the need to make a cut at some point in order to arrive at a conclusion.

    My stance here is: there is no data. If your instrument screws up during the experiment and delivers data that is not determined anymore by the process you meant to observe, but due to the nature of the screw up gives something unrelated but predictable, you are not any smarter about the subject of the experiment.

    [ Parent ]

    Multiple data points withstanding (5.00 / 2) (#436)
    by hawaii on Thu Apr 04, 2002 at 12:37:30 AM EST

    My stance here is: there is no data.

    Well, I understand the necessary doubts for accepting these claims, either for or against IDF-captured documents. But I wouldn't be so quick to assume that the data-collecting-apparatus has been necessarily broken.

    Supposedly a bunch of documents were obtained, only one was publically released. Israeli intelligence may have released more info behind closed doors to US intelligence, which may partially explain US administration's support for Israel's current actions.

    We'll see what else is released over the next few days.

    [ Parent ]

    Situation in Bethlehem. (4.00 / 6) (#56)
    by Apuleius on Tue Apr 02, 2002 at 09:39:09 PM EST

    Apart from Manger Square, the city is under Israeli control. House to house searches are in progress. (Washpost)


    There is a time and a place for everything, and it's called college. (The South Park chef)
    [ Parent ]
    Next stop, Jenin. (4.66 / 3) (#63)
    by Apuleius on Tue Apr 02, 2002 at 09:49:52 PM EST

    A tank column is en route to that town.


    There is a time and a place for everything, and it's called college. (The South Park chef)
    [ Parent ]
    Israeli disclosures continue. (4.75 / 4) (#80)
    by Apuleius on Tue Apr 02, 2002 at 10:21:23 PM EST

    Israel is publishing documents found when the IDF took over Orient House.


    There is a time and a place for everything, and it's called college. (The South Park chef)
    [ Parent ]
    update on Church of the Nativity (4.50 / 2) (#117)
    by Delirium on Tue Apr 02, 2002 at 11:36:55 PM EST

    CNN is reporting that there are 100-150 men, women, and children seeking refuge inside the church. It also indicates that the IDF is currently operating in Jenin, Ramallah, Bethlehem, Nablus, Tulkarem, Qalqilya, Tubas, Tamun and Tiasir.

    [ Parent ]
    upon a closer reading (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by Delirium on Tue Apr 02, 2002 at 11:38:44 PM EST

    Israel is claiming that there are gunmen in the buildings; the Palestinians say that there are PA members with guns in the building, but that they too are merely taking refuge, and are not pointing their weapons out of the building or shooting.

    [ Parent ]
    Why we need hard crypto (4.00 / 3) (#125)
    by nomoreh1b on Tue Apr 02, 2002 at 11:51:38 PM EST

    Paper money is obsolete-peristance in using it is crazy. The future belongs to anonymous e-currencies and stuff like gold that can't be faked.

    Governments that live by fraud will die by fraud.

    I haven't seen any of the pro-Israel politicians in the US expressing concern about the use of insecure currencies in the West-which strikes me as rather insane.

    [ Parent ]

    RE: Why we need hard crypto (5.00 / 2) (#190)
    by Jovec on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 03:17:14 AM EST

    I haven't seen any of the pro-Israel politicians in the US expressing concern about the use of insecure currencies in the West-which strikes me as rather insane.
    What's a secure currency? One that can't be copied? How big a problem is using counterfeit currency to commit crimes? What I mean to say is, there is certainly enough legitimate currency available for criminal or terrorist action. I'd be surprised is the 9/11 terrorists used fake currency to pay rent and take flying lessons.

    The problem is that secure currencies is that we (the US) would be hard pressed to implement them anonymously our current anit-terror and pro-copy procetion governmental mindsets. And while Americans will happily use their Credit and Debit cards and have their grocery purchases tracked to save a few bucks, taking away anonymous currency just wouldn't fly. If it would, we would have already deployed it, and we would have already placed 65Mph speed governers on all automobiles and gotten rid of all firearms.

    -Jovec

    [ Parent ]

    A good news ticker. (4.00 / 11) (#41)
    by Apuleius on Tue Apr 02, 2002 at 09:18:51 PM EST

    From a centrist Israeli site. Seems to update regularly.


    There is a time and a place for everything, and it's called college. (The South Park chef)
    centrist my ass (4.20 / 5) (#50)
    by Hong Kong Phooey on Tue Apr 02, 2002 at 09:34:24 PM EST

    It details every israeli who has been killed, injured or stubbed a toe. But not a word about palestinian casualties.

    [ Parent ]
    Yes, centrist. (1.20 / 5) (#53)
    by Apuleius on Tue Apr 02, 2002 at 09:36:36 PM EST

    Find a Palestinian site that details Jewish casualties. Take your time.


    There is a time and a place for everything, and it's called college. (The South Park chef)
    [ Parent ]
    Do you have some kind of private (4.00 / 3) (#54)
    by Hong Kong Phooey on Tue Apr 02, 2002 at 09:37:29 PM EST

    definition of centrist?

    [ Parent ]
    By Israeli standards (3.33 / 3) (#57)
    by wiredog on Tue Apr 02, 2002 at 09:41:04 PM EST

    It's centrist. More centrist than any Palestinian site I've seen. Which isn't saying much. There aren't any people over there who are neutral. Hell, the United States is considered to be the closest thing to an honest broker in the region. Or the least distrusted by both sides anyway.

    Peoples Front To Reunite Gondwanaland: "Stop the Laurasian Separatist Movement!"
    [ Parent ]
    Yes, butt... (4.33 / 3) (#60)
    by Hong Kong Phooey on Tue Apr 02, 2002 at 09:43:59 PM EST

    k5 is not in Israel (or Palestine for that matter). I do realize that finding impartial sources is next to impossible, but that does not mean that we should start passing off partial ones as impartial.

    [ Parent ]
    Last time I checked... (4.00 / 2) (#61)
    by anowack on Tue Apr 02, 2002 at 09:46:46 PM EST

    ...centrist had a different definition from impartial.


    "Never let reality get in the way of a good hypothesis."
    [ Parent ]
    Ouch (4.57 / 7) (#127)
    by Pac on Tue Apr 02, 2002 at 11:54:37 PM EST

    If the articles and notes I read here (insiderviews) are instances of Israeli centrism, I do not have much hope Israel will stop before killing or jailing for life every Palestinian male between 14 and 60 years old.

    That is God talking. The Bible says that Abram removed his tent and came and dwelt in the plain of Mamre, which is in Hebron, and built there an altar before the Lord. Hebron is in the West Bank. It is at this place where God appeared to Abram and said, "I am giving you this land" -- the West Bank. This is not a political battle at all. It is a contest over whether or not the word of God is true.United States Senator James Inhofe (R-Ok)

    Which is just one of the thousand ways you can determine that the Israelis are civilized human beings and their foes are nothing but Sixth century barbarians armed with modern weapons that they barely know how to use. The Israelis are professionals. They are good at killing idiot barbarian wannabes, and they clearly enjoy their work. You don't get that good at something unless you enjoy it. The Palestinians are murderous terrorists who can't be bothered to learn to be soldiers.John Ringo, American journalist

    The first step, at last underway, is conquering the Palestinian-controlled territories and utter destruction of infrastructure. Our forces must sweep city-to-city, village-to-village, house-to-house, confiscating all armaments, arresting or eliminating all terrorists. When the Israel Defense Forces are in total control of the territories and have undone some of the terrible damage of the Oslo catastrophe, then our task will be to establish favorable separation lines and fences around Palestinian population centers.Reuven Koret, IsraelInsider publisher

    I mean, if this is the center, the right (wherefrom Mr. Sharon comes) must be toasting for every Palestinian child or woman killed. It is pretty easy these days, you just declare your enemies terrorists and you are apparently excused from anything resembling human rights. Kill them, arrest them, torture them, deport them, destroy their homes and any hopes they might have had. And when they strike back with whatever means they have you just have to say "See, I told you they were barbarians, let us finish exterminating them"


    Evolution doesn't take prisoners


    [ Parent ]
    Hard to tell (4.00 / 1) (#147)
    by ariux on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 12:46:27 AM EST

    Those look pretty right-wing to me. Some different views...

    [ Parent ]

    Why the double standard (2.00 / 5) (#167)
    by stevefuzzy on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 02:16:05 AM EST

    Al Qaeda committed only a single attack against the U.S., and the response was overwhelming. We went to Afghanistan, toppled a regime by bombing it back to the dark ages, and proceeded on a hunt to kill Al Qaeda fighters hiding in the hills. Why do you expect Israel to do less when it's been the victim of not a single attack, but countless, unrelenting waves of terror? The Palestinians are clearly bent on the destruction of the Jewish state. Why should Israel do anything but try to beat them down?

    [ Parent ]
    maybe because (4.33 / 6) (#174)
    by SocratesGhost on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 02:42:39 AM EST

    of the same reasons that the we got criticized for attacking the Taliban. The US target was Al Qaeda, but the Taliban was in the way so we took them out.

    For Israel, these various terrorist groups are the real target, but the PLO is in the way.

    Seemingly, there's links between Arafat and the terrorists, but that proof has been presented to us in much the same way that the Taliban has been shown to have ties to Al Qaeda, that is to say, not at all. The governments have told us that there is a relationship and we have been willing to accept their word for the most part.

    While I haven't opposed my country's actions in Afghanistan, there's always that bit of scepticism that I have never been presented with the ironclad evidence that the Taliban was linked to Al Qaeda, nor that Al Qaeda was definitely linked to the events of 9/11. That proof was carefully guarded and presented to the heads of various nations, but it has not yet been released to the public. I don't necessarily doubt them, but I'm not under the illusions of having seen proof that I have not.

    By the same token, we should be equally sceptical of Israel's actions and motivations. Since Israel will always be a delicate subject, some people will be more critical than others.


    -Soc
    I drank what?


    [ Parent ]
    solid links in both cases. (3.00 / 2) (#293)
    by sonovel on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 01:22:45 PM EST

    The Taliban provided a safe haven for OBL and refused to turn him over when asked. That is a solid link. Perhaps it isn't justification for deposing the Taliban, but the link isn't disputed by anyone.

    Similarly, the Al Aqsa Martyrs (and others) have clear and indesputable ties to Arafat. They have deliberatly targeted and killed civilians well withing the 1967 borders of Israel. Again, this may or may not be enough justification for attackingt Arafat, but to deny this link just displays ignorance or dishonesty.

    [ Parent ]
    my recollection (3.00 / 1) (#312)
    by SocratesGhost on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 02:06:45 PM EST

    was that the Taliban said, "We don't know where he is, but if we did, we wouldn't turn him over to you." That's not the same thing as abetting. Only after we had invaded did we have any material evidence that OBL was in Afghanistan, but that still didn't tie him in a compelling way to the Taliban, at least not anything that was shown to the American public (more specifically: me).

    The ties to Arafat are not that solid according to NPR news (which is pretty much my only source for this). From many of the reports on there, they make it out that the Al-Aqsa Martyrs branched out of Arafat's organization when they began disputing his policies. As a result, they don't answer to him; they are not under his control. That may be a "tie" but it doesn't make Arafat culpable.

    It's not dishonesty. I just haven't heard the absolute compelling ties. Murderers are let go on stronger evidence, but it would seem that weaker proof justifies going to war on nations? That seems a dangerous double standard.

    Jeez, I sound like a peace-nik. I'm really not. I'm just not under the illusion of proof that I haven't seen.


    -Soc
    I drank what?


    [ Parent ]
    Wrong. (4.00 / 2) (#336)
    by sonovel on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 03:35:51 PM EST

    OBL was in Afghanistan as a "guest" of the Taliban. They let him in after he was thrown out of another country.

    The Taliban claimed for a while that they had him in custody and he wasn't able to plot attacks. Later they "lost" him.

    There were also very close personal ties, by marriage, between OBL and the head honchos of the Taliban.

    This is pretty undisputed stuff. You might want to do a search on some of the history here.


    As far as the Al Aqsa thing, Al Aqsa members have been interviewed (recently) and have claimed to be personally loyal to Arafat. So I think th link is pretty solid there as well.

    [ Parent ]
    Not just one attack (4.25 / 4) (#187)
    by Delirium on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 03:08:23 AM EST

    Al Qaeda is considered responsible for a string of attacks, from the WTC bombing in 1993 to the killing of Americans in Somalia to the twin embassy attacks in 1998; the WTC attacks of 2001 were the "straw that broke the camel's back," so to speak.

    That said, I oppose both the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan and the Israeli invasion of Palestine.

    [ Parent ]

    Invasion of Afghanistan (none / 0) (#557)
    by Vogue State on Thu Apr 04, 2002 at 03:35:00 PM EST

    Sorry for venturing way off-topic here, but...

    That said, I oppose both the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan and the Israeli invasion of Palestine.

    You aren't seriously suggesting that the people of Afghanistan deserved to be stuck under the Taliban for another 5 years, are you?

    [ Parent ]

    keeping this OT! (none / 0) (#721)
    by KiTaSuMbA on Sun Apr 07, 2002 at 12:24:31 AM EST

    Some points:
    1)interestingly enough, when talibans got kabul kicking off the now-friendly Northern alliance it was seen as good news since the then-called warlords of dope, now-called friends that let the roads of opium wide open was followed by a fanatic religious dictatorship that would be at least "coherent".
    2)the people's religious "oppression" doesn't seem to end here or they (the afghanis) don't perceive it as such: most of the eye-for-eye laws still stand (though kept a bit more discrete than celebrating executions at the stadium) and independent reporters have noticed that women would put their burkas (a "custom" some centuries older than talibans and actually abolished only in the "cosmopolitan" Kabul under the sovietic occupation) right on as soon as the cameras went off.
    3)the western diplomacy "realised" the drama of afghanistan only after the WTC tragedy while a year earlier UNESCO and many other civil rights and culture organisations were urging the international community to take measures against the talibans blowing off some centuries-old giant budha statues.
    4)"strategic", intelligent bombing is prooven not to be such. Though reports are somewhat lacking from afghanistan we have seen pretty much of it during the Kosovo intervention. Anybody remembers the pathetic on-board footage of a train being bombed while crossing a bridge that was presented to the journalists speeded-up to give the impression that the train came out of the blue and the pilot had no intent on blowing it up? A clever BBC journalist had calculated the apparent speed of the train (given the lenght of the bridge) and it resulted something like 200km/h (more than the double that train could develop).
    Now, I'm not suggesting that the US should thank laden for the WTC slaughter. Nor that the talibans were a rightful government. What I'm saying is that military action is taken upon interest, not ideals. We should get rid of our hypocricy that we actually care for those without bread while crunching pop-corn and sucking up beer watching on the TV those green-light night bombings better-than-hollywood.
    There is no Dopaminergic Pepperoni Kabal!
    [ Parent ]
    Yes. (3.60 / 5) (#58)
    by Apuleius on Tue Apr 02, 2002 at 09:41:39 PM EST

    Israelinsider is posting articles both from Laborites and Likudniks.


    There is a time and a place for everything, and it's called college. (The South Park chef)
    [ Parent ]
    Why bother? (4.83 / 6) (#136)
    by /dev/niall on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 12:04:46 AM EST

    How about this?

    But what does that have to do with another site/news source being biased? Like balancing out biased media makes everything ok?
    -- 报告人对动物
    [ Parent ]

    Actually... (4.66 / 3) (#59)
    by anowack on Tue Apr 02, 2002 at 09:42:13 PM EST

    I don't know about the news ticker, but if you click the link on the right side labeled "security incidents" you'll find a flash program that displays what appears to be a comprehensive database of all "incidents" going back to May 2001, which includes incidetns targeting both Israelis and Palestinians...

    (If I could figure out how to get one, I'd provide a direct link...)
    "Never let reality get in the way of a good hypothesis."
    [ Parent ]
    Seems pretty centrist (4.00 / 3) (#64)
    by Delirium on Tue Apr 02, 2002 at 09:53:01 PM EST

    I think the emphasis on Israeli casualties could be attributed to the fact that it's an Israeli news source, and Israelis are presumably more interested in casualties on their side than casualties on the other side. Its coverage of actual events seems fairly centrist for Israeli media though.

    [ Parent ]
    Interesting the poll there... (4.85 / 7) (#55)
    by wiredog on Tue Apr 02, 2002 at 09:38:08 PM EST

    What should Israel do with Yasser Arafat?
    • Ignore him
    • Negotiate with him
    • Expel him
    • Kill him intentionally
    • Kill him accidentally
    Accidentally. Right.

    Peoples Front To Reunite Gondwanaland: "Stop the Laurasian Separatist Movement!"
    [ Parent ]
    I can see the press conference (4.88 / 9) (#62)
    by Delirium on Tue Apr 02, 2002 at 09:48:17 PM EST

    Sharon: "I have ordered our forces to accidentally shoot Yassir Arafat."

    [ Parent ]
    And the details... (2.80 / 5) (#177)
    by Betcour on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 02:46:32 AM EST

    "The Israelies paratroopers entered Arafat bathroom by mistakes, thinking it was a Hamas bomb factory. They shot Arabat in his shower by mistake with a bullet in his forehead, mistaking him for a dangerous 12 yo boy throwing stone. We are sorry for the accident, we won't do it again."

    [ Parent ]
    You forgot the investigation part (5.00 / 2) (#510)
    by spin0 on Thu Apr 04, 2002 at 07:38:24 AM EST


    "IDF will launch a complete and impartial investigation of the events that led into this sad incident."

    And two days later:

    "Our investigation shows that mr. Arafat was not shot by IDF paratroopers, the shots that killed him were fired from a nearby building which was controlled by Palestinian gunmen."

    [ Parent ]
    Accidental shooting... (none / 0) (#575)
    by Sanction on Thu Apr 04, 2002 at 05:27:06 PM EST

    "We would have believed it was an accidental shooting, if he hadn't changed magazines TWICE!"

    Wow, This is the most amazing loaf of bread I've ever owned!
    [ Parent ]
    re:Interesting the poll there... (2.75 / 4) (#94)
    by jij on Tue Apr 02, 2002 at 10:39:50 PM EST

    And the results:

    What should Israel do with Yasser Arafat?
    Ignore him 7%
    Negotiate with him 31.7%
    Expel him 23.5%
    Kill him intentionally 24.6%
    Kill him accidentally 13.2%


    "people who thinks quotes are witty are fucking morons" - turmeric
    [ Parent ]

    "Protective Wall" (3.40 / 10) (#65)
    by notcarlos on Tue Apr 02, 2002 at 09:59:34 PM EST

    Now, this may be flame, and it may not, but I'd like to know how a "Protective Wall" involves invading another state; I suppose it has something to do with the same way a "Desert Shield" involves taking over a paeninsula. "Wall" and "Shield" imply that you are setting up a defense, not a raid.

    Do with this what ye wish.


    He will destroy you like an academic ninja.
    -- Rating on Rate My Professors.com
    Buffer zone (4.00 / 4) (#66)
    by wiredog on Tue Apr 02, 2002 at 10:03:35 PM EST

    I suspect the Israelis are setting up a buffer zone. And there's been talk about a fence along the Israeli border. The border proposed at the Camp David meeting of 2000. Combine the two, and you have an end of most, if not all, of the suicide bombings.

    Peoples Front To Reunite Gondwanaland: "Stop the Laurasian Separatist Movement!"
    [ Parent ]
    re: Buffer zone (3.66 / 3) (#86)
    by jij on Tue Apr 02, 2002 at 10:31:14 PM EST

    According to something I read on this site ( can't find the exact quote just now, though ), the IDF appears to be nervous about being attacked from the north when ( and if ) the US attacks Iraq, and wants to keep the roads free from attack by Palestinians to allow free troop and arms movement without worrying too much about snipers and booby traps, by arresting or killing as many terrorists as possible, destroying the terrorist infra-structure and weapons. Not to mention stopping or at least slowing down the suicide attacks.

    "people who thinks quotes are witty are fucking morons" - turmeric
    [ Parent ]

    Debka (3.50 / 2) (#89)
    by wiredog on Tue Apr 02, 2002 at 10:36:39 PM EST

    Interesting site. Lots of propaganda, but there are some interesting things in there. There's been some speculation that it might be a Mossad site.

    Good translations of Arab media at memri.

    Peoples Front To Reunite Gondwanaland: "Stop the Laurasian Separatist Movement!"
    [ Parent ]

    Damn (none / 0) (#92)
    by wiredog on Tue Apr 02, 2002 at 10:37:57 PM EST

    Konqeror is giving me hives tonight... Try that link again.

    memri

    Peoples Front To Reunite Gondwanaland: "Stop the Laurasian Separatist Movement!"
    [ Parent ]

    Curious... (3.00 / 1) (#93)
    by anowack on Tue Apr 02, 2002 at 10:39:40 PM EST

    One of the "Headlines" on that site reads: "Palestinian Tanzim Militiamen Hold 10 Priests and Nuns Hostage in Bethlehem's Santa Maria Church"

    Can anyone find a less biased/more detailed source on this? (Or indeed whether this is something being misrepresented/blown out of proportion or completely made up?)

    "Never let reality get in the way of a good hypothesis."
    [ Parent ]
    re: Curious (4.00 / 2) (#95)
    by jij on Tue Apr 02, 2002 at 10:43:02 PM EST

    here you go

    "people who thinks quotes are witty are fucking morons" - turmeric
    [ Parent ]

    Here's another (4.00 / 2) (#103)
    by jij on Tue Apr 02, 2002 at 11:00:28 PM EST

    http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGANGX0LKZC.html

    "people who thinks quotes are witty are fucking morons" - turmeric
    [ Parent ]

    Ok... (4.00 / 1) (#107)
    by anowack on Tue Apr 02, 2002 at 11:11:51 PM EST

    (Thank's to jij for his links.)

    So far as I can tell from those links, Palestinain gunmen broke into the Church of Nativity, though I didn't notice any confirmation/denial of hostage taking.

    "Never let reality get in the way of a good hypothesis."
    [ Parent ]
    How about : Rhetoric (4.75 / 4) (#91)
    by heet on Tue Apr 02, 2002 at 10:37:17 PM EST

    The operation name has little to do with the actual operation except this -- the generals and politicians know it will be broadcast all over the world. Headlines like "Israel Launches Operation Protective Wall" and sentences like "as a part of Operation Protective Wall" shape public sentiment. If those pieces read "Isreal Launches Operation Forced Reprisal" or "as a part of Operation Politically Motivated Incursion" it would raise some eyebrows.

    This is a savvy and very obvious measure to take. These actions don't take place in a vacuum.

    [ Parent ]
    Just words (4.00 / 4) (#108)
    by ariux on Tue Apr 02, 2002 at 11:12:21 PM EST

    Sharon is likely starting the depopulation of the West Bank. Hizbollah is playing right into his hands: the regional war will be the distraction.

    Watch a politician's actions, not his words.

    [ Parent ]

    Propaganda (3.00 / 4) (#185)
    by Betcour on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 03:04:05 AM EST

    I guess if they had called it "Operation Genocide : let's kill and torture as many Palestinians kids as we can", CNN would have had a more difficult time making it look like a legitimate anti-terrorist operation. Same as "Desert storm" was better than "Cheap oil supply"

    [ Parent ]
    Overstatement for effect? (5.00 / 1) (#371)
    by KilljoyAZ on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 06:06:26 PM EST

    If they're trying to kill as many Palestinians as possible, then Israel is doing a really shitty job considering they overwhelming advantage in firepower they have.

    ===
    Creativitiy cannot be SPELT by over 98% of all American troops. - psychologist
    [ Parent ]
    Ah yes but (2.00 / 1) (#456)
    by Betcour on Thu Apr 04, 2002 at 03:20:04 AM EST

    You have to realize that doing ethnic cleansing without having the world up in arms about it requires some restrains. You cannot just use nukes, you have to be a tad more subtle (and get rid of those pesky journalists). Saddam or Milosevic had to take some precautions when they attacked populations, and it's not like they didn't have the power to get everyone killed if they wanted to.

    [ Parent ]
    Ethnic cleansing? (4.50 / 2) (#460)
    by KilljoyAZ on Thu Apr 04, 2002 at 03:46:36 AM EST

    Saddam and Milosevic did a really shitty job of hiding their death camps and gassed people. When someone can show me evidence of death camps, mass graves or some gassed Palestinians then I'll compare Sharon to Saddam or Milosevic. Until then saying "It's a holocaust, it's just being done in secret" ranks right up there with the "Jews drink the blood of Gentiles at Purim" story on my bullshit meter.

    Charges of extra-legal killings (I like to call it murder, myself) of Palestinians by some Israeli troops are believable, charges of systemic, total annihalation of the Palestinian people are ridiculous. Shimon Peres and the Labor party would quit the coalition government if that became government policy.

    ===
    Creativitiy cannot be SPELT by over 98% of all American troops. - psychologist
    [ Parent ]
    Narrow view of the whole thing (4.50 / 2) (#523)
    by Betcour on Thu Apr 04, 2002 at 09:42:28 AM EST

    You don't need death-camp and mass graves to do ethnic cleansing. Ethnic cleansing is "removing a local population from its region/country". Colonizing Palestine and at the same time ruining the life of local inhabitants by destroying their houses, economy and infrastructure so they go away seems to fit the definition perfectly.

    [ Parent ]
    Offensive operation called Desert Storm (nt) (3.00 / 1) (#284)
    by drivers on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 12:44:03 PM EST



    [ Parent ]
    Israeli F-16s Raid Lebanon (5.00 / 9) (#67)
    by wiredog on Tue Apr 02, 2002 at 10:10:08 PM EST

    From the BBC. Apparently the Israelis are retaliating for a Hezbolla rocket attack.

    Peoples Front To Reunite Gondwanaland: "Stop the Laurasian Separatist Movement!"
    Palestinians aren't very effective (1.71 / 14) (#68)
    by Jonathan Walther on Tue Apr 02, 2002 at 10:11:06 PM EST

    A lot of the news reports seem to indicate that every time a Palestinian blows himself up, or opens fire with a machine gun, an average of 0.5 Israelis are killed. What gives? Maybe their heart isn't in it. The Palestinians are so desparate they are just commiting suicide, and doing it in a way that they hope will take a few people with them. But it seems it is themselves they are killing first. If they would get an organized squad of 5 together, now THAT might stand a chance. The bombers don't seem to know how to keep their cool and pull the trigger in the most advantageous position.

    (Luke '22:36 '19:13) => ("Sell your coat and buy a gun." . "Occupy until I come.")


    Demolition is an art. (4.28 / 7) (#70)
    by Apuleius on Tue Apr 02, 2002 at 10:13:01 PM EST

    Suicide bombers have a high frequency of premature detonation, which is what you can expect when these bombs are made in a basement by some random. Competent bomb makers are Israel's primary targets, and so are in limited supply.


    There is a time and a place for everything, and it's called college. (The South Park chef)
    [ Parent ]
    Is that really true? (4.50 / 4) (#165)
    by stevefuzzy on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 01:59:57 AM EST

    The Passover bombing took out 25 people to date. The one at the Tel Aviv nightclub took out a whole bunch of kids. The one at the Sbarro Pizza also killed a bunch of innocents. The one intercepted recently by a 19-year old Israeli Policeman ended up killing the cop and wounding a couple of others. I don't know, looks to me like the kill ratio is a lot higher than 0.5. Not that doing such arithmetic is a sane thing to do...

    [ Parent ]
    You have to take them ALL into account (4.00 / 4) (#181)
    by Jonathan Walther on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 02:56:30 AM EST

    Such as the many bombers that get caught, and then blow themselves up without harming anyone else. Or the shooters who take some potshots, then get hunted down and killed without having done more than inflict a wound or two. You don't see "5 Israelis take out one lone Palestinian gunman" in the headlines. But it is far more frequent.

    The arithmetic isn't sane? Neither is stealing other peoples land. If you are going to die, as long as you can take at least one person with you, you have won. If you can take more with you, thats gravy.

    (Luke '22:36 '19:13) => ("Sell your coat and buy a gun." . "Occupy until I come.")


    [ Parent ]
    Irrelevant (none / 0) (#732)
    by Woundweavr on Sun Apr 07, 2002 at 05:41:07 PM EST

    Does it matter?

    Either way they were trying to kill civilians. It doesn't matter whether they do so well or not when their intent is so clear.

    [ Parent ]

    Suicide is suicide (4.00 / 6) (#172)
    by Arker on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 02:38:39 AM EST

    You're right. Suicide is suicide, whether it's solo or you take someone with you it's the same deal, and if you know anything about the psychology of suicide that says it all.

    Most of the Palestinians have lived their entire life under the IDF boot. They have no realistic hope to win in any conflict - and they have no realistic hope of any peaceful settlement that would be remotely acceptable to any of us in their place. Desperation is an understatement. They have no hope. Being a martyr doesn't appeal to many people when times are good, but when there is nothing else to aspire to, to hope for, but a martyrs death...



    [ Parent ]
    Western Ideas (5.00 / 1) (#731)
    by Woundweavr on Sun Apr 07, 2002 at 05:39:10 PM EST

    A suicide is not necessarily a suicide.

    For instance, is the soldier who jumps on a grenade to save his friends and comrades doing so for the same reason as a depressed housewife who takes an extra dozen sleeping pills? Or a kamikaze the same as the terminally ill cancer patient? No. Not in the least. Claiming that "suicide is suicide" is ridiculous, especiall across different cultures with completely different mores and values. Especially when one's primary religion sees suicide as a sin under most cases and the other's sees suicide in service of their god as the greatest thing one can do.

    Arab-Muslim culture regards the suicide martyr as the equivalent of a saint or hero. Claiming that self-termination is the primary motivation for suicide bombers is ludicrous.



    [ Parent ]

    I saw the bodies, killed by a shot to the head (3.94 / 17) (#78)
    by Sir Spankotron on Tue Apr 02, 2002 at 10:19:46 PM EST

    http://www.observer.co.uk/worldview/story/0,11581,676640,00.html
    http://www.observer.co.uk/worldview/story/0,11581,676835,00.html

    Same story, 2 different headlines. About execution style murders in Ramallah.

    Go listen to today's (or any episode really) Democracy Now radio show over at:

    http://www.webactive.com/pacifica/demnow.html

    She's been interviewing peeps that are actually over there.

    Completely unfounded (3.00 / 10) (#87)
    by Demiurge on Tue Apr 02, 2002 at 10:33:29 PM EST

    Some foreign affairs journalist(note I did not say military affairs) makes unfounded speculation on the condition of some corpses, and blithely announces that the evil Israelis are executing Palestinians gangland style.

    [ Parent ]
    yah well... (3.00 / 2) (#306)
    by Sir Spankotron on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 01:50:22 PM EST


    Yeah, but ...

    You don't need to be a forensics expert to know that if a corpse is clutching bleeding chest wounds, and has a hole in it's head... The head shot probably came later.



    [ Parent ]
    ..and the refutation (none / 0) (#567)
    by zastruga on Thu Apr 04, 2002 at 04:52:13 PM EST

    Refutations of Guardian reporting don't tend to be far to find, but I've saved you the trouble.

    [ Parent ]
    Why no mention... (2.35 / 17) (#82)
    by Demiurge on Tue Apr 02, 2002 at 10:21:50 PM EST

    of the recent suicide bombings? Or that Marwan Barghouti is strongly linked to terrorist bombings? Why not entitle the article "Fascist Israelis attack Palestinian Freedom Fighters"?

    The article does have some good information, but it's still heavily biased to the Palestinians. Not just the very sources, but the way he words it. Why can't we have a real, unbiased, story on anything regarding the Israel-Palestine conflict?

    why is there bias? (4.00 / 2) (#96)
    by heet on Tue Apr 02, 2002 at 10:44:11 PM EST

    "Why can't we have a real, unbiased, story on anything regarding the Israel-Palestine conflict?"

    I think it is hard to find someone who does not have a pretty concrete opinion on the whole ordeal. My girlfriend goes to school with an ethnic Palestinian (she was born in occupied territory) and a Jew with family in Israel. These two hate each other with a passion. Most people who are interested in the conflict have a bias. Fundamentally, it may hinge on how sympathetic one feels towards the position of either side.

    [ Parent ]
    Did you even read the story? (4.00 / 3) (#113)
    by Delirium on Tue Apr 02, 2002 at 11:24:32 PM EST

    A link to a news article about the "Passover massacre" suicide bombing in Jerusalem is the only link in the intro text. There is also a link under March 31 to an article on another suicide bombing in Haifa.

    [ Parent ]
    Yes, but the rest of the story... (3.00 / 2) (#160)
    by Demiurge on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 01:52:04 AM EST

    is nothing but a list of "atrocities" performed against the Palestinians.

    The current toll is what, seven bombings against Israeli civilians in seven days? And not a word about the latest bombings, because they might make the Palestinians, of whom at least 60% support bombings, look unsympathetic. Yes, that's unreasonable bias.

    [ Parent ]
    I didn't list every casualty (4.66 / 3) (#166)
    by Delirium on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 02:01:25 AM EST

    Because then I'd have an enormously long list. In general I avoided listing any incident on either side that resulted in no deaths and only one or two injured. Many of the recent suicide bombings fall into that category, especially the ones against IDF checkpoints.

    I could have also listed the various Palestinians who have been shot ("collateral damage"), but I deliberately limited myself to major events.

    [ Parent ]

    Civilians (3.81 / 11) (#90)
    by bobpence on Tue Apr 02, 2002 at 10:36:41 PM EST

    According to this biased source, the 400 "civilians" were allowed out of the security headquarters (and then arrested). They were mostly security personnel, which explains why they were there; otherwise it seemed kind of like being in Manhattan and fleeing into the Empire State Building in the minutes after the Towers were attacked.

    That's one problem in war. The armed guerilla pointing his gun at you becomes an innocent civilian child after you shoot first.

    I went to a Unitarian service after September 11, and folks were getting together to go to a local mosque to stand vigil against expected vandals who never appeared. Meanwhile the congregation at the mosque issued statements condemning the terrorist attacks as unjustifiable. That's what you get from horrible Americans. Yet these sainted Palestinian nationalists? They're using a church as a firebase.
    "Interesting. No wait, the other thing: tedious." - Bender

    disagreement over who is in there (3.50 / 4) (#111)
    by Delirium on Tue Apr 02, 2002 at 11:19:29 PM EST

    There's widespread disagreement over who was in the compound, and since it's such a large compound probably everyone is partially right. Israel claims that there are several of its most wanted men in the compound; the Palestinians concede that this is the case, but say that this is only because the compound houses a jail, and the most wanted men are in the jail (and have been since December 2001, as per Israel's demands). Israel claims that there are wanted men other than the jailed inside the compound; the Palestinians deny this; in particular, they deny that Barghouti is in the compound. The Palestinians claim that there are children and women in the compound, which may be plausible since the facility houses a day care center and extensive offices with clerical-type employees.

    [ Parent ]
    Don't be gullible (4.00 / 3) (#159)
    by stevefuzzy on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 01:49:17 AM EST

    The PA only pretends to arrest known terrorists. Their jails have been nothing but a revolving door to satisfy the west, but in truth they let these murderers go free after a few days. Why would you believe that they would arrest their fellow "freedom fighter"? As a matter of fact, one of the recent suicide bombings was done by a Palestinian whose arrest Israel demanded, and in typical PA behavior, the PA released him and delivered him directly into their suicide mission briefing.

    [ Parent ]
    Women and Children (3.00 / 1) (#326)
    by heatherj on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 03:02:58 PM EST

    The Palestinians are commonly in the habit of locating their bases of terrorist operations in such places as day care centers and hospitals, specifically so that they can whine about women and children being involved in antiterrorism operations.

    [ Parent ]
    Time for some bias from the other side (1.51 / 37) (#102)
    by Ken Pompadour on Tue Apr 02, 2002 at 10:59:43 PM EST

    I really wish the United States would stop supporting that terrorist state, Israel.

    I'd laugh as Israel collapsed in upon itself. Those fucking Israelis wouldn't last two days against the rest of the Middle East. The Arabic states would cut it up like Christmas ham.

    How's them apples?



    ...The target is countrymen, friends and family... they have to die too. - candid trhurler
    I'm pretty sure... (4.16 / 6) (#104)
    by Woundweavr on Tue Apr 02, 2002 at 11:05:52 PM EST

    ..you're being insincere but the past kinda refutes that claim.

    [ Parent ]
    Spirally? NIM (3.33 / 3) (#109)
    by bobpence on Tue Apr 02, 2002 at 11:15:15 PM EST


    "Interesting. No wait, the other thing: tedious." - Bender
    [ Parent ]
    Them apples be rotten (3.83 / 6) (#156)
    by stevefuzzy on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 01:42:04 AM EST

    You know not what you speak of. For a history refresher read http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson040202.asp
    Briefly, Israel beat the shit out of the Arabs WITHOUT U.S. help in 1948, 1956, 1967, all against overwhelming Arab forces. They did the same in 1973, though by then the U.S. sent in aid. As to calling Israel a terrorist state, well, by that token then so is the U.S. of A. I urge you to read that article.

    [ Parent ]
    Please give unbiased sources (2.60 / 5) (#245)
    by Ken Pompadour on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 08:55:43 AM EST

    National Review is garbage. Anyways, I seriously doubt Israel would stand a chance today, without the US propping them up. Israel has pissed off, well every single one of their neighbours, neighbours twice removed, and pretty much all of Europe. You think they'd think twice about destroying Israel and splitting up the proceeds?

    ...The target is countrymen, friends and family... they have to die too. - candid trhurler
    [ Parent ]
    lol (3.80 / 5) (#247)
    by Stickerboy on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 09:09:15 AM EST

    The original poster was pointing out commonly known history. Claiming the "National Review is garbage" would be effective if he was claiming something controversial, but everyone knows that the Israelis have never lost a war against the Arab nations since its founding.

    Anyways, I seriously doubt Israel would stand a chance today, without the US propping them up.

    You have a distinct lack of knowledge when it comes to military matters. Size and numbers don't matter - the fact that the Israeli armed forces have a technological advantage, train 10 times as much as Arab armed forces, are better integrated as a combined arms force, possess more and better C3 and I capability and teach their soldiers better tactics and strategy would mean that Israel would wipe the floor with any Arab invasion force. The Arab leaders know this - that's why they will posture all day long in front of a camera for domestic political consumption, but won't lift a finger to help the Palestinians.

    Israel has been outnumbered in every major war between itself and its neighbors; the difference is that Israel has a modern army while the Arabs have a collection of draftees you could loosely call an army armed with a mix of obsolescent and modern equipment. Much of the Israeli military technology is homegrown; the rest could just as easily have been bought from France, Britain or Russia as from the US.

    [ Parent ]
    Also (3.40 / 5) (#248)
    by wiredog on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 09:11:39 AM EST

    Israel has nukes...

    Peoples Front To Reunite Gondwanaland: "Stop the Laurasian Separatist Movement!"
    [ Parent ]
    So does the UK (2.25 / 8) (#250)
    by Ken Pompadour on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 09:15:45 AM EST



    ...The target is countrymen, friends and family... they have to die too. - candid trhurler
    [ Parent ]
    You think the UK would use nukes on Israel? (4.60 / 5) (#252)
    by wiredog on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 09:26:15 AM EST

    No one in the UK, except possibly you, is stupid enough to trade London for the Palestinians.

    Peoples Front To Reunite Gondwanaland: "Stop the Laurasian Separatist Movement!"
    [ Parent ]
    You think Israel would use nukes? (3.20 / 5) (#255)
    by marx on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 09:44:08 AM EST


    Join me in the War on Torture: help eradicate torture from the world by holding torturers accountable.
    [ Parent ]

    In retaliation, yes (3.40 / 5) (#264)
    by wiredog on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 10:39:34 AM EST

    Or if their backs were against the sea and they would otherwise be overrun.

    Peoples Front To Reunite Gondwanaland: "Stop the Laurasian Separatist Movement!"
    [ Parent ]
    and how does that relate? NT (3.20 / 5) (#253)
    by typhatix on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 09:26:31 AM EST



    [ Parent ]
    I think he's saying (3.50 / 2) (#283)
    by wiredog on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 12:39:43 PM EST

    that if Israel used nukes to stop an invasion, then the UK would use nukes on Israel.

    Peoples Front To Reunite Gondwanaland: "Stop the Laurasian Separatist Movement!"
    [ Parent ]
    Ignorance (4.80 / 5) (#258)
    by Woundweavr on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 10:08:21 AM EST

    In the previous wars, the Israelis were massively outnumbered as well. They also tended to hand the Arabs their heads in a matter of days. Such as in the Six Day War in which Israel beat the hell out of most of its neighbors. If you don't know anything, don't say anything.

    The definition of biased is not "disagreeing with me"

    [ Parent ]

    western support (3.75 / 4) (#270)
    by Delirium on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 11:16:35 AM EST

    Israel hasn't actually been tested without western support since 1948. In 1967 they won almost entirely with French weapons (Mirage fighter jets and the like). Since then the French have stopped selling them weapons, but the U.S. have filled the gaps. If they had to stick to domestically produced weapons they might be in a bit more of a bind (do they even have a domestically produced fighter jet?).

    [ Parent ]
    Israeli Airforce. (4.50 / 2) (#295)
    by physicsgod on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 01:28:14 PM EST

    Israel produces the Kfir which is basically a modified Mirage fighter. It seems that most of the subsystems are western, but Israel has a significant manufacturing capacity, so reverse engineering and independant production wouldn't be impossible.

    --- "Those not wearing body armor are hereby advised to keep their arguments on-topic" Schlock Mercenary
    [ Parent ]
    Commerce (none / 0) (#644)
    by Woundweavr on Fri Apr 05, 2002 at 09:52:32 AM EST

    Yes the Israelis buy weapons from the US. So does many many other places. This isn't Western Support any more than the Arab countries buying US weapons is Western support. Its commerce.

    [ Parent ]
    It's western support, not commerce (none / 0) (#648)
    by Delirium on Fri Apr 05, 2002 at 11:05:10 AM EST

    The United States gives Israel approximately $2 billion per year of military aid (out of approximately $2.7 billion per year in total aid). That's more along the lines of donating weapons than selling them.

    [ Parent ]
    So? (none / 0) (#666)
    by Woundweavr on Fri Apr 05, 2002 at 02:21:46 PM EST

    The US governments gives just about everyone military aid unless they are on their bad side. Egypt gets 1.3 billion. Jordan has to settle for only $75 million. Even the Palestinians got military aid (80 million).

    Israel gets more because since its founding in '48 its been massively attacked in an attempted genocide by its neighbors. Israel may be harsh to the Palestinians, but its mostly due to the foes who only don't attack because they'd be destroyed. There are two things holding the Arab nations back. The first is Israel's military power, which is aided by the US

    [ Parent ]

    Also - Figures (none / 0) (#669)
    by Woundweavr on Fri Apr 05, 2002 at 02:46:53 PM EST

    Israel far outspends the other nations of the Middle East, before foreign aid is calculated. Egypt is second, and the only one even close. Israel also has a much large domestic arms industry.

    Whatever you're conclusion about aid, the source of military power becomes irrelevent when bullets and missles fly. If the Arabs tried to jump Israel, they'd be in trouble one way or another. Israel, particularly, has a massive air advantage and maintains an overall qualitative advantage over the higher number Arab states and their obselete equipment.

    [ Parent ]

    But you are ... (none / 0) (#552)
    by kaltan on Thu Apr 04, 2002 at 02:43:42 PM EST

    As to calling Israel a terrorist state, well, by that token then so is the U.S. of A.


    read this
    Don't ignore your own terrorist past



    [ Parent ]
    Bad idea (4.50 / 4) (#372)
    by trhurler on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 06:11:37 PM EST

    Our diplomats in Israel spend a significant amount of their time convincing the Israelis not to do various things they would otherwise not think twice about. That ability is solely dependent upon our helping the Israelis. Take away that help, and what you have is a small desperate nation with many enemies who have lots of money - but who have several hundred nukes with appropriate delivery mechanisms, when their opponents have none. Think about the sheer stupidity of your suggestion. Think long and hard. If you want there to be any Arab nations left, Palestinian or otherwise, then you do NOT want us to quit supporting Israel.

    In any case, the last time they were invaded, they had no particular outside support - and they flat out whooped ass. Since then, their military has been enlarged, modernized, and in every way improved, whereas their enemies are still using pretty much the same leftover Soviet era weapons and methods they were using back then. I think they'd use nukes happily, but I don't think they'd need to unless the Arabs all jumped them at once, in which case I doubt any of those nations would still exist a month from now.

    --
    'God dammit, your posts make me hard.' --LilDebbie

    [ Parent ]
    yeah (4.00 / 2) (#400)
    by Delirium on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 08:54:09 PM EST

    This is one of the main reasons the Israeli far right wants to wean itself from American aid -- without American aid there is not nearly the same level of obligation to take American foreign policy wishes into account.

    [ Parent ]
    Mideast (1.14 / 21) (#105)
    by Baldrson on Tue Apr 02, 2002 at 11:06:44 PM EST

    After my morning coffee greasy spoon encounter with a newspaper today out here on the west coast, I'm still trying to figure out whether the headline reference to the "Mideast":
    1. Is referring to states east of the Mississippi and west of the Appalachians.
    2. Is anything for me to be worried about, given that it's like 2 or 3 time zones a head of me.

    PS: Would the "Mideast" exclude states south of the Mason Dixon Line? West of the Mississippi is too far west for that to apply of course, but even in that case, people don't usually think of Texas as part of the Midwest. But if the Mideast is where I think it is, the Mason Dixon Line might apply to the Mideast so it could be much clearer where the Mideast begins and Dixie ends (and vis versa). Are there any K5 readers here from Ohio who could answer this question?

    -------- Empty the Cities --------


    israel.org's site falls down on the job. (3.66 / 9) (#110)
    by Apuleius on Tue Apr 02, 2002 at 11:17:57 PM EST

    It is the Israeli Foreign Ministry's site, and it's an ill-constructed pile of ASP bloat. A heavy load or a DDOS has them out of commission.


    There is a time and a place for everything, and it's called college. (The South Park chef)
    Weapons inventory. (4.50 / 10) (#112)
    by Apuleius on Tue Apr 02, 2002 at 11:22:01 PM EST

    IDF releases list of PLO weapons siezed in this campaign. An oversight on their part omits capture of a partridge in a pear tree. It looks like the Palestinians are going to be seriously lacking for arms soon.


    There is a time and a place for everything, and it's called college. (The South Park chef)
    Barrett sniper rifle (5.00 / 2) (#123)
    by demi on Tue Apr 02, 2002 at 11:44:55 PM EST

    Reading from the list... wow. That could have done some serious damage. Doesn't seem to fit in with the pedestrian nature of the other weapons, though (mostly Soviet bloc and knockoffs). You can buy a lot of exotic weapons in Yemen, though. I wonder what rich patron coughed it up. To be fair, it could have been planted by the IDF).



    [ Parent ]

    Lots of rich patrons (3.00 / 6) (#153)
    by stevefuzzy on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 01:35:38 AM EST

    You wonder who financed the weapon aqcuisitions? There are lots of willing financiers: Iran, Iraq are just 2 of them. Do you know that Saddam pays the families of suicide bombers $25k ?? Pretty nice incentive.

    [ Parent ]
    linkage? (4.50 / 2) (#161)
    by demi on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 01:54:07 AM EST

    Where did you hear that?



    [ Parent ]

    Link (4.66 / 3) (#229)
    by FredBloggs on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 07:48:04 AM EST

    http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/03/25/1017004766310.html

    [ Parent ]
    re: Weapons inventory (3.66 / 3) (#219)
    by WowTIP on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 06:45:21 AM EST

    It looks like the Palestinians are going to be seriously lacking for arms soon.

    First of all, I want to make it absolutely clear that I don't support the bombings in Israel, or the killing on either side, but:

    That will inevitably lead to more terror bombings.

    I can't really see the logic in making sure that the palestinians don't have any weapons to defent themselves and then complain when they start using "cowardly means". What are they supposed to do? Throw rocks at the israelian army?

    Terror bombings and similar actions are most often the weaker parts only way of fighting.
    --

    "I'm surfin the dead zone
    In the twilight, unknown"

    [ Parent ]
    cowardly means (3.33 / 3) (#226)
    by FredBloggs on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 07:33:02 AM EST

    "...and then complain when they start using "cowardly means". What are they supposed to do"

    I`d suggest that killing children with suicide bomb attacks is not the way to go about it. Not if you want support from the civilised world.

    [ Parent ]
    Re: cowardly means (3.00 / 3) (#231)
    by WowTIP on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 08:02:22 AM EST

    No, I am not defending the methods. I am just trying to point out why it is happening. The only way to get rid of bombings and things like that is to go to the root, figure out the whys and start solving the problem from there.
    --

    "I'm surfin the dead zone
    In the twilight, unknown"

    [ Parent ]
    Everyone knows why its happening (3.33 / 3) (#232)
    by FredBloggs on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 08:11:15 AM EST

    I`m just stating why people generally have little sympathy for the Palestinians. Just think how much better it would be for them if they just attacked military targets. (Its not like theres a shortage of them at the moment!)

    Kofi Annan criticised the Palestinians for doing this recently - at the same time that he criticised the Israelis for stepping up their attacks. If the Palestinians had only attacked soldiers, then what exactly would Annan have criticised on the Palestinian side?

    [ Parent ]
    Re: Everyone knows why its happening (3.33 / 3) (#239)
    by WowTIP on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 08:29:50 AM EST

    In a way, I absolutely agree with you, but exactly how should the palestinians attack the Israelian army? with sticks?

    I have no doubt in my mind that they would rather attack military targets, but since it would be extremly difficult to get anywhere near them with bombs (or sticks for that matter) they choose an easier target.
    --

    "I'm surfin the dead zone
    In the twilight, unknown"

    [ Parent ]
    Right. (2.75 / 4) (#242)
    by SPYvSPY on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 08:50:44 AM EST

    In other words: Palestinians are the masters of taking the easy way out.
    ------------------------------------------------

    By replying to this or any other comment in this thread, you assign an equal share of all worldwide copyright in such reply to each of the other readers of this site.
    [ Parent ]

    Bah (3.66 / 3) (#257)
    by marx on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 09:54:00 AM EST

    In other words: Palestinians are the masters of taking the easy way out.

    When the west does something brutal, then it's considered the "smart" way out, like Hiroshima. When the Palestinians use brutality, then it's considered the "easy way out".

    A suicide bombing is not "easy", because you have to kill yourself! It is effective however.

    Join me in the War on Torture: help eradicate torture from the world by holding torturers accountable.
    [ Parent ]

    Hey, maybe the Palestinians should try this... (4.66 / 3) (#308)
    by Stickerboy on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 01:51:20 PM EST

    ...suicide bombing on just Israeli soldiers!

    What an amazing and original idea.

    That way, they aren't blowing up civilian shops, malls, mass transit, restaurants, etc.

    You know, if the US deliberately targeted and blew up malls and restaurants as part of its war on terror, you would be up in arms. But since it's the "oppressed and underrepresented" who are doing it, it's somehow less of an atrocity.

    [ Parent ]
    "less of an atrocity" (5.00 / 2) (#325)
    by Delirium on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 03:02:14 PM EST

    Part of it is that the U.S. is expected to fight by "normal" means, because it has the conventional military to do so (the same goes for Israel); the Palestinians do not. That is not to say that suicide bombings are acceptable -- they are still atrocities. But somehow they'd be even worse if they were perpetrated by people who had a normal army and so had other ways to achieve their goals by force.

    [ Parent ]
    Suicide = The Easy Way Out. (2.66 / 3) (#379)
    by SPYvSPY on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 06:47:49 PM EST

    Get a clue. Suicide is such a pathetic way to leave this life. It takes no balls whatsoever. It is the ultimate way to forego the consequences of your actions. Suicide bombing of civilian targets is even more cowardly. We've seen the depth of the character of Palestinian people, and it is pathetic.
    ------------------------------------------------

    By replying to this or any other comment in this thread, you assign an equal share of all worldwide copyright in such reply to each of the other readers of this site.
    [ Parent ]

    Well, (3.75 / 4) (#249)
    by FredBloggs on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 09:14:38 AM EST

    they have been attacking checkpoints with suicide attacks (in addition to blowing themselves up at checkpoints when challenged)...so perhaps they could *just* attack checkpoints?

    I dont know - I dont want to encourage more loss of life (not that Hammas is scouring Kuro5hin looking for clues for alternative military tactics!)

    But the provisional IRA (in Northern Ireland) has (generally - I dont want to start yet another thread here!) avoided targetting civilians, as its such an obvious publicity disaster. They just went for military targets, and look where it got them - members of associated political groups are now in government in Northern Ireland.

    People DO understand, no matter what the pro-government/right-wing press may scream and shout, that every man has a point beyond which they will do just about anything for their cause. But the Israelis know this, and by applying it to the Palestinians, can force them to perform atrocities, and lose them support around the world. The smart thing would be for the Palestinians to NOT attack civilians, no matter what the provocation.


    [ Parent ]
    This troll I've written is actually a bit serious. (3.33 / 3) (#235)
    by thenerd on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 08:17:38 AM EST

    No, you are right. The way to get support from the civilised world appears to be to kill children with guns.

    There, I've said it.

    [ Parent ]
    Well.. (3.50 / 4) (#243)
    by SPYvSPY on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 08:51:27 AM EST

    Children with guns are fair game. ;)
    ------------------------------------------------

    By replying to this or any other comment in this thread, you assign an equal share of all worldwide copyright in such reply to each of the other readers of this site.
    [ Parent ]

    You say that (none / 0) (#454)
    by thenerd on Thu Apr 04, 2002 at 02:43:04 AM EST

    But I guess when children have stones, they must be fair game too.

    [ Parent ]
    Actually... (none / 0) (#532)
    by SPYvSPY on Thu Apr 04, 2002 at 10:44:50 AM EST

    The Palestinian children that throw stones at the Israelis are merely a reflection of the indifferent parenting and total disregard for human life that Palestinians seem to hold dear. Query: Would you allow your children to taunt armed soldiers? If you answered "yes" then you might not be human.
    ------------------------------------------------

    By replying to this or any other comment in this thread, you assign an equal share of all worldwide copyright in such reply to each of the other readers of this site.
    [ Parent ]

    Guns? No way. (3.33 / 3) (#277)
    by fn0rd on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 12:01:18 PM EST

    Nothing says collateral damage like a cluster bomb.

    This fatwa brought to you by the Agnostic Jihad
    [ Parent ]

    Mandate Era Rifle (3.50 / 2) (#241)
    by the trinidad kid on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 08:50:39 AM EST

    Given that the single largest set of Israeli military casualties was caused by a man with a Mandate era rifle (that 1922 - 1948 history fans) I suspect you may be being optimistic on about the effect of this...

    [ Parent ]
    Damn... (1.82 / 17) (#115)
    by /dev/trash on Tue Apr 02, 2002 at 11:33:22 PM EST

    For Christ Sake the Israelis are attacking the Church of the nativity!!!! Damn those Nuns must be all into the bomb making.

    Sadly I think a lot and I mean a lot of people are gonna get killed in this round. Israel is trying to enforce a news blackout and they are sending troops into Christain churches.



    ---
    Updated 02/20/2004
    New Site

    Excuse me? (2.40 / 5) (#116)
    by Apuleius on Tue Apr 02, 2002 at 11:35:01 PM EST

    The only people in the Nativity are Palestinian gunmen taking shelter there.


    There is a time and a place for everything, and it's called college. (The South Park chef)
    [ Parent ]
    um (4.75 / 4) (#119)
    by /dev/trash on Tue Apr 02, 2002 at 11:40:19 PM EST

    According to the news report I read, the Nuns in the church were attending to the wounded....

    ---
    Updated 02/20/2004
    New Site
    [ Parent ]
    My bad. (3.00 / 4) (#120)
    by Apuleius on Tue Apr 02, 2002 at 11:41:06 PM EST

    I meant the only soldiers there.


    There is a time and a place for everything, and it's called college. (The South Park chef)
    [ Parent ]
    What (2.33 / 6) (#142)
    by Ken Pompadour on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 12:19:58 AM EST

    Did you expect Israeli soldiers to be recovering in a church?

    ...The target is countrymen, friends and family... they have to die too. - candid trhurler
    [ Parent ]
    I think (3.60 / 5) (#202)
    by Delirium on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 04:12:46 AM EST

    He meant that there are no Israeli soldiers in the church; i.e. Israel has not stormed the church, as previously claimed.

    [ Parent ]
    No they're not! (3.66 / 6) (#152)
    by stevefuzzy on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 01:33:18 AM EST

    Ah, no. Israel is NOT attacking the church. They simply surrounded it since so many Palestinian soldiers - who just prior to hiding in the church were in a firefight with the Israelis - are hiding in there. Do you expect the IDF to perhaps just go away and let the enemy off the hook?

    [ Parent ]
    200 Fatah men staying in the Church (2.85 / 7) (#199)
    by uriyan on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 03:58:11 AM EST

    Actually, about 200 armed Fatah men (most of them Muslims, by the way) fled to the Church (from around which they have been firing for months now), because they know that Israel will not storm it. The Palestinian ethics are amazing, really.


    gantse jahr fraylech... gantse jahr fraylech...


    [ Parent ]
    Ethnically Specific Biological Weapons and Israel (1.66 / 15) (#121)
    by nomoreh1b on Tue Apr 02, 2002 at 11:42:38 PM EST

    Responsible media(i.e. London Times) have reported that Israel is developing ethnically specific biological weapons.

    You sucker! (2.66 / 6) (#124)
    by Apuleius on Tue Apr 02, 2002 at 11:47:05 PM EST

    That old meme. It started its life as a science fiction story published in Hebrew, than got mistranslated by Jane's as being for real, and then the Times fell for it.


    There is a time and a place for everything, and it's called college. (The South Park chef)
    [ Parent ]
    Post the citation (3.66 / 3) (#130)
    by nomoreh1b on Tue Apr 02, 2002 at 11:58:25 PM EST

    If you have one.

    [ Parent ]
    Haaretz archives (2.50 / 2) (#131)
    by Apuleius on Tue Apr 02, 2002 at 11:59:05 PM EST

    Which are part of the for-pay section now. So it goes.


    There is a time and a place for everything, and it's called college. (The South Park chef)
    [ Parent ]
    Sounds like biased bull (3.50 / 2) (#133)
    by nomoreh1b on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 12:01:21 AM EST

    Can you find the London Time or Jane's retraction or are you claiming they never made one and are part of some massive Arab conspiracy?

    [ Parent ]
    British newspapers don't retract. (3.75 / 4) (#137)
    by Apuleius on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 12:06:14 AM EST

    Ever. ANd Jane's subscriptions cost money. But try here.


    There is a time and a place for everything, and it's called college. (The South Park chef)
    [ Parent ]
    British newspapers do retract a great deal... (5.00 / 1) (#222)
    by dash2 on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 07:04:04 AM EST

    ... especially as the UK has much tougher libel laws than the US. However, I don't know whether this would encourage the Sunday Times to retract.
    ------------------------
    If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am become sounding brass, or a clanging cymbal.
    [ Parent ]
    There is one minor problem with that theory. (5.00 / 5) (#139)
    by Weezul on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 12:13:59 AM EST

    There are vast numbers of Israeli Jews which are ethnically identical to Palistinians. You know the Jews who were living there before all the European Jews ran from the Nazis.

    The Arabs might be able to use an enthnically targeted weapon which only killed European Jews or killed both Isrealis and Palistinian---I'd expect that any Arab willing to use such a device would not mind killing a large number of Palistinians too.

    If Israel wanted to wipe out the Palistinians with biological weapons, I think they would use good old fashioned geographic targeting, i.e. poision the wells that supply Palistinians and not Israelis. Still, bio/chem weapons are just plain messy. I think you'd need to be quite a bit crazier then Sharon to use them.

    "Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini
    [ Parent ]
    From Actual Bio-warfare experts (none / 0) (#702)
    by nomoreh1b on Sat Apr 06, 2002 at 01:46:14 AM EST

    This pdf source goes into some of the more subtle aspects here.

    One big thing to keep in mind: the decision to use such weapons may not come from the top(basically any group with $50Million in spare change could have a crack at such projects)-and may be done with the intent to hide that the weapon is an engineered weapon(by producing rather subtle effects that are hard to notice as a disease-like causing difficulty conceiving rather than outright sterility.

    As far as the Palestinians and Jews being "ethnically identical", that is simply incorrect. They may be _close_ from a standpoint of some measures(i.e. Y-Chromosomal genetic fingerprint), it might be necessary to create a variety of weapons to attack several distinct sub-populations. Impossible? Sadly not.

    I'm not personally sure of the exact state of the art in the specialties involved here-I do know that some of the experts are in Israel though. If it isn't possible now, I suspect it will be within a few years.

    [ Parent ]

    a terrifing "could-be"... (none / 0) (#724)
    by KiTaSuMbA on Sun Apr 07, 2002 at 03:34:55 AM EST

    I don't mean to provide scenarios. After all, people with the know-how necessary and the complete absense of morality to deploy such a solution can make up lots of them within minutes. This intends to be a proof-of-concept for those that believe such designs cannot be deployed.
    Rational:
    Now, we have 2 different populations that are rather similar from a genetic point of view and we "need" to select 1. Instead of looking for a single trait that could be shared but rather for the coexistance of two. Some "targets" would be left out but we could seek for a second pair with another "product" possibly simultaneously, thus blairing the situation and rendering the offencers even less "detectable".
    The product:
    We construct a virus that inserts its own DNA at specific loci of the human one: the insertion points being (among others) the specific 2 traits we look for. The virus should be able to propagate among non-targets too, by coding itself except for the 2 proteins in question (not finding the traits in the loci, insertion is not possible) thus being practically harmless like a flu making even a severe quarantine useless.
    The mechanism:
    The two hot spots should work like this: the first inserts an extra functional domain on a normally present protein that operates some malicious function preferably not easily identifible (e.g. generating oxygen radicals leading the cell to oxidative stress and the organism manifesting fever and generally worn out with no other specific symptoms). The second protein (equally an extra domain) should act as a "trigger" by interacting with the first protein's extra domain and changing it's 3-D conformation from inactive to active (chaperonin proteins, for details look at the mechanism behind prions - the "mad cow" syndrome).
    The deployment:
    we create a health care international organisation and promote vaccination. "Casualy" the target's territories are in our plan. We infect but a few vaccins (a blunket wide infection would only ask for incrimination) and go with the vaccination project. A new flu-like epidemia spreads... Symptoms are very vague and there seem to be both light and heavy variants. Within a month the world health organisation gets informed and blood samples are on their way in analysis. Another month passes until they get their way in the virus' DNA works and alarm is set off for realising "it ain't no flu, dude". Another 1-2 months are required before a serum is available to block the virus meanwhile quarantine and other 1st level prevention measures are completely inefficient in holding up the process. By the time the solution is widely applied we have killed more than the best nuke we could afford. We then go for the no guilty -> no case defense: some (in the press eyes, all) the responsible disappear / get killed / commit suicide. Case closed: some fanatics. Film at 9.
    Have a nice day!
    :-P
    There is no Dopaminergic Pepperoni Kabal!
    [ Parent ]
    ...and why it would never work! (none / 0) (#726)
    by KiTaSuMbA on Sun Apr 07, 2002 at 04:06:56 AM EST

    1. the masterminds: though it seems pretty trivial as a scenario, porting this design to a real organism is very difficult. Only few genetical engineers can be THAT good at their work. From those few, take only the few that are so unethical (the more capable a scientist is, the more ethics-concerned he tends to be) to actually do this. Now take those, capable and unethical and select only those who would agree with your specific target (ie. I can't imagine a jew working for Iraq or the other way round). Now select again those that will never leak information even in confidentiality (scientists are known to show off about their activities, especially when they get the job done!). Again, select only the ones that can take the risk, should the project go off, they are more than fscked! You will be left with so few (if any) that you would need more than a decade and when finished the project would be out-dated.
    2. the resources: this is not like homebrewed whiskey! You need over-specialized, over-priced (talking about at least 4 zeros per piece) machinery and materials that cannot be purchased and moved without getting attention. Security (both microbiologic and human) is an issue of extreme importance you will probably fail in some manner.
    3. the risk: if you get caught in the act, get ready to take serious kicks in the *ss by the international community as a whole. You should hope to be granted a fast death instead of torture/public lynching.
    Now how many of you fanatics thrilled by the first post are still considering the idea "cool"?
    There is only one solution if you are a fanatic: stop being a fanatic!
    There is no Dopaminergic Pepperoni Kabal!
    [ Parent ]
    do you really believe crap like that (3.75 / 4) (#140)
    by demi on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 12:16:47 AM EST

    I mean honestly, you should realize that you are being conned. Arabs and Jews both have Semitic ancestry anyway, so just think about how effective such a weapon might be, if it were even possible to develop it. It wouldn't surprise me if some crackpot claimed to have one, or be in the process of developing one, though.



    [ Parent ]

    Not Quite (5.00 / 2) (#321)
    by nomoreh1b on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 02:30:25 PM EST

    This article talks about differences within the Jewish community--basically there are small but discernable differences between the Y-Chromosomal signatures common among Yemeni Jews and Ashkenazi Jews-and between Yemeni Jews and other Sephardic Jews. The question on whether these differences might be leveraged by a custom created virus is an another issue.

    The closest similarities here would be between Sephardic Jews and Palestinians, but since these communities have been separated by several hundreds of years, there would probably be some differences Y-chromosomes-as well as some statistical differences in frequencies of genes in both communities.



    [ Parent ]

    Casualty Figures (1.95 / 23) (#122)
    by zastruga on Tue Apr 02, 2002 at 11:43:47 PM EST

    It's a somewhat perverse quibble, but I would like to correct some of your casualty figures. As of today, people have died as a result of the Passover Massacre. The same link notes that 15 have now died as a result of the Haifa bombing. This evening marked the last day of the week-long Passover holiday in Israel during which 52 Israelis have been killed. In the month of March alone, some 120 Israelis have been killed by Palestinian terrorists. To give you and idea of what these casualties mean, here is a table listing what the equivalent number of dead would be in the United States and in France.

    Passover Massacre:
       Israel: 25
       France: 250
       United States: 1,170
    Haifa:
       Israel: 15
       France: 150
       United States: 702
    Passover Total:
       Israel: 52
       France: 520
       United States: 2,434
    March Total:
       Israel: ~120
       France: 1,200
       United States: 5,616

    For purposes of comparison, 13 people (not including the gunmen) were killed in the Columbine High School Massacre. Recently in France, Richard Durn killed 8 people. Today, over 14,000 people paid their respects to the victims. I don't know what sort of emotional impact these two atrocities had on you, but if they affected you at all, perhaps you can begin -- but just begin -- to sense the effect Palestinian terrorism has had on Israelis. The Palestinian terrorists may have more plausible justifications than the other murderers, but they are still murderers, distinguished only by the scale of their evil.



    What is this nonsense (3.75 / 4) (#129)
    by Oblomov on Tue Apr 02, 2002 at 11:58:24 PM EST

    In the recent uprising far more palestinians have been killed than Israelis. That remains the case even when translated into French, U.S. or Chinese population figures.

    News only please, let's flame elsewhere!

    [ Parent ]
    scaling based on populations (4.83 / 6) (#135)
    by Delirium on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 12:04:40 AM EST

    If you're going to scale based on population, then the recent Israeli actions have had "collateral damage" equivalent to killing hundreds of thousands of U.S. civilians...

    [ Parent ]
    Actually... (3.50 / 4) (#141)
    by anowack on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 12:18:05 AM EST

    Let's be "generous" and assume 100 Palestinian civilians have died from the recent Israeli actions...

    The CIA World factbook gives the population of the West Bank and Gaza Strip as 3,268,832.

    The population of the US (same source) is 278,058,881.

    100 / 3,288,832 * 278,058,881 ~= 8506

    A large number of people, but hardly hundreds of thousands.

    The Israelis would have to kill approximately 1183 civilians to reach a scaled 100,000 civilian kill total.



    "Never let reality get in the way of a good hypothesis."
    [ Parent ]
    hm? (4.80 / 5) (#143)
    by demi on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 12:25:28 AM EST

    I don't think those figures are really meaningful in any way. Killing 25 people is horrible no matter what the size of the country. If you wanted to relate them to the conflict at hand, remember that the Palestinian population in the West Bank and Gaza Strip is about 1/2 that of Israel (3.5M vs. 6M).



    [ Parent ]

    Meaningful in Some Way (3.20 / 5) (#146)
    by zastruga on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 12:44:43 AM EST

    I do think calculating proportionate casualty figures is more than a perverse exercise in the macabre. When a suicide bomber strikes anywhere in Israel, the first thing every Israeli does is get on his cellphone and call all his friends and relatives. Israel is an extremely small country, so the odds are not low that you will know someone who has been murdered by terrorists. A country like the U.S. can absorb far more casulaties and "keep on ticking". How many can Israel absorb before its very existence is threatened?

    The number of casualties is especially difficult for Jews to bear, as there are not that many of them in world, and their small numbers and the historical threat of annihilation under which they have lived greatly intensify the concern, horror, and pain fellow Jews and Israelis feel at their death. You're right, of course, that 25 deaths are horrible anywhere, and I don't doubt Palestinians feel every bit as stricken by their casualties (which you note are absolutely and proportionately higher) as Israelis. Ultimately, though, I believe the correct moral judgment is to hold the terrorists responsible for these deaths as well, since but for them, Israel wouldn't be mounting all the deadly military operations we are now seeing.



    [ Parent ]
    Terrorism doesn't kill that many Israelis (4.80 / 5) (#148)
    by Delirium on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 12:56:21 AM EST

    For example, in 1997 471 Israelis were killed by traffic accidents. So every Israeli should be several times more worried about knowing people who died in traffic accidents than people who died in terrorist attacks; over the past decade traffic accidents amount to nearly 5,000 Israeli deaths, which terrorism has not come remotely close to.

    Also recall that the single worst incident resulting in mass deaths in Israel during this intifada was the collapse of a wedding hall due to poor construction -- it killed as many as four or five major suicide attacks combined.

    [ Parent ]

    missing the point (2.50 / 4) (#178)
    by SocratesGhost on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 02:49:39 AM EST

    a traffic accident, by definition, is an accident. Show me the numbers of people who accidently committed a suicide bombing or accidentallly took over a city, and you might have a better point. Now, let's scale those numbers to the United States and see if this has substance.

    -Soc
    I drank what?


    [ Parent ]
    You're missing the point (none / 0) (#483)
    by Demiurge on Thu Apr 04, 2002 at 05:09:16 AM EST

    Hearing about a hundred murders that took place in America is far less alarming, and has less overall substantive effect, than hearing about 100 murders that took place in your city of 100,000.

    By scaling the numbers of Israeli dead, it's possible to try and understand the effect it has on that nation. It's not that an Israeli life means more than a Palestinian life.

    [ Parent ]
    but it's still misleading (none / 0) (#486)
    by Delirium on Thu Apr 04, 2002 at 05:33:06 AM EST

    You can end up with all sorts of crazy figures if you scale casualties. For example, Israeli settlers have been responsible for terrorist attacks (mostly drive-by shooting attacks) resulting in between 8 and 15 Palestinian civilian deaths. Scaled to U.S. population (250m vs. 3m) that's 650 to 1250 Palestinian civilians killed by Israel terrorists.

    [ Parent ]
    my point was (none / 0) (#652)
    by SocratesGhost on Fri Apr 05, 2002 at 12:12:30 PM EST

    ...that the comment was that there's more traffic accidents than murders. Traffic accidents are accidental and generally don't happen through an act of human will. Murders (or war casualties) are intentional and avoidable.

    As a result, that's why i was asking for a comparison between accidental murders. It's an absurd notion, just as absurd to say, "because more people die by traffic accidents this isn't a problem." It is, and it's one that can be solved by a human solution.


    -Soc
    I drank what?


    [ Parent ]
    Palestinians responsible? (4.00 / 4) (#183)
    by McFly on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 02:58:09 AM EST

    Well, I think blaming the terrorists for all deaths is a little bit too easy. You could just turn this around and say that the Israelis are responsible for all the deaths because if they hadn't invaded the Palestinian land there would be no terrorists (which is as wrong as your statement). The problem with this war is specifically that there is no easy good & evil sheme as both parties are equally responsible for the endless murders - because while most normal citizens in both Isreal and Palestina are tired of the war neither the Palestinian terror brigades nor Sharon's deadly regime are ready to stop.

    [ Parent ]
    an equivalent scale (4.66 / 3) (#155)
    by SocratesGhost on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 01:40:21 AM EST

    not withstanding the "scaling" controversy, Los Angeles County has roughly the same population as Israel and Palestine combined. Imagine the war happening here, like the San Gabriel Valley versus the San Fernando Valley.

    what makes it especially equivalent is the absurdity of that war, too.


    -Soc
    I drank what?


    [ Parent ]
    From Reuters (4.50 / 4) (#162)
    by cyclopatra on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 01:54:49 AM EST

    "At least 1,143 Palestinians and 403 Israelis have been killed since a Palestinian revolt began in September 2000. "(source)

    So when you're done counting up casualties and making your comparisons,let me know how many Hindi, Chinese and Navajo would be comparable to these numbers - it'll still say nearly 3 Palestinians for every Israeli. Maybe the number of people dead isn't such an important way to assign blame after all?

    cyclopatra
    All your .sigs are belong to us.
    remove mypants to email
    [ Parent ]

    More than that (4.50 / 6) (#164)
    by Delirium on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 01:58:50 AM EST

    Since the Israeli population is about twice as large as the Palestinian population, the 3:1 ratio becomes approximately 6:1 when "adjusted."

    [ Parent ]
    Stupid argument (4.71 / 7) (#175)
    by Betcour on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 02:43:49 AM EST

    That argument has only had any effect when Sharon used it on Bush. A life is a life, you cannot scale it up or down. When a life is taken, a person (with it's personnality, feelings and ideas) goes away. You cannot really scale that...

    [ Parent ]
    But the public effect (4.00 / 5) (#237)
    by wiredog on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 08:25:50 AM EST

    is what he's pointing out. The 1993 WTC bombing killed, IIRC, 50 people. The US treated it as a law enforcement issue. The 2001 attacks killed almost 3000. The US went to war. That's his point. The scale is important. The deaths of several hundred thousand Japanese in Hiroshima and Nagasaki was more important than the deaths of a few thousand in earlier fighting on Iwo Jima. It ended the war. (And there are good arguments that it saved civilian lives in Japan. But that's another flamewar.)

    Peoples Front To Reunite Gondwanaland: "Stop the Laurasian Separatist Movement!"
    [ Parent ]
    1993 bombing (none / 0) (#576)
    by Vogue State on Thu Apr 04, 2002 at 05:29:30 PM EST

    Dude,

    The 1993 WTC bombing killed, IIRC, 50 people

    Six people were killed. Over a thousand injured. HTH..

    [ Parent ]

    oh save us! nuke us!!! (5.00 / 1) (#723)
    by KiTaSuMbA on Sun Apr 07, 2002 at 01:27:21 AM EST

    do you realise what your hands are typing?!?!!!
    The 2 atomic bombs were mere politics demonstrating in a rather embarassing way US new killer toy and that noone should fsck with them.
    You are coming straight from the 50's hear. What's your last name? McArthy perhaps...
    There is no Dopaminergic Pepperoni Kabal!
    [ Parent ]
    So an Israeli life is more important... (2.00 / 1) (#314)
    by headphone on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 02:09:03 PM EST

    ...than an American because there are more of them to go around, Israeli life is more important than an arab or a muslim? What the hell are you smoking? A life is a life is a life.

    Why don't you compare how many palestinian civilians have been killed in the past two years versus how many israeli civis have been killed, how many palestinian children have been killed by IDF versus how many israeli children have been killed by suicide bombers. you will get a better picture of who is the bigger terrorist.

    [ Parent ]
    recent bomb attacks against Israel (4.90 / 11) (#134)
    by demi on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 12:04:34 AM EST

    Just to act as a supplement to Delirium's timeline above, the BBC has a running timeline of the recent suicide bombings in Israel (going back to 1994).



    Interesting (4.50 / 6) (#138)
    by Delirium on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 12:12:27 AM EST

    There were no fatalities from suicide bombings in 1998 or 1999 (there was one suicide bombing in 1998 that killed only the bombers, and none at all in 1999). So peace of some sort is possible.

    [ Parent ]
    not complete (4.20 / 5) (#208)
    by Oblom on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 04:58:49 AM EST

    They missed 4 suicide bombings in Netanya last year(bus station, market, shopping mall, bus) and 1 big shooting 3 weeks ago ( hotel )

    [ Parent ]
    Meanwhile, halfway around the world, (2.37 / 8) (#144)
    by Apuleius on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 12:27:52 AM EST

    Saber rattling increases across the straits of Formosa.


    There is a time and a place for everything, and it's called college. (The South Park chef)
    I see your point... (5.00 / 1) (#195)
    by ti dave on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 03:35:06 AM EST

    but if you feel so strongly about this news, you should write it up, instead of posting OT.


    "If you dial," Iran said, eyes open and watching, "for greater venom, then I'll dial the same."

    [ Parent ]
    Update from BBC (4.90 / 11) (#145)
    by Delirium on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 12:29:55 AM EST

    Here.

    Summary:

    • Israeli tanks in Jenin and near Nablus; heavy resistance in Jenin.
    • UN refugee agency warns that thousands of people throughout the West Bank are trapped with dwindling supplies of food and water.
    • Sharon again spoke of expelling Arafat, but Arafat rejects the possibility.
    • Three Palestinian gunmen and at least four noncombatants killed by Israeli fire in Bethlehem.
    • Rajoub's compound near Ramallah surrendered in a US-brokered cease-fire.
    • Ramallah's central hospital has begun burying the 28 corpses it has on the hospital grounds because it cannot reach the cemetaries, and Islamic tradition (like Jewish tradition) requires burial within 24 hours.
    • The Palestinian Red Crescent complains of mistreatment and impaired access to wounded.
    • Sharon says that the goal of the operation is to eliminate once and for all the "terrorist infrastructure."


    Terrorist infrastructure (3.20 / 10) (#173)
    by Betcour on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 02:38:59 AM EST

    Here's what is a terrorist infrastructure :
    ("A bag of fertilizer" OR "a gun available everywhere for a few $") AND "someone willing to kill people"

    Frankly anybody claiming to be able to stop terrorism with tanks and planes is either an idiot or a liar.

    [ Parent ]
    Re: Terrorist infrastructure (3.57 / 7) (#216)
    by WowTIP on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 06:13:32 AM EST

    Nah, it seems like US of A hurt the Al Quida network pretty badly with those planes. Pretty few tanks though.

    But the core of your point is very true, you can't stop terrorists through these means, but you could very well make them inefficient. So, if you were only reffering to the "terrorists" in Palestine, you were right.
    --

    "I'm surfin the dead zone
    In the twilight, unknown"

    [ Parent ]
    But.. (2.16 / 6) (#244)
    by SPYvSPY on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 08:53:06 AM EST

    If you make their lives unpleasant enough, they'll either die (i.e., kill themselves) or move on to more important causes than an artificial notion of "brotherhood".
    ------------------------------------------------

    By replying to this or any other comment in this thread, you assign an equal share of all worldwide copyright in such reply to each of the other readers of this site.
    [ Parent ]

    Baloney. (4.25 / 4) (#291)
    by Apuleius on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 01:13:32 PM EST

    You need more than just a bag of fertilizer. The suicide bomb belts require a good amount of expertise in preparing them (several newbies darwinated themselves this year by trying this), and people with the requisite knowledge and willingness to use it tend not to live long in the West Bank unless given intense protection by their fellow Palestinians. Hence "infrastructure."


    There is a time and a place for everything, and it's called college. (The South Park chef)
    [ Parent ]
    Re: Terrorist infrastructure (none / 0) (#722)
    by Caton on Sun Apr 07, 2002 at 01:17:53 AM EST

    How many suicide bombings per week before the IDF started this operation? How many suicide bombing per week since the start of the operation? What does that mean about the validity of the ID operation?

    ---
    As long as there's hope...
    [ Parent ]
    Israel allows torture (2.65 / 20) (#149)
    by marcad on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 01:13:29 AM EST

    Don't forget every time you hear of hundreds held by Israel that they actively use torture on detainees. We can assume plenty are being tortured tonight. Have a nice sleep.

    Torture committed by all parties (2.83 / 6) (#176)
    by hawaii on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 02:44:15 AM EST

    Don't forget that so do the Palestinians, so do the Iraqis, so do the Syrians, etc.

    The difference is that free media has had access to Israeli officials, while other state-controlled media do not readily release such information.

    This begs the question, though. If a terror leader is captured, and dozens of lives can be saved by pinching his nuts to make him speak, is this necessarily immoral?

    I would say that terror only to inflict pain without getting anything out of it is outright wrong (ie, Pearl's captors during his videotape before his death). But hat about senior Al Queda or Hizbollah or Islamic Jihad bigwigs who almost certainly have access to information that can save lives? It ain't a black/white issue.

    [ Parent ]

    I don't think torture is ever justifiable (4.50 / 10) (#186)
    by Delirium on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 03:05:14 AM EST

    Because if allowed it will inevitably result in torturing innocent people. Someone claims to not have some information, so you torture him to get it. What if he really doesn't have the information? Not a pleasant situation.

    It's far too easily abused a power to ever allow anyone to use it, and any state that does use torture should be condemned.

    I do think that most people condemn the governments of Iraq, Syria, etc. I don't think any of us are arguing that Israel is worse than them, only that it's not really as much better in many respects as most Americans seem to think.

    [ Parent ]

    Troubling, but no (4.75 / 8) (#191)
    by ariux on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 03:17:17 AM EST

    There are some things you don't do - even to a terror leader, and even to save some lives - and call yourself civilized. This is one.

    If a US official is ever found doing this, it should destroy his or her career.

    [ Parent ]

    A scenario (2.12 / 8) (#194)
    by Demiurge on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 03:32:27 AM EST

    A day or two prior to September 11, the CIA gets wind of the attack, and is able to arrest one of the hijackers. With only hours before the planes are scheduled to crash, would they be justified in torturing him if that was the only way to obtain the information that would prevent the disaster?

    I say crucify him. Break him on the wheel. Just make him suffer some pain if it means that thousands(or even just dozens) of innocent lives will be saved.

    [ Parent ]
    Who makes the call? (4.66 / 6) (#198)
    by SlickMickTrick on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 03:57:26 AM EST

    If the terrorist says he's not involved, would you still torture him? Who in this society would you say has the authority to order someone's torture?

    Classically, the only person who can make the choice between guilty and not guilty in this world is a judge, and do you really think the legal system would react fast enough to provide information in such a situation?

    Could the legal system react fast enough without making mistakes? The media and the public are always up in arms when justice is not done, rushing things would only increase the likelyhood of errors.

    So it doesn't matter if you consider torture morally justifiable or not, you can't create a system without leaving the situation open to abuse. There must be checks and balances, for in a democracy, no one is trustworthy.

    [ Parent ]
    while it's a tough call (3.80 / 5) (#200)
    by Delirium on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 03:59:43 AM EST

    I'd say no torture still. It's too easy to make mistakes. What if you got the wrong guy and he's really not involved? It's also a bit of a slippery slope -- you start out with the one guy you're sure knows information (how sure are you really?), and pretty soon you're torturing dozens of people you are "99% sure" know something relating to an upcoming attack, and pretty soon you're torturing most of your suspects (as Israel did by proxy in the prisons run by the Southern Lebanon Army).

    [ Parent ]
    No. (4.75 / 8) (#201)
    by ariux on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 04:04:12 AM EST

    If our society were ever to authorize torture - under any circumstances at all - that would mark the end of civilized rules.

    In the pathological case of a planted nuke with a 30-minute fuse, maybe someone would do it without being authorized to - and, as a way of attesting to the gravity of the circumstances, such a person would need to be prepared to take the consequences.

    Also note that dredging up pathological cases is an easy way to divert discussion away from the normal, everyday cases where the topic under discussion would really, in practice, end up getting applied.

    [ Parent ]

    The slippery slope... (2.83 / 6) (#213)
    by Demiurge on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 05:11:21 AM EST

    is not an effective argument. It is a logical fallacy. To claim that if we allow torture in a handful of extreme cases that we'll be shoving bamboo shoots under the the fingernails of everyone who gets a parking ticket is misleading and, frankly, disruptive of any real substantive discussion on the issue.

    [ Parent ]
    slippery slope (4.66 / 6) (#214)
    by Delirium on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 05:41:28 AM EST

    The slippery slope arguments may be a logical fallacy (in that they don't prove that in an isolated case torture isn't justified), but they are a good practical argument against allowing certain torture; I simply don't have enough faith in the police to believe that once given a go-ahead to use torture in limited instances that they won't then expand to "very similar" instances and so on. It's much safer to simply say "no torture, ever" and not risk it.

    [ Parent ]
    Logical fallacy it may be... (none / 0) (#601)
    by ariux on Thu Apr 04, 2002 at 09:47:18 PM EST

    ...but it is, nonetheless, right, because that's the way that people are.

    [ Parent ]

    "We can't allow police to carry guns... (none / 0) (#610)
    by Demiurge on Thu Apr 04, 2002 at 10:42:47 PM EST

    so they can protect themselves and innocent people against dangerous armed criminals, because it would only be a matter of time before they start blowing people away for jaywalking."

    "We can't allow abortion, because if we do it will only be a matter of time before we legalize infanticide"

    "We can't momentarily inconvenience one murderous criminal so we can save the lives of thousands of innocents, because it will only lead to everyone goose-stepping around and stomping on puppies."

    [ Parent ]
    Hey, you don't have to like it... (none / 0) (#615)
    by ariux on Fri Apr 05, 2002 at 12:57:02 AM EST

    ...but I'm telling it like it is.

    [ Parent ]

    Imagine (4.37 / 8) (#205)
    by Betcour on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 04:43:58 AM EST

    A day or two before 13 September 1994, the CIA gets wind of an attack on the Golden gate bridge. They arrest a suspect, and since the suspect claims he knows nothing about it, they torture him until he dies, without revealing anything. Days later, they realize there was no attack at all, the guy knew nothing and died an horrible death for no reason.
    These kind of things would happen much more often than attacks on the WTC.

    [ Parent ]
    Against US law. (4.50 / 6) (#211)
    by FredBloggs on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 05:06:02 AM EST

    "Just make him suffer some pain if it means that thousands(or even just dozens) of innocent lives will be saved"

    Get the information legally, or just shut up - thats the choice. If you are allowed to torture people, whats to say the victim hasnt just made stuff up to get them to stop. Rodney King - would he have signed something that wasnt true if those 10 (or however many it was) policemen had been allowed to do what they were caught doing?

    I think theres even a law about american law enforcement officers being present during torture, due to it happening so often in South America.


    [ Parent ]
    Is "Truth Serum" legally torture? (4.50 / 2) (#335)
    by hawaii on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 03:32:14 PM EST

    Anybody know anything about truth serum? what is it, sodium pentathol or something like that?

    Does it really work? Does it harm the person involved? I think I heard somewhere it's not allowed according to Geneva Convenction, but I'm not sure.

    People on this thread mention one aspect of the questionality of torture because if you have the wrong guy, all the torture in the world won't give the information you're looking for.

    truth serum might come in handy in these instances. If the person doesn't know anything, then you can let them go. If they do know something, then you can get the information out of them without physical pain.

    of course, i can see potential for abuses, such as the interrogator asking "Have you ever had premarital sex" or "have you ever been critical of the president of the united states?", etc.

    But if careful documented records existed of these sessions, and strict laws allowing what can and can't be asked (as they are with mandatory lie-detector tests for security clearances), then this might not be a problem.

    Any thoughts?

    [ Parent ]

    Nice bed company (4.00 / 1) (#415)
    by marcad on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 10:57:58 PM EST

    Am I supposed to feel better because Israel is in the esteemed company of Iran and Syria?

    [ Parent ]
    Don't forget. Palestinians kill children (2.45 / 11) (#192)
    by Demiurge on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 03:27:19 AM EST

    No doubt, many evil Palestinians are strapping bombs to themselevs and heading into Jerusalem to kill innocent Israeli children, because their crazy religion promises them a dozen virgins in paradise if they do. That incendiary enough for you? It, like your comment, while containing a tiny seed of truth, is misleading and downright stupid.

    How about backing up your ridiculous, incendiary statements? Yes, Israeli law allows for torture, but only in "ticking bomb" circumstances. Basically, it's only allowed when there's a bomb set to go off, and the only way of getting information necessary to prevent it going off and killing innocents is through torture. The allegation that dozens of Palestinians are being tortured by Israel is specious and misleading.

    [ Parent ]
    can be easily misused (4.66 / 6) (#193)
    by Delirium on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 03:32:11 AM EST

    When you allow an exception like that, it's far too easy to start fitting all sorts of nonsense into the exception. Torture in Israeli prisons doesn't seem to be as unheard-of as you seem to imply; most of the current Palestinian security apparatus learned its torture techniques from being subjected to them in Israeli prisons.

    [ Parent ]
    A dozen virgins? (3.00 / 2) (#350)
    by joev on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 04:23:15 PM EST

    No doubt, many evil Palestinians are strapping bombs to themselevs and heading into Jerusalem to kill innocent Israeli children, because their crazy religion promises them a dozen virgins in paradise if they do

    Link, please? I don't think I saw that one in my casual perusal of the Qur'an...

    [ Parent ]

    It's not a dozen (none / 0) (#542)
    by Stickerboy on Thu Apr 04, 2002 at 12:31:12 PM EST

    It's seventy-six, I believe. I think it's more a case of mullahs twisting the words of the Koran to fit their own particular ideology than it is stated explicitly in the Koran. I could be wrong, because I don't have a copy of it, since I'm not Muslim.

    [ Parent ]
    Torture law.. (4.75 / 4) (#394)
    by strlen on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 08:29:53 PM EST

    Actually torture is no longer allowed under the Israeli law. By the way, your crass emotional appeals ('think of the children') don't work. Torture is evil, no matter where, I wouldn't give a damn if it would save 10 million lives, it's plain wrong.

    --
    [T]he strongest man in the world is he who stands most alone. - Henrik Ibsen.
    [ Parent ]
    Moral relativism doesn't work (none / 0) (#416)
    by marcad on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 11:01:01 PM EST

    Sorry, but your moral relativism is irrelevant. The bottom line is that two wrongs are not right. It you want to start splitting hairs about who kills children you're going to have a long discuss.

    Terrorism is terrorism regardless of the idiot doing it, Palestinian, Israeli, American, or Saudi.

    [ Parent ]

    More about the 'ticking bomb' (none / 0) (#519)
    by marcad on Thu Apr 04, 2002 at 09:28:38 AM EST

    It turns out that the 'ticking time bomb' argument is just the political rhetoric used in the Knesset to make everyone fell better. The fact remains that torture was used, admittedly, by the Israelis, and is reported to still be in use. I have found no indications that use has diminished.

    This report of 2001/10 is the most recent document I can find.

    This report from BBC in 2000 gives more details of the abuse.

    Of course I would be very pleased to hear reliable reports that this country has stopped its use of torture, however I just can't find evidence of the sort.

    Interestingly, the FBI and some far left and right in the U.S. were getting very excited after Sept. 11 that they might be able to push through some types of torture there. There was a lot of talk of ticking time bomb and mentions of use of torture in Israel.

    Of course, not many were stopping to think of U.S. law enforcement's <sarcasm>wonderful</sarcasm> long and short term record on civil rights, transparency, corruption. Are we actually supposed to trust these people too (i.e. John Ashcroft, Donald Rumsfeld) to not fall prey to the temptations of power that torture gives? What about the local sheriff who suddenly realizes that (s)he can use some new ticking time bomb legislation against the local time bombs? Are you really ready for that?

    [ Parent ]

    I stand corrected (5.00 / 1) (#687)
    by marcad on Fri Apr 05, 2002 at 06:41:04 PM EST

    It looks like Israel's highest court may have taken action to prohibit even mild torture. I ran across this article purely by chance today. Besides being a great article, it says:

    As an adviser to Israeli police authorities, he said that besieged country provides a good example for America, especially the recent ruling by its Supreme Court prohibiting the use of "moderate physcial pressure" against terror suspects even in emergency situations

    If that's true...hurrah!

    [ Parent ]

    The article link is... (none / 0) (#696)
    by marcad on Fri Apr 05, 2002 at 10:43:44 PM EST

    http://www.accessatlanta.com/ajc/epaper/editions/thursday/news_c3badf89f2d560a20 04d.html

    [ Parent ]
    Thanks delirium (4.50 / 4) (#150)
    by fhotg on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 01:13:39 AM EST

    That's a news summary how it should be.

    And all assholes might consider stop counting bodies at each other, that's the worst missing the point in the history of missed points.

    Talk about selective timeline (3.73 / 15) (#151)
    by stevefuzzy on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 01:30:26 AM EST

    • First of all, Israel did NOT initiate this operation in response to the single (though heinous) Passover Seder attack. Israel initiated it because within the 1st 2 days of the holiday there were numerous terrorist attacks: the suicide boming in Natanya, the suicide bombing in Jerusalem, the lethal stabbing of 2 elderly people on their way to temple, the cold-blooded mrder of a family in their home in Kedumim (husband, pregnant wife, children).
    • 2nd, the peace activists were arrested on their way of the compound because among them were known/wanted Palestinian terrorists which were hiding in Arafat's compound until that point, and were trying to sneak past the IDF, disguised as the peace activists. Why would you ommit this crucial detail?
    • 3rd, the fact the Red Crescent ambulances are being hampered would not be a surprise to anyone who knows that only recently one such ambulance was stopped with a whole troop of terrorists on their way to commit whatever evil they were planning. How long is Israel expected to keep playing the patsy?


    evidence that peace activists included terrorists? (4.42 / 7) (#220)
    by dash2 on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 06:58:14 AM EST

    I think this is an excellent story and has already uncovered a lot of interesting material on either side of the debate. Just one thing: have you got evidence for your second point, that peace activists included known Palestinian terrorists? A link would be great.
    ------------------------
    If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am become sounding brass, or a clanging cymbal.
    [ Parent ]
    A few links... (4.84 / 13) (#154)
    by dram on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 01:38:55 AM EST

    Here are a few links to things that I have written in the past few days...

    The first one was a story of hope when it looked as if Gen. Zinni had achieved the unimaginable, Arafat and Sharon sitting together to talk about peace. Unfortunately, this did not happen.

    The second one was a reply to an op-ed piece by Thomas Friedman. It argues that peace should be granted at the height of violence, and that this would be more advantageous in the long run than insisting on peace before a cease fire is negotiated.

    The last one is still in the submittion queue (it is a scoop site after all) so you will need to have a user account to view it. I hope you enjoy some of my views, I have a unique perspective as one of my Uncles is a Colonel in the Israeli Air Force but, in despite of that, I feel that the Palestinians have a right to a homeland and I would go so far as to say that, in light of recent events, Arial Sharon should be charged with war crimes.

    -dram
    [grant.henninger.name]

    Another Link. (5.00 / 2) (#402)
    by dram on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 09:12:54 PM EST

    That one story is now out of the queue so I thought I would post a link incase you want to see it. The name of the story is The Failure of Peace. I hope you enjoy it.

    -dram
    [grant.henninger.name]

    [ Parent ]
    Corrections... (3.89 / 19) (#196)
    by uriyan on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 03:47:23 AM EST

    ... in response to a Passover suicide bombing that killed 19

    First of all, the bombing killed 25, many people died in the following days. Secondly, the bombing was a final straw, after 18 months in which the Palestinian Authority has not actively done a single thing to prevent attacks against Israeli civilians.

    Another Palestinian suicide bomber kills at least 13

    Actually 15. You didn't mention at least 6 additional attacks that led to at least 2 more dead and dozens of Israeli wounded.

    shelling the Medical Relief Committee's headquarters

    Well, it's funny you forgot the Palestinians' use of ambulances for transporting terrorists and their matériel.

    350-400 civilians are reported to be inside

    ... among them, at least 30 people on Israel's Most Wanted list. After all terrorists are civilians by definition, right?

    U.S. exerts behind-the-scenes pressure to force a cease-fire at Rajoub's complex

    Israel wanted the civilians inside to leave so they could find among them those who are wanted. About 200 did leave, but most of the "wanted" types refuse to come out.

    You also seem to have forgotten about the finding of a document which links Arafat almost directly to suicide bombings (it is a shopping list sent by his Fatah subordinates to his deputy). See here.


    gantse jahr fraylech... gantse jahr fraylech...


    Latest news (3.16 / 6) (#204)
    by Betcour on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 04:26:18 AM EST

    Secondly, the bombing was a final straw, after 18 months in which the Palestinian Authority has not actively done a single thing to prevent attacks against Israeli civilians.

    For one, it's hard to arrest people when your police is constantly bombed and stopped from doing its work by Israel. For two, why should Palestinians arrest Israelian killers when Israel doesn't do anything about the Israelians who kill Palestinians ? What happens to the Tsahal soldiers who kill kids ? Nothing. "Do as I say, not as I do"

    After all terrorists are civilians by definition, right?

    And your point is ? How does Israel suspicions justify shooting at civilians ?

    You also seem to have forgotten about the finding of a document which links Arafat almost directly to suicide bombings (it is a shopping list sent by his Fatah subordinates to his deputy).

    I found a document linking you to the killing of JFK. What ? You say it's fake ? Proove it ! Israel is swift on accusating everyone of terrorism, but pretty slow at giving proof to the world.

    [ Parent ]
    I take it... (4.20 / 5) (#206)
    by ariux on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 04:49:50 AM EST

    ...you're seriously arguing, then, that Arafat's Fatah (including Tanzim and the Al-Aqsa Martyrs) - that is, subgroups of the PA itself - are not responsible for a significant portion of the actual attacks?

    Note that I'm not drawing any conclusions about whether or not you're right - I just want to clarify what position you're taking.

    [ Parent ]

    Reply (4.00 / 6) (#209)
    by uriyan on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 05:02:23 AM EST

    For one, it's hard to arrest people when your police is constantly bombed and stopped from doing its work by Israel

    There were around 8 cease-fires. One of them (this winter) ended with the death of a Fatah leader called Raed Karmi who was declaredly put into jail by Mr. Arafat a months earlier and was set free during the cease-fire; 7 others were ended by Palestinians, often by Arafat's own Fatah forces. And during all that time, Arafat never even called in Arabic for the cessation of hostilities; he only announced a cease-fire, "for the sake of national unity". That's clearly not good enough, as far as Israel's concerned.

    What happens to the Tsahal soldiers who kill kids ?

    Actually, there are investigation courts for matters that involve the deaths of civilians. But there's a difference here: the Palestinian terrorists aim specifically at killing civilians (e.g. an Israeli baby who was killed by a sniper several months ago), whereas Palestinian civilians are not targeted specifically - and the responsibility for the death of innocent people in exchanges of fire lies as much on Israelis as on Palestinian gunmen who initiate gunfights in crowded areas.

    And your point is ? How does Israel suspicions justify shooting at civilians ?

    As to the National Security compound itself, it was the scene of several exchanges of fire between gunmen inside and the Israeli army. Then the army, CIA and Rajoub negotiated a truce to allow the evacuation of wounded and the departure of innocent civilians. Considering the fact that there are dozens of armed gunmen inside, Israeli actions were quite thoughtful of the innocent civilians.

    You say it's fake ? Proove it!

    You say the document concerning Arafat's deputy is fake? Prove it!


    gantse jahr fraylech... gantse jahr fraylech...


    [ Parent ]
    Hmm? (3.33 / 6) (#215)
    by WowTIP on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 05:41:40 AM EST

    You say the document concerning Arafat's deputy is fake? Prove it!

    Heh, ever heard the phrase "innocent until proven guilty"?


    --

    "I'm surfin the dead zone
    In the twilight, unknown"

    [ Parent ]
    Document == Evidence != Conclusion (4.40 / 5) (#217)
    by uriyan on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 06:41:49 AM EST

    Arafat is innocent until proven guilty, but the document is true until proven false.

    This document is a piece of evidence against Arafat. A court (*) should accept all presented evidence and consider it, unless other evidence is presented that disqualifies it. If you can point out to any specific discrepancies in or around it, feel free to present it here.

    (*) For political reasons, Israel is unable to try Arafat in court. However we could conduct a "court hearing" against him here at kuro5hin or anywhere else. Note however that an American court already ruled against Arafat on a compensation issue basing on the question whether he actively sponsors terrorism.


    gantse jahr fraylech... gantse jahr fraylech...


    [ Parent ]
    Re: Document == Evidence != Conclusion (3.33 / 6) (#223)
    by WowTIP on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 07:08:39 AM EST

    Your claim was that the documents linked "Arafat almost directly to suicide bombings", a pretty bold accusation. Since the evidence you are pointing to is published on a site that is bound to be very partial, I choose to take them with some grains of salt until someone impartial prove they are accurate.

    I can't say if the documents are true, but I guess that neither can you?
    --

    "I'm surfin the dead zone
    In the twilight, unknown"

    [ Parent ]
    Re: Document == Evidence != Conclusion (3.50 / 4) (#227)
    by uriyan on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 07:37:03 AM EST

    The site's being partial has nothing to do with the question of the authenticity of the document, since a site can be partial and still present thruthful evidence. The fact that the document's authenticity is not yet proven does imply that you should discard it, exactly as you don't discard the statements of Palestinians on made on TV although they do not always convey the truth as well.


    gantse jahr fraylech... gantse jahr fraylech...


    [ Parent ]
    Re: Document == Evidence != Conclusion (4.25 / 4) (#236)
    by WowTIP on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 08:21:58 AM EST

    No, in an ideal world the partiality of a site would not have anything to do with the authenticity of this document. Obviously, this is not an ideal world, and therefore I choose to disregard this document until someone prove it true. Just as I would disregard some hypothetical documents on a pro-palestinian site that claim to prove that Sharon has ordered Mossad to kill Arafat.

    I still don't say that it is false, but until proven true by an independent source, I will still take it with some grains of salt.
    --

    "I'm surfin the dead zone
    In the twilight, unknown"

    [ Parent ]
    PA has lied before, has Israel? (3.00 / 2) (#304)
    by hawaii on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 01:44:16 PM EST

    Since the evidence you are pointing to is published on a site that is bound to be very partial, I choose to take them with some grains of salt until someone impartial prove they are accurate.

    The Palestinian Authority has categorically denied other Israeli claims against it as complete Israeli fabrications. For example, the Karine A weapon vessel. Remember when that story first surfaced, Arafat along with other PA officials not only completely denied PA involvement, but accussed Israel of making up a news story to serve it's own political interests.

    The PA has since found this out to be true, and Israel was telling the truth. That said, are there any circumstances where Israel has fabricated evidence to lie to the public in order to push it's own viewpoint?

    The PA has been caught lying before, so they should have less worldwide credibility. What about the Israelis?

    [ Parent ]

    Link to the document (4.50 / 4) (#218)
    by uriyan on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 06:44:25 AM EST

    For your convenience, you can find the document at this page at IDF's site.


    gantse jahr fraylech... gantse jahr fraylech...


    [ Parent ]
    Reply (3.71 / 7) (#221)
    by Betcour on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 07:01:57 AM EST

    There were around 8 cease-fires.

    Which in Israelian language means : you stop bombing, we keep assasinating your leaders. Israelian has kept its "targetted assination" policy (a nicer word for murder) active during every so-called cease fire, and several Palestinians leaders where killed. Double standard again.

    Actually, there are investigation courts for matters that involve the deaths of civilians

    Which do absolutely nothing. Heck, Sharon is the best example of it : he is a war criminal, and he is the leader of Israel now, eventhough he was found guilty by an Israeli courts. So far, how many Tsahal soldiers have been seriously jailed for war crimes ?
    Ask yourself : if those dead kids had been Israelis, wouldn't the Tsahal soldiers who killed them be already in jail by now, accident or not ? Isn't that a double standard ?

    whereas Palestinian civilians are not targeted specifically

    So I guess the civilian houses and farms who were razed by bulldozers where destroyed "by accident" (the driver was sleeping maybe ?). The hundreds of dead civil Palestinians died all by accident as well ? That's really an awfull lot of accidents for a well trained army. Even western journalist are specifically targeted (so you can just imagine what kind of treatment the Palestinians civil get...). To quote a report from Reporters without border :

    In a letter to Minister of Defence Benyamin Ben Eliezer, RSF protested the shooting of Bertrand Aguirre, correspondent from the French television station TF1, in Ramallah. Robert M閚ard, the organisation's secretary-general, asked for "the launch of an investigation in order to determine the exact circumstances of the incident and to take disciplinary mesures against those responsible if it is found that an Israeli soldier fired the shot." M閚ard also recalled that "this is the fourth journalist to be shot and injured in 2001 during confrontations between Palestinian demonstrators and Israeli soldiers. Close to forty media professionals havebeen shot by Tsahal [Israeli Defence Forces] in the last three years."

    Obviously Tsahal doesn't want the world to know what's going on (also the reason why internationnal observers have always been refused by Israel). There's a good reason for that : ethnic cleansing doesn't look good on TV.

    You say the document concerning Arafat's deputy is fake? Prove it !

    Thank you for supporting my point :) You cannot proove the non-existence of something. So you see, I don't have to proove it doesn't exists : it is you who have to proove it does exists, and you can't since Israel didn't cooperate with any neutral country/organisation/trubinal authenticate it. Arafat could as well claim he has a document proving Sharon eats babies for breakfast, that woudln't be any more or less truthfull than Sharon claiming he has the document you talk about. Which is to say : most probably fabricated tales for the medias (propaganda)...

    [ Parent ]
    Response (5.00 / 4) (#225)
    by uriyan on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 07:30:31 AM EST

    Which in Israelian language

    It's nice to be speaking with you in the Amerikani language. Really. By the way, I repeat, the only time that Israel violated a cease-fire was in January of this year when Raed Karmi was killed. He was killed because he was (a) let go from a Palestinian Authority prison (b) immediately started planning another attack with no regard to the cease-fire anyway

    So far, how many Tsahal soldiers have been seriously jailed for war crimes

    Let's look it the other way: present a list of cases when you can prove that the civilians were killed from aimed fire without any provocation or snipers behind their backs, and then we'll discuss each case individually.

    if those dead kids had been Israelis, wouldn't the Tsahal soldiers who killed them be already in jail by now

    Several weeks ago, a young Israeli soldier driving home was tragically killed because he was thought to be a gunman. Nobody was punished. Why? Because it's a war; it doesn't matter what the things really were, it matters how they look within the 5 seconds preceeding the engagement.

    So I guess the civilian houses and farms who were razed by bulldozers where destroyed "by accident"

    No, they weren't destroyed "by accident", they were destroyed because somebody was shooting/could be shooting at Israeli traffic at a nearby road.

    That's really an awfull lot of accidents for a well trained army. Even western journalist are specifically targeted

    People die from stray bullets or fragments. People die from mines planted in rocket-launching areas. People die because they don't stop at a passing. People die from their fellow Palestinians shooting from behind. People also die attacking the IDF. Tell me how even the best-trained army in the world can prevent casualties from these reasons while still doing its job?

    As to the journalists, they come into areas of street fighting while carrying cameras (which look like RPG launchers from 150 meters). They move during curfew, and sometimes get shot because of that. But there's nothing to prove that IDF targets them deliberately, like the Palestinians do.

    a good reason for that : ethnic cleansing doesn't look good on TV.

    First of all, de-facto, foreign TV reporters go everywhere they want, even if that's the middle of a shoot-out. Secondly, do you have any evidence of "ethnic cleansing" (oranized mass murder or deportation) going on?

    Israel didn't cooperate with any neutral country/organisation/trubinal authenticate it

    Well, the document has just been found, perhaps Israel will present it to independent authentication in the future. Can you find anything wrong with the document itself (you can find it through a link in one of the posts).


    gantse jahr fraylech... gantse jahr fraylech...


    [ Parent ]
    Buildings == targets?? (4.25 / 4) (#230)
    by bil on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 07:58:18 AM EST

    they were destroyed because somebody was shooting/could be shooting at Israeli traffic at a nearby road.

    Of course potentially any building can be used as cover for snipers, and every building in Palestine is pretty close to a road (pretty much every building in the world is within rifle range of one road or another) so if by this reasoning its legitimate for the IDF to bulldozer everything higher then a few centimetres anywhere in Palestine...

    bil


    bil
    Where you stand depends on where you sit...
    [ Parent ]

    Buildings = Targets, if you shoot from there! (4.00 / 4) (#261)
    by uriyan on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 10:29:02 AM EST

    Note the fact that buildings and trees were removed in most cases only after repeated incidents/attacks coming from them, Israel did not destroy those pleces from where they didn't shoot. Most of the buildings that were destroyed, were empty (abandoned).


    gantse jahr fraylech... gantse jahr fraylech...


    [ Parent ]
    Counterpoint (3.50 / 4) (#246)
    by Betcour on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 08:56:10 AM EST

    He was killed because he was (a) let go from a Palestinian Authority prison (b) immediately started planning another attack with no regard to the cease-fire anyway

    So :
    1. Wasn't that a break of the cease-fire nonetheless ?
    2. Just like all other Israelian murders, they target people that didn't have a fair trial, without showing any proof to the public. Tsahal says "they were planning a bombing" and the world is supposed to take their word for it ? For what we know, this guy could have been the lover of a Israelian minister's wife and it was just a personnal vengeance. Is there anything in Israel as the "right to a fair trial", or is this officially a fascist state where the governement decides on its own who dies and who lives ? What if they think you are a terrorist and bomb you out of existence before you get even a chance to explain yourself ?
    3. This is a direct violation of the Geneva convention, which prohibits the assination of leaders and officials.
    4. There are other ways, cleaner and safer, of stopping a man than bombing his car from an helicopter. I'm pretty sure the Israeli police doesn't stop murderers in Israel by firing rockets from an helicopter, since that would be too dangerous for the civilians around. But the life of Palestinians is not that important for them.
    it matters how they look within the 5 seconds preceeding the engagement.

    The kids who died behind his father didn't look much like a gunman. He was obviously shot for no apparent reason than because he was there and the Israeli soldier in front of him was trigger-happy that day. There are hundreds of dead civilians, and statistically speaking some of them had to be shot volontarily. Accidents happens but to say all dead civilians where accidents is more than a strech...

    they were destroyed because somebody was shooting/could be shooting at Israeli traffic at a nearby road

    That's what you/Tsahal says. Again we are all supposed to believe it since Israel refuse to have any neutral observer around. All I see is familly without a roof forced to move out, while the Israelian colons take the left over space for expensions. I've seen some destroyed Palestinians farms. The soldiers had taken care of mixing sand with the grain so that the farmer couldn't ever use it again. If that's not ethnic cleansing at work then what is it ? Disguising it under "war on terrorism" doesn't change what is really happening with the population.
    Also is cutting water and electric supplies done by accident ? Or how is it supposed to stop terrorism ? (hint : water is not used to make bombs)

    Tell me how even the best-trained army

    An army that doesn't mess into occupying a foreign nation ? If Israelians stay in Israel, Tsahal won't have to lay mines, makes hundreds of checkpoints etc... I haven't seen the Spanish army kill much people despite the Basque terrorism (which while not as spectacular is killing people regulary).

    Secondly, do you have any evidence of "ethnic cleansing" (oranized mass murder or deportation) going on?

    Sabra & Shatila. The Palestinians refugee camps (guess why they were moved). You don't need to kill people to do ethnic cleansing, destroying their homes, farms and fields, cutting the food and water supply, preventing people from going to work etc... works equally well. And of course : building more and more colonies. East-Jerusalem is surrounded by Israelian colonies so that it surrounds and absorb the Palestinian part. Barak negociated peace, yet was building more colonies than ever before.

    perhaps Israel will present it to independent authentication in the future

    I'm looking forward to that, and if it is authenticated then will take it for real. In the meantime this isn't happening, and Israel has done everything to retain information. Refusing observers, refusing journalists, refusing to give any proof of its accusations. I do not see why this would change suddenly... (but I'll all for it).

    [ Parent ]
    Reply (4.50 / 4) (#259)
    by uriyan on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 10:09:40 AM EST

    Wasn't that a break of the cease-fire nonetheless?

    It wasn't, since the cease-fire was effectively broken by the Palestinian Authority releasing him.

    Just like all other Israelian murders, they target people that didn't have a fair trial, without showing any proof to the public

    Israel has asked PA to arrest and/or extradict Raed Karmi, as it was supposed to under the Oslo Accords. What did PA do? Set him free. Israel did arrest probably several thousand Palestinians, but it couldn't do it in time in the case of Raed Karmi. He never even denied he was involved in terrorist activity, he was proud of it - and that's why he died.

    This is a direct violation of the Geneva convention, which prohibits the assination of leaders and officials.

    Of civilian population, once you take an AK-47 into your hands, you're no longer civilian.

    There are other ways, cleaner and safer, of stopping a man than bombing his car from an helicopter.

    Yes, asking the proper authorities (PA) to stop him. Why didn't PA do it? Ask them, they received the list.

    The kids who died behind his father didn't look much like a gunman

    Newer evidence suggests Muhammad Al-Dura was killed by the (presumably Palestinian) gunman standing right behind the camera.

    Also is cutting water and electric supplies done by accident ? Or how is it supposed to stop terrorism ? (hint : water is not used to make bombs)

    Water pumps use electricity. Turning off electricity is useful against electric fences, surveilance equipment, cell phones etc. By the way, Palestinians are buying electricity from Israel, or supposed to buy since they've not actually paid for it lately.

    An army that doesn't mess into occupying a foreign nation

    There's a difference between politics and fighting, and in the meanwhile the Palestinians have been doing everything they can to make IDF stay in their territories. By saying "yes" at Camp David, Arafat could have rid himself from 90% of the settlements and all the army. He could have a state. But no, he's got to be Sallah Ad-Din, the liberator of Jerusalem.

    Sabra & Shatila

    Was in Lebanon and was carried by Christian Lebanese Arabs to Muslim Lebanese Arabs. I don't think you fool somebody if you say it's the only (or the biggest) massacre made in Lebanon by Arabs among themselves on ethnical religious grounds.

    Refusing observers...

    This is false, Israel refused armed UN personnel, "peacekeepers". Anyone could come to Ramallah several days ago; anyone will be able to come there within several weeks and ask what had happened; anyone can listen to Michael Holmes who is in there now. That's what I call transparent enough.

    By the way, why do you write "Israelian" (in English it's usually spelt "Israeli"), are you a French Arab?


    gantse jahr fraylech... gantse jahr fraylech...


    [ Parent ]
    Ugh (3.33 / 3) (#272)
    by Betcour on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 11:24:41 AM EST

    It wasn't, since the cease-fire was effectively broken by the Palestinian Authority releasing him.

    A cease-fire is just this : the stop of firing. You can only break it by firing (bombing, shooting, etc.) Releasing someone from prison cannot at any rate be considered a break of a cease-fire. If the Israelian meant "cease-fire" as "don't do anything we don't approve of" then you need to call it with another name.

    Israel has asked PA to arrest and/or extradict Raed Karmi, as it was supposed to under the Oslo Accords.

    Both Israel & the PA had stopped following the Oslo accords a long time ago before this. Israel cannot ask PA to obey the Oslo accord if they break it themselves (and the opposite is true as well)

    He never even denied he was involved in terrorist activity, he was proud of it - and that's why he died.

    There's not one democracy on earth where admission of culpability gives you execution without even a trial first. Not one, except Israel.

    Water pumps use electricity. Turning off electricity is useful against electric fences, surveilance equipment, cell phones etc.

    Nice explanation except you could see on TV the Israelian buldozers with special rear equipement digging in the ground to cut water pipes... this can only be done to harm civilians. I'm curious to have your explanation on that.

    By saying "yes" at Camp David, Arafat could have rid himself from 90% of the settlements and all the army.

    That's the heart of the problem : you think that 90% is good enough for the Palestinians. Well the news is : they are just as good as you, me and everyone else and deserve just the same treatment, and they are entitled to get back 100% of what Israel owe them. Not 90, not 95, not even 99.99% but 100%. 1967 borders are internationnaly recognised (UN and its members) as Israel's border. Everything that sticks out of it has to disappear, pure and simple. If someone steals 100 $ from you, will you agree to let him go and forget the whole thing if he gives you back 90 $ ? I won't. You probably won't either. Arafat won't.

    What Israel has been trying to do is get a favorable peace terms where they could keep part of what they took away, and this is why there was never a definitive peace agreement and why we are there. If Israel had not been so greedy and agreed to go back to the UN-defined 1967 borders, we wouldn't have to watch this senseless war going on. The 1967 borders is a fair one - it gives both Israeli and Palestinians a country for themselves and is already on the maps and there's a consensus around it.

    Was in Lebanon and was carried by Christian Lebanese Arabs to Muslim Lebanese Arabs

    The Christian milicias where allied and used by Israel around here, and Sabra and Shatila where under control of Tsahal and Sharon, which decided to let the militia get in and do the dirty work. While Sharon didn't walk in with a knife to kill people, he decided for the thing to happen. Organising a murder is still being guilty of the murder (eventhough not to the same level of responsability).

    This is false, Israel refused armed UN personnel, "peacekeepers".

    No, it has opposed any organised neutral observers, armed or not. The only thing Israel accepted is CIA observer (which obviously cannot be neutral by any stretch of the word). The UN security council tried to pass a resolution for unarmed observers, which was vetoed by US. Israel doesn't want observers, journalist (they are making occupied cities "non-journalist" zones and are threathening CNN of suing if they keep reporting from here). By the way, why do you write "Israelian"

    No I'm just French-French :)

    [ Parent ]
    Not quite... (4.00 / 2) (#313)
    by uriyan on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 02:08:59 PM EST

    If the Israelian meant "cease-fire" as "don't do anything we don't approve of" then you need to call it with another name.

    Tell me, if Raed Karmi lived for another day and would be shot while ambushing Jews, would that be a breach of cease-fire as well? Israel understands "cease-fire" as (a) stopping current hostilities (b) prevention of escalation by third parties - i.e. at least keeping prisonners inside jails.

    Both Israel & the PA had stopped following the Oslo accords a long time ago before this

    First of all, the Oslo agreements are still in place de jure. Before February (Israeli incursions), they were also mostly in place de facto. The PA didn't even have to hand over Karmi, all it had to do is to arrest him. It has failed the most minimal test of good will in this case - to keep the troublemakers imprisoned.

    There's not one democracy on earth where admission of culpability gives you execution without even a trial first. Not one, except Israel.

    In a war, you don't try your enemy. You aim and fire. Mr. Karmi was participating in a war against Israel, and was a combatant by any definition. He knew the risks, decided to try his fortune and was killed.

    1967 borders are internationnaly recognised (UN and its members)

    Jordanian and Egyptian control of the lands before 1967 was internationally regarded as illegal. The (hopelessly outdated, as many believe) Resolution 242 declared that Israeli retreat from occupied territories was the grounds for future negotiations with Jordan and Egypt.

    Both Jordan and Egypt withdrew their claims for these lands. Now enter the Palestinians. There was never a state called 'Palestine', but Israel does them a favor by offering for the Palestinians' national revival terms similar to 242. But 242 does not speak about Palestinians, it speaks about Jordanians and Egyptians, and it does not even mention full retreat (*).

    That's the heart of the problem : you think that 90% is good enough for the Palestinians

    First of all, the Palestinians were offered a compensation of lands of equal area near Hebron. Secondly, the Palestinians should understand that beyond their (respected) desire for self-determination, the State of Israel also has some interests, regarding which it is ready to negotiate. Blind arrogance and inacceptance of all compromise in the meanwhile decreased the Palestinian's prospects from 90% to 10%.

    Sabra and Shatila where under control of Tsahal and Sharon

    Sabra and Shatila were encircled by IDF, which was supervised by Sharon (the Minister of Defense). The entry of the Phalanges was coordinated weeks in advance. The murder of Bashir Gemayel happened three days before the massacre. No evidence was ever presented that Sharon knew about the Phalanges' planned massacre, nor is there evidence that he received reports about it (the person who ordered the Phalanges out was the Chief of Staff Raphael Eitan). Sharon still bears the responsibility for not taking into account the possibility of a massacre, but that's nowhere near your accusation of planning the massacre.

    No, it has opposed any organised neutral observers

    This isn't strictly correct; for example there's TIPH. The main problem here is with a large observer force that could come under fire, not necesserily from Israel's side, but creating negative publicity nevertheless. Past experience shows that UN observer forces work where both sides want a cease fire but they're worse than useless otherwise (UNIFIL).


    gantse jahr fraylech... gantse jahr fraylech...


    [ Parent ]
    (*) Footnote (3.50 / 2) (#316)
    by uriyan on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 02:14:23 PM EST

    (sorry, forgot to add this to the original post) The English text of Resolution 242 reads "retreat of Israeli armed forces from territories" etc. In this wording, there's no definite article ("the") so it means "from some of the territories". The article was removed deliberately as a result of an American amendment; the French version lacking this nuance ("des territoires occupés" and not "de") can be therefore considered a translator error.


    gantse jahr fraylech... gantse jahr fraylech...


    [ Parent ]
    UN Resolutions (4.50 / 2) (#327)
    by Delirium on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 03:04:24 PM EST

    While you are correct on 242, the multiple U.N. resolutions of 1980 specifically condemn all Israeli settlements in the 1967-captured territory (including East Jerusalem) as illegal, which would seem to imply that Israel must withdraw eventually from all the territory (or at the very least withdraw all its civilians from the illegal settlements).

    [ Parent ]
    This is a matter of bilateral negotiations (4.00 / 2) (#329)
    by uriyan on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 03:15:45 PM EST

    Once bilateral negotiations are carried out, it doesn't matter what the UN once said, but rather of what the two sides agree upon. 242 is unique because the "land-for-peace" principle in it was accepted as the basis for future negotiations, but otherwise it's quite obsolete. The Oslo agreements (in which the Palestinians agreed, at least temporarily, to the settlements) supersede the UN resolutions and make them less relevant.


    gantse jahr fraylech... gantse jahr fraylech...


    [ Parent ]
    Root Cause (2.50 / 6) (#207)
    by Maja on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 04:58:04 AM EST

    aren't you forgetting why these people are killing themselves for? How many incconent kids, women , youth, animels have been killed by israel army so far? enough is said! this has been going on for long now, and we hate to see another bloody mascares by terrorist goverments like Israel supported by us westerners! For god sake that is my tax money hitting indirectly these poor women, and kids

    [ Parent ]
    How many innocent Israelis have been killed? (3.25 / 4) (#210)
    by uriyan on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 05:04:55 AM EST

    The fact that innocent people die on both sides does not make any of them more right than the other. Only one side in this conflict allows itself to have snipers that aim and shoot at the other's babies - and that's the Palestinian side.


    gantse jahr fraylech... gantse jahr fraylech...


    [ Parent ]
    I am sorry... (3.00 / 2) (#365)
    by the trinidad kid on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 05:54:37 PM EST

    There are plenty of Palestinian children on this list of dead Palestinians...

    I know that Israeli children have been slaughtered as well, but so have Palestinian kids...


    [ Parent ]
    I am sorry too (5.00 / 3) (#368)
    by Apuleius on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 05:57:07 PM EST

    that you don't seem to understand the meaning of the word "targetting."


    There is a time and a place for everything, and it's called college. (The South Park chef)
    [ Parent ]
    When you shell a city... (3.66 / 3) (#375)
    by the trinidad kid on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 06:36:54 PM EST

    you target it...

    and by targetting the city you target the people in it, men, women and children...


    [ Parent ]
    Not quite (5.00 / 1) (#451)
    by uriyan on Thu Apr 04, 2002 at 01:14:15 AM EST

    When you shell a city you target it...

    When you carpet-bomb a city, you target the civilians inside. When you create huge minefields around a city, you target the civilians inside. But when you fire a shell at a building you target the gunmen shooting from the window, and when you plant a mine from where someone launches mortars you target this man, even if other people get hurt.


    gantse jahr fraylech... gantse jahr fraylech...


    [ Parent ]
    Not quite targeting (none / 0) (#455)
    by Delirium on Thu Apr 04, 2002 at 03:19:42 AM EST

    But when you lock down an entire city for five days, not allowing water, food, medical supplies, or emergency services to move, you are certainly responsible for any civilian deaths this causes.

    [ Parent ]
    That's another matter (3.50 / 2) (#479)
    by uriyan on Thu Apr 04, 2002 at 04:48:50 AM EST

    If you lock down an entire city, that's another matter, but Israeli troops did lift the curfew temporarily yesterday in Ramallah (so some food could be distributed). As to "emergency services" (you probably mean ambulances), there's a credibility problem with them now, and this does put certain restrictions on their movements. Israel is responsible for the people getting food and water, it doesn't have to allow them the freedom of movement during gun battles on the streets.


    gantse jahr fraylech... gantse jahr fraylech...


    [ Parent ]
    Nice definitions of targetting (none / 0) (#463)
    by the trinidad kid on Thu Apr 04, 2002 at 03:50:53 AM EST

    Effectively all of occupied Palestine is a 'free fire' zone and any civilian killed is just a 'accident' - nobody outside Israel believes you.


    [ Parent ]
    If Israel wanted to kill many Arabs... (none / 0) (#478)
    by uriyan on Thu Apr 04, 2002 at 04:48:32 AM EST

    If Israel wanted to kill as many Arabs it could try to shell civilian areas with heavy artillery, fire machine guns at crowds, bomb the funeral processions, blow up those schools etc. Now entering cities, declaring a curfew (no crowds on the streets) and then lifting it to allow some food to be distributed is certainly not a way to maximize civilian casualties.


    gantse jahr fraylech... gantse jahr fraylech...


    [ Parent ]
    Who alleged that? (3.00 / 1) (#482)
    by the trinidad kid on Thu Apr 04, 2002 at 05:03:59 AM EST

    Who alleged that Israel wanted to maximise Palestinian casualties?

    Not me.

    Israel has cheerfully killed Palestinians when there was little or no risk to Israelis.

    For instance (as I am tired of saying) in the first three years (1987 - 1990) of the first intifada the casualty figures were:
    • 609 Palestinians killed by Israelis (76 of them children under 14)
    • another 234 Palestinian 'collaborators' were killed by Palestinians
    • 18 Israelis killed by Palestinians of whom 10 were civilians (ie only 10 soldiers)
    Conclusion: Israel kills civilians.

    Nobody is arguing that the Palestinians haven't murdered civilians, but plenty of people are arguing that the Israelis haven't murdered civilians - it is not true. If you think it is necessary for Israel to kill civilians to achieve her aims please admit it.


    [ Parent ]
    Reply (none / 0) (#493)
    by uriyan on Thu Apr 04, 2002 at 06:08:38 AM EST

    Who alleged that Israel wanted to maximise Palestinian casualties

    Many people have been making that claim exactly, although, as we've agreed now, it's baseless.

    Conclusion: Israel kills civilians

    Nobody's denying that

    Israel has cheerfully killed Palestinians when there was little or no risk to Israelis

    That would be a rash conclusion. In addition to figures, you'd have to actually show that when the Palestinians were killed, they weren't creating a threat to Israelis (e.g. does running into an electric fence count?). Moreover your statistics are incomplete: the total number of Israeli casualties during the Intifada's initial period is about 40, with at least 40 additional Israeli casualties belonging to the various security services.

    If you think it is necessary for Israel to kill civilians to achieve her aims please admit it.

    It is not necessary for Israel to kill civilians in order to achieve her aim (security), meaning that the death of civilians is not Israel's objective; however it is necessary for Israel to do things that may (and often do) result in the death of civilians. Israel does them not because she wants more dead civilians, but because it is the only way that she sees to prevent further terrorist attacks without stepping in a booby-trap of surrendering to terrorism.


    gantse jahr fraylech... gantse jahr fraylech...


    [ Parent ]
    My statistics (none / 0) (#498)
    by the trinidad kid on Thu Apr 04, 2002 at 06:20:54 AM EST

    My statistics only cover the first 3 years of the first intifada (as I said in the link I pointed to) because half of my books are in storage. As I also said there, could you post a link to the full first intifada casualty figures.

    In relation to the use of lethal force would you agree that Palestinians were killed in the first intifada for throwing stones at Israelis? - I think you would.

    At the same time Orthodox Jews in Israel had the habit of stoning cars on the Sabbath. Could you kindly tell me how many Orthodox Jews were shot and killed for throwing stones at Israelis in that period? (My guess is none, but I await your correction.)

    The thrust of my post stands, please point out anyone on K5 who is saying that the Israelis are attempting to maximise Palestinian casualties?

    The Israelis are as indifferent to those casualties as international politics will allow them, but I do not believe I have read anyone here claiming that the Israelis are trying to kill all the Palestinians.


    [ Parent ]
    ... and my statistics (none / 0) (#512)
    by uriyan on Thu Apr 04, 2002 at 07:47:43 AM EST

    From Benny Morris's Righteous Victims (ISBN 0-679-74475-4, an interesting, albeit a bit sloppy book), pp. 595-596:

    According to Be'tselem, Israel's security forces killed 1095 Palestinians during the period December 1987 - December 1993 ... Another 48 were killed by Israeli civilians.

    According to Be'tselem, forty-eight Israeli civilians were killed by Arabs inside Israel between December 1987 and December 1992, and thirty-one in the territories. The number of IDF, police and GSS personnel killed from the start of the Intifada until the end of 1991 was twenty-two, with eighteen more in 1992 and twenty-five in 1993.

    Also, see the list here just in the last quarter (after Oslo!), the Palestinians killed 16 civilians. Let's say during the year, 50 civilians were killed. How much does it give us? About 200 Israelis and 1150 Palestinians.

    At the same time Orthodox Jews in Israel had the habit of stoning cars on the Sabbath

    Hundreds of Jewish Orthodoxes were throwing stones at several places (e.g. Bar-Ilan road in Jerusalem) during Sabbath Eves, while tens of thousands of Palestinian youth were throwing stones at vital roads on all days of week. This means that the Palestinians were throwing several hundred times as much as the Orthodoxes, and they were undisputedy more violent. Therefore these two habits of stone-throwing are incomparable.

    The Israelis are as indifferent to those casualties as international politics will allow them, but I do not believe I have read anyone here claiming that the Israelis are trying to kill all the Palestinians.

    Betcour apparently believes the IDF activity to be ethnic cleansing (with the obvious goal to maximise casualties in devilish ways), look e.g. at here, here and here. There are quite a few posts like the ones above, a bit of watchfulness and you'll see dozens of them.


    gantse jahr fraylech... gantse jahr fraylech...


    [ Parent ]
    Comments... (4.00 / 1) (#514)
    by the trinidad kid on Thu Apr 04, 2002 at 08:17:47 AM EST

    Ethnic cleansing is not necessarily the same as maximising casualties - in Bosnia it was deaths to create refugees (at least at times) but I will accept your citing of Betancour.

    Thank you for your lists of casualties of the first intifada (I hadn't thought of looking at B'Tselem

    In relation to Orthodox Jewish kids stoning cars I do not believe that gunfire was ever used against them (I may be wrong) and I do not believe that gunfire was ever considered as an option - in fact I believe it is inconcievable that it would be used. Do you agree?

    Here is a report of last nights rioting in Belfast where where 24 pipe and blast bombs, 30 petrol bombs and around 20 to 25 shots were fired at the police.

    In return 13 plastic bullets were fired. Shoot to kill is not considered acceptable in the UK.
    H

    [ Parent ]
    Reply (1.00 / 1) (#535)
    by uriyan on Thu Apr 04, 2002 at 10:47:30 AM EST

    In relation to Orthodox Jewish kids stoning cars I do not believe that gunfire was ever used against them (I may be wrong) and I do not believe that gunfire was ever considered as an option - in fact I believe it is inconcievable that it would be used. Do you agree?

    It is quite concievable that Orthodox Jews (both kids and their parents participated in the stone-throwing) would be shot at with live ammunition, provided that they attack an army unit (or any other group of armed men without special riot-control equipment). Massive stone-throwing is a dangerous thing, things worse than bruises happen if a stone hits someone in the head.

    Here is a report of last nights rioting in Belfast where where 24 pipe and blast bombs, 30 petrol bombs and around 20 to 25 shots were fired at the police.

    We're talking about Israeli army, which was faced by thousands of stone-throwers, many of whom also had knives and some - guns. The intensity of stone-throwing there was much higher than what the Orthodox Jews (or that demonstration in Belfast) created. At the later stages, the Israeli Army was equipped with riot-control equipment (rubber bullets), but the huge scale of the stone-throwing meant that each couple of days a rubber bullet would hit someone in the head and he'd die.


    gantse jahr fraylech... gantse jahr fraylech...


    [ Parent ]
    You know what I'm sorry about? (1.44 / 9) (#391)
    by Ken Pompadour on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 07:58:48 PM EST

    I'm sorry that the Palestinians missed you, and killed a lot of innocent Jews who just wanted to be left alone. They SHOULD be targetting filthy scumbags such as yourself instead of innocent civilians, I agree.

    ...The target is countrymen, friends and family... they have to die too. - candid trhurler
    [ Parent ]
    We like you too (NT) (3.00 / 1) (#450)
    by uriyan on Thu Apr 04, 2002 at 01:08:38 AM EST


    gantse jahr fraylech... gantse jahr fraylech...


    [ Parent ]
    To my knowledge, (3.66 / 6) (#228)
    by FredBloggs on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 07:38:36 AM EST

    the Israelis have not been deliberately trying to kill as many Palestinian civillians as they can. (I think if they were, the "score" would be tilted far more heavily in the Israelis favour, dont you?)
    However, this appears to be the Palestinians *only* "strategy". Perhaps if they tried to only kill soldiers, they`d get a bit more sympathy.

    Perhaps if Arafat made a statement calling for all attacks on Israeli civillians to stop immediately, he`d have a little more credibility. He hasnt.


    [ Parent ]
    Sympathy (3.71 / 7) (#262)
    by Betcour on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 10:31:19 AM EST

    Perhaps if they tried to only kill soldiers, they`d get a bit more sympathy.

    True but :
    1. Palestinians used to have plenty of sympathy. From the UN (which has always considered Israel occupation illegal), Europe (speaks, but doesn't do anything), the Arab (more interested into their own petty interest and internal fights) etc... Problem is, sympathy alone isn't nearly enough if nobody takes action on it.
    2. Killing soldiers is pretty hard when they are equiped with the latest high-tech equipement and gadgetery, while you have to rely on AK-47 and home-made rockets and mortars.
    3. Killing civilians gets peoples attention, even if not a favorable one. It's a controversial strategy, but a strategy nonetheless and not necessarily a loosing one.
    Also there's not "one Palestinian" but several factions - some close to Arafat priviledge targetting soldiers and colons, while the islamic ones (the most radical) consider everything is good to attack as long as it is Israeli.

    [ Parent ]
    Reply (3.75 / 4) (#266)
    by uriyan on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 10:54:44 AM EST

    Also there's not "one Palestinian" but several factions - some close to Arafat priviledge targetting soldiers and colons

    That's why the Fatah had to blow up a cafè in Haifa killing 15 Israelis, including Israeli Arabs?

    Killing civilians gets peoples attention, even if not a favorable one. It's a controversial strategy, but a strategy nonetheless and not necessarily a loosing one.

    Just don't expect Israelis ever to disengage nor to care too much about collateral civilian victims, as long as the Palestinians stick to this strategy.


    gantse jahr fraylech... gantse jahr fraylech...


    [ Parent ]
    Precisions (3.00 / 2) (#274)
    by Betcour on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 11:30:54 AM EST

    That's why the Fatah had to blow up a caf in Haifa killing 15 Israelis, including Israeli Arabs?

    That's why I used the words "priviledge targetting". I didn't say "only".

    [ Parent ]
    Ambulance Timeline (4.25 / 4) (#240)
    by the trinidad kid on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 08:45:08 AM EST

    The intifada starts on 29 September 2000 with Arial Sharon's visit to the Al Aqsa Mosque.

    5 people are killed:
    • Yossi Tabaje (Israeli Army by Palestinian Police)
    • Ussama Mohammed Jeddah (Palestinian by Israeli Army)
    • Yahya Hassan Faraj (Palestinian by Israeli Army)
    • Bilal Ali'Afana (Palestinian by Israeli Army)
    • Haitham 'Oweida Skafi (Palestinian by Israeli Army)
    • Nizar Ibrahim Shobaki (Palestinian by Israeli Army)
    The first ambulance driver, Bassam Fayez El-Bilbaisi is killed by the Israelis trying to rescue 12 year old Mohammed Al Durrah (shot dead live on television on the 30th September 2000 (the next day).

    Draw your own conclusions as to whether or not the Israelis are right to shoot up ambulances. B'Tselem lists 23 deaths in ambulances at checkpoints (B'Tselem uses frames so I can't give a direct link).

    [ Parent ]
    Response (4.00 / 3) (#260)
    by uriyan on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 10:13:01 AM EST

    The intifada starts on 29 September 2000

    Wrong, the intifada starts with the death of an Israeli border patrolman by a Palestinian counterpart (something unheard of before, and frequent later) on September 28, 2000.

    The first ambulance driver, Bassam Fayez El-Bilbaisi is killed by the Israelis trying to rescue 12 year old Mohammed Al Durrah

    Can you produce any evidence as to the fact that he died from deliberate firing upon him and not caught into exchanges of fire as was Al-Dura?


    gantse jahr fraylech... gantse jahr fraylech...


    [ Parent ]
    Clarification (4.00 / 2) (#276)
    by the trinidad kid on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 11:59:20 AM EST

    Yosse Tabaji a member of the Isreali Border Police was killed on September 29th by a member of the Palestinian Border Police according to B'Tselem and the Guardian report cited above. (B'Tselem uses frames so I cannot provide a direct link).

    I cited Yossi Tabaji in my original post but put him down as Israeli army because B'Tselem categorises him as a member of the 'security forces'.


    [ Parent ]
    Correction to correction - Sept 27th (3.00 / 2) (#318)
    by uriyan on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 02:20:28 PM EST

    Sergeant David Biri died from a Palestinian mine on September 27th, 2000.


    gantse jahr fraylech... gantse jahr fraylech...


    [ Parent ]
    Fine... (4.00 / 2) (#354)
    by the trinidad kid on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 05:11:39 PM EST

    Conventionally the Al Asqa intifida is defined as begining on the day that Arial Sharon went to Al Asqa the 29th...

    If you wish, the timeline can be restarted:
    • The killings started on the 27th with the death of David Biri (Israeli Army killed by Palestinian bomb) and 3 days later the Israelis killed the first ambulance driver.
    In relation to your earlier question about the circumstances of the death of Bassam Fayez El-Belbeissi I have no substatative new evidence other than that outlined with the killing of Mohammed Al Durrah by the Palestinian Centre For Human Rights


    [ Parent ]
    Speaking about reliable sources (none / 0) (#439)
    by uriyan on Thu Apr 04, 2002 at 12:53:42 AM EST

    "Palestinian Centre For Human Rights" obviously a deeply impartial, truthful source. If you want to beleive it - fine, but also look at the results of the Israeli investigation as well.


    gantse jahr fraylech... gantse jahr fraylech...


    [ Parent ]
    speaking about reliable sources (none / 0) (#442)
    by Delirium on Thu Apr 04, 2002 at 12:56:46 AM EST

    Of all the Israeli news sources you quote Eretz Yisroel? I'd be hard-pressed to think of a source much more extreme right-wing than that...

    [ Parent ]
    Mohammed Al Durrah (none / 0) (#466)
    by the trinidad kid on Thu Apr 04, 2002 at 04:15:09 AM EST

    The Palestinian Centre For Human Rights is critical of the Palestinian Authority. (I also use B'TSelem too in general)

    I have discussed the source you cite in detail here but will reprise the main points.

    The Eretz Yisroel page quote the cameraman's interview with a Jerusalem paper and makes it seem that he has doubts about exactly what happened. Whereas in his sworn testimony he said:

    I can confirm that the child was intentionally and in cold blood shot dead and his father injured by the Israeli army

    The investigation by the Israelis was:
    • coducted by the commanding officer of the unit
    • did not interview the father
    • did not interview the cameraman
    • could not investigate the death scene because the Israelis had destroyed it
    It is worth noting that at the time this investigation was ridiculed (see this report from the UK's Guardian)

    (The Guardian report is now being culled from their web site - it was Syndicated to the Melbourne Age and the Google cache I cite above is all that remains - it is likely that it will disappear soon).

    The article contains the following paragraph:

    Even in Israeli army circles the investigation has become controversial, disowned by the chief of staff and criticised by members of parliament for compounding the army's biggest public relations disaster of recent months.


    Consider the timeline:
    • Mohammed Al Durrah was killed on the 2nd (or 4th) day of the intifada
    • He was the first child killed
    The line it was an accident is plausible and generally the Israeli army held to that (except for the man responsible for the troops).

    Now, after well over a hundred Palestinian children have been killed that line is distinctly less believable - suddenly the Al Durrah case opens again. If he was killed by Palestinians then they can be blamed for the rest instead of the Israelis.


    [ Parent ]
    sheesh (2.00 / 1) (#392)
    by Sir Spankotron on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 08:10:12 PM EST

    Can you produce any evidence as to the fact that he died from deliberate firing upon him and not caught into exchanges of fire as was Al-Dura?

    Can YOU produce any evidence that he was caught in exchanges of fire??
    Pretty pointless question if you ask me.

    [ Parent ]
    When they do this... (3.25 / 4) (#356)
    by coward anonymous on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 05:18:14 PM EST

    When ambulances start carting bombs around, they become legit targets as far as I'm concerned. read here.

    [ Parent ]
    Read the timeline... (4.00 / 2) (#363)
    by the trinidad kid on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 05:47:07 PM EST

    • Intifada starts 29th September 2000 (or 27th with uriyan's correction)
    • first Palestinian ambulance driver killed by the Israelis on the 30th September 2000
    • your quote is dated March 27 2002
    Conclusion: the Israelis did not need any incident this year to start shooting ambulances the year before last.


    [ Parent ]
    Read the timeline... (4.33 / 3) (#364)
    by the trinidad kid on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 05:50:00 PM EST

    • Intifada starts 29th September 2000 (or 27th with uriyan's correction)
    • first Palestinian ambulance driver killed by the Israelis on the 30th September 2000
    • your quote is dated March 27 2002
    Conclusion: the Israelis did not need any indident this year to start shooting ambulances the year before last.


    [ Parent ]
    ha ha :-) (2.66 / 3) (#369)
    by coward anonymous on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 06:02:15 PM EST

    So since they only now found an ambulance with explosives, then means it never happened before, right?
    Or that Palestinians have never tried smuggling wanted terrorist in ambulances, or shot at the army from ambulances, or that Palestinians sometimes drive their ambulances delibrately through road blocks instead of through other (often faster) routes to make good headlines.
    These things only started last week. Please.

    [ Parent ]
    And your evidence is? (3.33 / 3) (#376)
    by the trinidad kid on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 06:37:44 PM EST

    Please provide some evidence...


    [ Parent ]
    Mine (3.75 / 4) (#378)
    by coward anonymous on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 06:46:03 PM EST

    My own experience manning a road block as a sergeant way back in 1995.
    I can tell you endless stories about the tit-for-tat games that go on in road blocks, including ambulances. The stories you will never hear in the media.

    [ Parent ]
    1995 (none / 0) (#467)
    by the trinidad kid on Thu Apr 04, 2002 at 04:19:24 AM EST

    So your evidence is that in 1995 the Palestinians were:
    • smuggling armed men in ambulances
    • smuggling suicide bombers (who presumably were not then committing suicide or bombing?)
    • firing from ambulances


    [ Parent ]
    1995 (5.00 / 1) (#490)
    by Oblom on Thu Apr 04, 2002 at 05:49:04 AM EST

    who presumably were not then committing suicide or bombing?
    Suicide bombings in 1995 costed an elections to Shimon Peres.

    [ Parent ]
    Source (none / 0) (#499)
    by the trinidad kid on Thu Apr 04, 2002 at 06:22:25 AM EST

    Source please...

    [ Parent ]
    Memories, oh memories.... (5.00 / 1) (#504)
    by Oblom on Thu Apr 04, 2002 at 06:36:13 AM EST

    I remmember it, since i live there. But if you want, please :
    22 January: Two Islamic Jihad militants blow themselves up amid a group of soldiers near Netanya, killing 21. ( actually it happened at bus stop at Beit-Lit junction. lot's of cevilians also)
    9 April: Islamic Jihad suicide bomber attacks military convoy in Gaza, killing seven soldiers and an American tourist.
    24 July: Unidentified suicide bomber kills six passengers and himself on a bus outside Tel Aviv.
    21 August: Bomb on a Jerusalem bus kills five and wounds 69.

    The list is here. But lots of things are missing from there

    [ Parent ]
    I apologise... (none / 0) (#506)
    by the trinidad kid on Thu Apr 04, 2002 at 06:56:56 AM EST

    After I posted the parent comment I went and checked and found out that my memory was faulty - I apologise and willadd/have added a correction to the post.

    In relation to sources, many people in this discussion (including myself) obviously don't live in Israel. I think sourcing is crucial to keep the debate managable.

    [ Parent ]
    And (none / 0) (#539)
    by coward anonymous on Thu Apr 04, 2002 at 12:00:32 PM EST

    You are doing a commendable job.

    [ Parent ]
    Thank You (NT) (none / 0) (#632)
    by the trinidad kid on Fri Apr 05, 2002 at 04:30:29 AM EST



    [ Parent ]
    Correction To My Post (none / 0) (#507)
    by the trinidad kid on Thu Apr 04, 2002 at 07:00:23 AM EST

    As Oblom has pointed out the parent post contained nonsense:

    who presumably were not then committing suicide or bombing?

    I relied on memory instead of checking the 'facts' I quoted and I was wrong.


    [ Parent ]
    Sharon is completely insane (2.21 / 19) (#224)
    by dovli on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 07:15:34 AM EST

    What is happening nowadays in West Bank is absolutely outrageous. By pursuing only brute force attacks that kill innocents and terrorists alike and lay waste in a territory that is not legitimately theirs, the Israeli government is pushing every Palestinian to embrace the cause of "terrorism". In fact, under these circumstances Israel cannot legitimately talk about terrorism. The so called terrorists are desperate people that exert their right to resist oppresion. I think that Sharon does not want to uproot terrorism. In fact he does not care for the lives of Israely citizens that are killed as a result of his irresponsible policies.He only wants a state run by the military forces. He needs terrorists to justify huge military spendings and a leading role to narrow-minded army officers (or former army officers such as him). The greatest blow that could be dealt to terrorism would be an independent Palestinian state. In the end I'd like to ask a questions to all Jews. How can a people that has beeen through so much suffering in the past inflict so much suffering to others?

    Asking the wrong questions (3.00 / 10) (#251)
    by OzJuggler on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 09:23:08 AM EST

    I'm surprised!
    I figured that some Jew sympathist would try to play the Holocaust card sooner or later. But never in my wildest imaginings did I think that it would come from someone critical of Israel's stance. Bizarre.

    And your final question is dangerous to ask.
    Now is NOT the time to be reminding Jews of their culture's prior persecution. We have a hard enough time helping them to get over it and get on with their lives instead of implicitly allowing past wrongs to justify proposed wrongs. Revenge is revenge. Revenge for revenge is still revenge. Don't fuel the cycle.

    Your question sounded a bit too much like you were saying that all Jews are responsible for all murdered Palestinians, which of course is untrue, regardless of how hellbent one man's government might be. Don't spread this to Jews in general when your discussion should be limited to the government of Israel.

    And since I've just posted off topic, I feel obliged to remind everybody that this thread is supposed to be about what, where and when, but not about why.
    "And I will not rest until every year families gather to spend December 25th together
    at Osama's homo abortion pot and commie jizzporium." - Jon Stewart's gift to Bill O'Reilly, 7 Dec 2005.
    [ Parent ]

    Why Zero? (2.66 / 6) (#273)
    by OzJuggler on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 11:26:23 AM EST

    Will the person who rated my comment as Zero stop hiding behind a veil of secrecy and please inform me as to why they thought my comment deserved a zero?

    My comment was directly related to the comment I was replying to, and as such it was no more offtopic than its parent. If topicality was not the problem then what was? Post, don't mod.
    "And I will not rest until every year families gather to spend December 25th together
    at Osama's homo abortion pot and commie jizzporium." - Jon Stewart's gift to Bill O'Reilly, 7 Dec 2005.
    [ Parent ]

    This is why (3.00 / 7) (#279)
    by wiredog on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 12:21:00 PM EST

    "I figured that some Jew sympathist would try to play the Holocaust card."

    Racist much? Or just trolling? Either way, it made the comment totally content free flamebait.

    Peoples Front To Reunite Gondwanaland: "Stop the Laurasian Separatist Movement!"
    [ Parent ]

    You're out. (3.50 / 2) (#422)
    by OzJuggler on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 11:38:42 PM EST

    Racist much? Or just trolling?
    No, I don't believe it was rascist in the slightest, since it did not make any generalisation at all about Jewish people. You'll notice it refers to some sympathisers, not all Jews.
    I was not trolling either; just showing my surpise at the emerge of rhetoric that I have actually heard from Jewish sympathisers on more than one occasion. Ken Pompadour has already corroborated this. (OK, he's not the most well-liked witness one could have but he's all I've got at this stage.)
    Either way, it made the comment totally content free flamebait.
    Please explain to me how the offence that you took from the opening sentence was able to negate the remaining 90% of my post.
    It was not rascist. It was not flamebait. It had relevant content. Three strikes buddy.
    "And I will not rest until every year families gather to spend December 25th together
    at Osama's homo abortion pot and commie jizzporium." - Jon Stewart's gift to Bill O'Reilly, 7 Dec 2005.
    [ Parent ]
    Interesting (4.00 / 2) (#282)
    by wiredog on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 12:38:15 PM EST

    Someone asks why he was moderated to 0, I tell him, and I get modded to zero for giving an honest answer. Guess he didn't like the answer. Note to self. Put the above commenter on "Ignorant" list.

    Peoples Front To Reunite Gondwanaland: "Stop the Laurasian Separatist Movement!"
    [ Parent ]
    You're not paying attention (1.25 / 8) (#331)
    by Ken Pompadour on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 03:20:35 PM EST

    Jews use the holocaust to justify any cruelty, dishonesty, or shucksterism on their part.

    ...The target is countrymen, friends and family... they have to die too. - candid trhurler
    [ Parent ]
    Not me. (5.00 / 1) (#424)
    by OzJuggler on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 11:49:02 PM EST

    Just for the record, I did not rate your answer zero. I don't condone or enact the practice of using the moderation system to debate issues.

    And if I didn't mod you Zero, then guess what? That means I'm not the only one who thinks you've flown off the handle about this.
    "And I will not rest until every year families gather to spend December 25th together
    at Osama's homo abortion pot and commie jizzporium." - Jon Stewart's gift to Bill O'Reilly, 7 Dec 2005.
    [ Parent ]

    A Jew's response (4.16 / 6) (#319)
    by bludstone on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 02:24:16 PM EST

    As a Jew living in America I present you with my personal response. I cant, and will not justify the cruelty of Isreal. In fact, I completly disagree with the extremist, Sharon.

    The real reason this entire brouhaha started was because Sharon, in order to get elected, went to a place he wasnt supposed to and said some extremely inflammatory things. The day after this "speech" is when the palestinian attacks started. Much like most other conflicts, the basis behind this war is pure politics.

    In the future, please do not assume that all Jews support the actions of Isreal. Many of us are disgusted with Isreal's warmongering over the past few years. There are, in fact, a large group of Jews that believe the creation of Isreal as a Jewish state was an extremely poor idea, and that a Jewish nation should not be formed until the Messiah comes.

    In any religion there are extremist individuals that make the rest of the group look bad, or perhaps insane. (ie, christian fundamentalists) These are the people currently in power in Isreal.

    Yikes.



    [ Parent ]
    Explanation (5.00 / 1) (#341)
    by dovli on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 03:52:23 PM EST

    I would never assume that all Jews support Sharon's policy. In fact I realize that for many of Jews living in Israel and is now harder to voice their disapproval against the government given the state of war. When I posted the comment I was truly outraged about what was going on in West Bank and I felt that everybody should think over what in my opinion is a merciless, arrogant, unfair and ultimately futile display of force.

    [ Parent ]
    laughable.. (4.20 / 5) (#357)
    by mongo on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 05:18:53 PM EST

    ..point one: slaughter of innocent civilians is not, nor has it ever been "resisting oppression". characterizing random mass destruction of life as resistance is despicable and should not be tolerated. it doesn't matter where you are: Dresden, Hiroshima, Laos, New York City, Ramalla, or Dachau. there's no excuse for it, kill innocent civilians and your political platitudes are meaningless.

    ..point two: Israelies aren't being killed by Sharon's policies, they're being killed by young men and woman with explosives and nails strapped to their bodies. don't absolve criminals of their crimes regardless of their motivation.

    ..point three: Sharon hardly needs to "justify huge military spendings". update your rhetoric - that line works for anti-US, not anti-*.

    ..point four: your supposition that "army officers" are "narrow minded" exposes your own narrowness and irrationality.

    ..point five: historically, appeasing an adversary has not been successful: remember Hitler and Poland?

    ..final point: this has not been a pro-Israel post. it's author believes that both Israel and Palestine are guilty of horrible crimes throughout the past 50 years. the primary goal of this post has been to demolish the concept that the Palestinians are somehow the victims in this mess.


    ~mongo
    [ Parent ]

    Answer (none / 0) (#485)
    by dovli on Thu Apr 04, 2002 at 05:21:32 AM EST

    Here are my explanations: point one : I agree with you but I said that "under the circumstances" Israel cannot talk about terrorism. Think about the situation of many Palestinians. They are constantly harrased by I state that treats them as sub-humans. Their are now mercilessly attacked in their poor homes. What are their options now that is clear that Israeli will never let them have their own state? point two: What was the frequency of terrorist attacks when there was hope for a peaceful resolution? I remind you that the climate had started to deteriorate when Israel refused to allow for the existance of a independent Palestinian state. point three and four: Israel is now a state run by former army officers. Take a look at their political stance and ultimately at their political results.... I think that you have never met army officers or you are an army officer. By the way, have you seen the movie "American beauty" Point four: I think that the main idea is give up adversity. I do not think that can be accomplished by tanks and brute force.

    [ Parent ]
    Wrong answer (none / 0) (#491)
    by Oblom on Thu Apr 04, 2002 at 06:00:40 AM EST

    What are their options now that is clear that Israeli will never let them have their own state? point two: What was the frequency of terrorist attacks when there was hope for a peaceful resolution? I remind you that the climate had started to deteriorate when Israel refused to allow for the existance of a independent Palestinian state.
    Actually the escallation started when in Camp David palestinians refused the offer of israel that were granting them thier independent state, and from negotiation table moved streight to violence.

    point three and four: Israel is now a state run by former army officers. Take a look at their political stance and ultimately at their political results.... I think that you have never met army officers or you are an army officer.
    I am not army officer ( i hadn't joined army at all). But most of my friends and coworkers are army officers (intellegenece, air force, navy, special unit, you name it). All of them have degree or two from univercities and thier mind is pretty much opened up.

    [ Parent ]
    Good! It's about time! (1.77 / 18) (#254)
    by stinkwrinkle on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 09:39:57 AM EST

    How long has the "peace" process been going on? Like, forever? Has any good come out of it? Did one Palestinian mother say, "Well, my little Abdul was capped by a rubber bullet this morning, but, thank Allah, we have dialogue with his killers!" Was one Israeli mother comforted by the peace process when her little Shlomo got vaporized down at the Quickie-Mart?

    Let's face it: the peace process has accomplished nothing except producing enough hot air to significantly contribute to global warming.
    Israel's not going to be happy until the Palestinians can accept the murder of a few civilians without whining. The Palestinians aren't going to be happy until Israel's gone. Both positions require the enemy to behave in ways that are inconsistent with human norms.
    And, Jehovah/Allah forbid, if one side does start to accept reality and modify its position to reflect that acceptance, why, then their own hardliners must kill them! (Look up "Rabin, Yitzhak" and "Palestinian Collaborators".)

    So, its time for the gloves to come off? Good. May the best gang of religion-mad nutcases win. Winner gets bragging rights, a lovely embassy in beautiful Embassy Row, Washington D.C., and the undying, everlasting, terroristic hatred of the loser's support group.

    Say, you think there's any chance Israel might go nuclear? That would be cool! Sure, its manifestly insane, but that's not even an issue over there, much less a problem!

    Bah, and good riddance.

    List of Palestinian Cities under Israeli Control (4.77 / 9) (#256)
    by fraise on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 09:45:43 AM EST

    Le Monde today published an article titled "Palestinian Cities Falling One by One under Israeli Control", written by their correspondant in Jerusalem. Use your preferred automatic translation tool, and following is my summary:

    - Half of the autonomous Palestinian zones have been entirely reoccupied by Tsahal (IDF) as of April 3rd.
    - The Israeli army thus succeeded in dismantling the Palestinian anti-terrorism service (yes, that is a correct translation).
    - Yasser Arafat rejected Sharon's "one-way ticket" suggestion and repeated that he would rather die a "martyr, martyr, martyr."
    - Telephone and images forbidden, I've translated this entire last part: "José Maria Aznar, currently president of the European Union and head of Spain's Government, was prevented four times by Israeli authorities, on April 2nd, from having a telephone conversation with Yasser Arafat, according to the daily Madrid newspaper El Mundo. Mr. Aznar demanded an explanation from the Israeli Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon, who is said to have replied: 'Mr. Aznar, you are trying to contact the terrorists' leader.'

    "Israeli authorities have also threatened judicial action against US television stations CNN and NBC if they continue to show reports from Ramallah, which has been declared a 'forbidden military zone,' in particular for journalists."

    journalists (4.66 / 3) (#268)
    by Delirium on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 11:04:05 AM EST

    "Israeli authorities have also threatened judicial action against US television stations CNN and NBC if they continue to show reports from Ramallah, which has been declared a 'forbidden military zone,' in particular for journalists."
    A bit disturbing. They certainly seem pretty defensive about people finding out what's going on. People who "know" they're in the right usually aren't quite that defensive...

    [ Parent ]
    OTOH (4.00 / 2) (#278)
    by wiredog on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 12:16:48 PM EST

    It could be OPSEC, operational security. CNN et al go out by satellite, and some of the Palestinians probably are watching. No sense in letting your enemies know exactly where you are headed.

    Peoples Front To Reunite Gondwanaland: "Stop the Laurasian Separatist Movement!"
    [ Parent ]
    its called a free fire zone. (3.50 / 4) (#286)
    by dro0g on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 12:54:03 PM EST

    There are announcements going out on loud speakers telling the residents to stay in their homes or risk being shot. The reporters however weren't being mindful of that. Israel has pretty much revolutionized urban warfare with these asaults. Very few casualties on the IDF side, very few civilian casualties, mostly they've been nailing the terrorists. They are trying to minimize the number of reporter casualties, since the reporters themselves don't seem to posses a shred of self-preservation.

    [ Parent ]
    isn't that a war crime? (4.80 / 5) (#288)
    by Delirium on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 12:59:54 PM EST

    Don't the norms of war require that noncombatants not be shot, regardless of their location? Is it allowable to designate areas where you shoot everywhere, combatant or otherwise? Isn't that effectively saying "the Fourth Geneva Convention doesn't apply to this zone"? Since the Fourth Geneva convention is explicitly designed to apply to war zones, I'd assume that's not legitimate.

    [ Parent ]
    It's the lesser evil (4.00 / 2) (#298)
    by uriyan on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 01:32:54 PM EST

    First of all, as you might know, Israel denies the Fourth Geneva Convention's de-facto applicability to the territories of West Bank and Gaza. Moreover if you keep in regard the alternative (allowing everyone to leave their houses), it would lead to a much greater number of civilian victims, so among these two options, ordering all people inside is the better one.


    gantse jahr fraylech... gantse jahr fraylech...


    [ Parent ]
    How does Geneva convention work? (4.00 / 2) (#299)
    by hawaii on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 01:35:18 PM EST

    If country A and country B are fighting (ie, at war), and country A does not abide by the Geneva convention, is country B required to abide by said Geneva convention?

    It's like an extreme snowball fight between two kids. If one kid is putting rocks in his snowball (clearly a taboo and against the commonly-held community rules of snowball fights), then is the other kid allowed to retaliate in kind?

    [ Parent ]

    Yes (3.00 / 2) (#334)
    by zocky on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 03:25:40 PM EST

    If country A and country B are fighting (ie, at war), and country A does not abide by the Geneva convention, is country B required to abide by said Geneva convention?

    Yes it is.

    ---
    I mean, if coal can be converted to energy, then couldn't diamonds?
    [ Parent ]

    What's the next step? (4.00 / 2) (#358)
    by hawaii on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 05:22:09 PM EST

    If country A and country B are fighting (ie, at war), and country A does not abide by the Geneva convention, is country B required to abide by said Geneva convention?

    Yes it is.

    Okay, what happens if now country A (which doesn't abide by Geneva convention), through having less restrictions and also having more tactics to maximize killing and carnage, starts to win, and ultimately verge upon the destruction of Country B.

    Is country B expected to sit and die a moral death? Or can country B retaliate using non-Geneva-compliant methods for it's own survival?

    [ Parent ]

    War crime if it's planned-out and deliberate *NT* (3.50 / 2) (#305)
    by Stickerboy on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 01:46:26 PM EST



    [ Parent ]
    Except... (3.66 / 6) (#353)
    by coward anonymous on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 05:11:06 PM EST

    The point of a curfew is to remove non-combatants from the streets thus the assumption is that anyone moving is a combatant. That is the whole point of a curfew.
    So if you are a soldier and as you guard a car/person comes up at you, you assume enemy, you shoot. Later, you find out you were wrong and it was an "innocent" reporter. No one was looking to shoot the wrong people, they just weren't mindful of the curfew.
    If reporters are violating the curfew, they are risking themselves, they are risking the lives of Palestinians who might get shot in their homes by stray bullets and they are risking the lives of Israeli soldiers who will now think 3 or 4 times before shooting at someone approaching with a bulky rocket-launcher-looking-thing on their shoulder.
    It's just plain irresponsible and journalists wouldn't dare do it with any other army because they know they would be instantly shot, no questions asked.

    [ Parent ]
    Well if that isn't the stupidest thing I've heard (4.33 / 3) (#382)
    by PhillipW on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 06:55:00 PM EST

    You better hope noone on your side moves as well, or they will be shot dead? That's bloody stupid.

    -Phil
    [ Parent ]
    You are ignorant (4.00 / 2) (#405)
    by coward anonymous on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 09:55:53 PM EST

    Yes, that could happen and that is why before every patrol you are briefed as to the location of friendly units. During the patrol you update the operations room as to your location and get updates to other unit's locations. You can usually also tell the identity of friendly units by the type of vehicles and uniforms. That is why many Palestinians wear Israeli army uniforms when they try to infiltrate Israeli settlements.
    And when the safeguards fail, you hear about them in the news as 'friendly-fire' incidents.
    I'm sorry to bust your ignorant bubble of perfect military coordination but playing at war is dangerous and that includes getting hit by your own.
    Oh, I spent 3 years in the army...


    [ Parent ]
    If you can tell by uniforms (none / 0) (#452)
    by PhillipW on Thu Apr 04, 2002 at 01:52:03 AM EST

    Then why the bloody hell aren't civilians allowed to walk the streets of their town?

    -Phil
    [ Parent ]
    read carefully... (none / 0) (#453)
    by coward anonymous on Thu Apr 04, 2002 at 02:31:21 AM EST

    Usually, not always...


    [ Parent ]
    no excepts, no buts. (5.00 / 2) (#470)
    by martingale on Thu Apr 04, 2002 at 04:30:25 AM EST

    If reporters are violating the curfew, they are risking themselves, they are risking the lives of Palestinians who might get shot in their homes by stray bullets and they are risking the lives of Israeli soldiers who will now think 3 or 4 times before shooting at someone approaching with a bulky rocket-launcher-looking-thing on their shoulder. It's just plain irresponsible and journalists wouldn't dare do it with any other army because they know they would be instantly shot, no questions asked.
    Far from being irresponsible, it's actually commendable what the journalists are doing. There is no justification for the IDF ban on independent reporting of what is going on in the warzone. If they can't guarantee reporter's safety, the IDF should consider lending them specially marked armed vehicles. (I know, I wish). If the military are worried about journalists leaking strategic information, they could impose a delay of a day or two before allowing uncensored news through.

    At this point in time, without independent reporting, both the IDF and the Palestinians have zero credibility and cannot be trusted to adhere to humanitarian standards. How do I know that an IDF squad isn't committing a warcrime as I type this? Do I take their word for it? Fat chance. They need independent journalists. How do I know that Arafat's goons aren't murdering their own people and pretending it's the IDF? Do I take their word for it? Fat chance. They need independent journalists.

    I expect you'll argue that journalists only interfere and make the situation more dangerous because the troops have to be on their best behaviour. War is dangerous and sometimes ugly, yadda, yadda, yadda. Guess what? Interference is good! Nobody wants military operations to take longer than they should, and an extra difficulty/danger incentive just *might* make the responsible officer think twice about sending in his squad to take that wall. I know, I'm no military strategist.

    The point is, don't ever give the military carte blanche, for there is nothing directly restraining them, especially if reporting is not allowed. Checks and balances, as they say...



    [ Parent ]
    Where do you get your numbers on casualties? (none / 0) (#520)
    by spin0 on Thu Apr 04, 2002 at 09:33:07 AM EST


    Very few casualties on the IDF side, very few civilian casualties, mostly they've been nailing the terrorists.

    Since (independed) media coverage is badly limited on these war-zones, what are your sources for these numbers and statistics?

    They are trying to minimize the number of reporter casualties, since the reporters themselves don't seem to posses a shred of self-preservation.

    Oh, how mindful of them, IDF must be the nicest army in the world. :)



    [ Parent ]
    A few updates (4.90 / 10) (#275)
    by Delirium on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 11:38:11 AM EST

    Report from a University of Minnesotta student in Ramallah. The facts he is hearing may be inaccurate; this is what things look and sound like to civilians there.

    Another BBC update -- general updates on the situation and some additional information. In particular:

    • The United Nations agency responsible for Palestinian refugees says thousands of people throughout the West Bank have been trapped, with dwindling supplies of food and water.
    • The Vatican has issued a strongly worded condemnation of Israel's actions. The Pope "rejects unjust conditions and humiliations imposed on the Palestinian people as well as the reprisals and revenge attacks which do nothing but feed the sense of frustration and hatred," the statement said.
    • "They [Israeli troops] have touched the holy sites - not necessarily the Nativity basilica, but they have done quite considerable damage to several of the convents in Bethlehem and damaged statues," Father McGowan said.


    Oh god (3.50 / 2) (#500)
    by thenerd on Thu Apr 04, 2002 at 06:28:16 AM EST

    I just read the report from the university student. I know that this is supposed to be simply for news reports, not emotional outbursts, but please take the time to read it.

    Read what is happening. People put to walk in front of tanks as they go towards places they think terrorists are hiding. People lined up, made to kneel, and shot, in lines. Mothers and children being fired on indiscriminately as they scramble to run away. The men have strangely 'gone missing'. It sounds like Auschwitz already.

    It may be that from our comfy seats we can be cynical about these things and counter them with 'oh well, they are biased' and suchlike. If this account is true, I will have absolutely zero sympathy for any Israeli cause. In the name of stopping terror, people are rounded up and used as human shields? Fuck that, it's fairly obvious that the point was never to stop terror, and it couldn't be made more obvious now. This IS terror. You stop terror by trying to find terrorists. You don't stop terror by performing mass executions and shooting kids and women indiscriminately, because, funnily enough, that CREATES TERROR.

    Sorry, but when people say 'never forget' about the holocaust it seems it's been forgotten already, by the very people that shouldn't have forgotten.

    [ Parent ]
    some caution (5.00 / 3) (#503)
    by Delirium on Thu Apr 04, 2002 at 06:35:36 AM EST

    While I'm extremely sympathetic to Palestinian civilians in the areas (I doubt anyone would mistake me for a pro-Israeli partisan), I'd caution not to accept everything in these reports as fact. I assume he is not lying, and what he's seen is true, but what he's heard from others may or may not be true (unfounded rumors spread fast when communications and news is disrupted).

    I also wouldn't go so far as to call this Auschwitz; there is no deliberate attempt to kill Palestinian civilians, though there may be less concern for their safety than I would like. The rounding up of all Arab males 14-40, the innocent along with the guilty, is extremely disturbing to me though.

    [ Parent ]

    Certainly (5.00 / 1) (#521)
    by thenerd on Thu Apr 04, 2002 at 09:37:07 AM EST

    I must have seemed rather reckless in my interpretation, I agree that in such an environment hysteria and exaggeration would be rife, and for good reason.

    It sounded from the article that there were many deliberate attempts to kill Palestinian civilians, some witnessed by the author of that article. I'd certainly like to not believe it, but all eyewitness accounts I've read have this raw, scared, vivid edge to them when they describe the actions of the IDF. I agree that any 'rounding up' in exercises like this is exceedingly sinister.

    I hope to %DEITY% that Sharon stops of his own accord or has his hand forced, so that he backs down without doing any more damage.

    [ Parent ]
    Hard to tell (5.00 / 1) (#620)
    by ariux on Fri Apr 05, 2002 at 02:39:39 AM EST

    Could be made-up, or could be true - that's the thing about barring journalists, it makes it hard to find out what's going on.

    In general, even if it's not true, or misleading in tone - it's pretty clear that whatever they're doing is causing complete pandemonium and plenty of injury to the innocent. I mistrust the signs greatly. They should get out, right now.

    [ Parent ]

    Israeli peace march to Ramallah (5.00 / 5) (#290)
    by Delirium on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 01:10:51 PM EST

    Ha'aretz is reporting that 2,000 Israelis (both Jews and Arabs) attempted to break the IDF siege of Ramallah by bringing truckloads of food and medicine to the city, but were driven back by tear gas and batons.

    Groups involved in this march were Gush Shalom, Ta'ayush, Physicians for Human Rights, Bat Shalom, Arab Knesset members, and members of the Arab National Monitoring Committee. This makes it a march consisting of mostly the "hardcore" of the peace movement, so it's pretty impressive they got 2,000 marchers. Information about the protest (written before it happened) is available at Gush Shalom's site.

    More mainstream peace demonstrations are planned in upcoming days by the Peace Coalition, which includes the political party Meretz and the more mainstream peace bloc Peace Now; several thousand demonstrators are expected.

    photographs from CNN (5.00 / 2) (#343)
    by Delirium on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 04:03:32 PM EST

    batons

    tear gas

    [ Parent ]

    That's courage (5.00 / 1) (#621)
    by ariux on Fri Apr 05, 2002 at 02:42:18 AM EST

    it's pretty impressive they got 2,000 marchers.

    Impressive all right. It's one thing to yell slogans in Tel Aviv; it's quite another to try to carry supplies into a free-fire zone.

    [ Parent ]

    What are Sharon's true political aims? (3.42 / 7) (#294)
    by spin0 on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 01:25:06 PM EST


    Since the beginning of Sharon's operation it has become more and more difficult to understand his political aims. Even the military aims of the operation are vague at best. Sharon says he's going to destroy the 'infrastructure of terrorism'. Maybe he can do that - temporarily - but you don't need big infrastucture to build suicide bombers, all it takes is people angry and desperade enough to commit such atrocities, the bomb part is easy to build. It should be obvious that a military operation does not solve this problem. In the long run it can only make it worse by creating even more desperation.

    Even if the impossible happens and the military operation becomes a 'success', what then? There's still the same problem with 3 million Palestinians under occupation and angry as hell. One of them builds a bomb in his belt and 'boom'...instant 'Protective Wall'-undo. When that happens what has Sharon gained?

    Sharon is not stupid, he already knows this. So: what are his true political aims?

    Is he going after Arafat? Is this personal this time? Arafat humiliated Sharon in Lebanon so maybe it's time to get even? This does seem a bit unlikely, but could play it's part in it.

    Is he going to let Paletinians build their own state with acceptable terms (without Arafat)? Highly unlikely, he talks about peace and Palestinian state, but at the same time keeps building more and more colonies on Palestinian territory. Colonies are a major obstacle for peace, and have been that for 35 years already.

    Maybe he's going to form a 'Palestinian bantustan' with military occupation?

    Is he going to expell all Palestinians from their land?

    What are the most likely options here?

    His dream: to get rid of Arafat, (3.40 / 5) (#297)
    by Apuleius on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 01:30:48 PM EST

    .. and thus force the Palestinians to get their thumbs out of their asses and develop a credible alternative to him. His actions indicate this.


    There is a time and a place for everything, and it's called college. (The South Park chef)
    [ Parent ]
    but he's getting rid of alternatives too (4.25 / 4) (#300)
    by Delirium on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 01:35:55 PM EST

    Not only is he attacking Arafat, he's attacking all the possible alternatives to Arafat as well (Barghouti, Rajoub, etc.). From what I've read this is one of the primary criticisms of the current operation from Israeli security commanders, because they see Rajoub as one of the few remaining Palestinian leaders who is both able to rein in (some) militants and willing to negotiate with his Israeli counterparts; obviously attacking his is not going to foster any good-will.

    [ Parent ]
    Same shit from the same bucket. (3.60 / 5) (#301)
    by Apuleius on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 01:40:17 PM EST

    There is no point replacing Arafat with yet another guy who will talk peace in English and talk war in Arabic. You're giving Barghouti and Company far too much credit.


    There is a time and a place for everything, and it's called college. (The South Park chef)
    [ Parent ]
    Your ideas fascinate me (1.12 / 8) (#303)
    by The Littlest Hobo on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 01:43:25 PM EST

    I hope that Sharon kicks out or exterminates all those filthy Arabs

    And I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.



    [ Parent ]
    Who are you quoting (5.00 / 1) (#323)
    by wiredog on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 02:37:04 PM EST

    I didnt see that in any of his comments.

    Peoples Front To Reunite Gondwanaland: "Stop the Laurasian Separatist Movement!"
    [ Parent ]
    getting rid of Arafat (3.50 / 4) (#317)
    by krek on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 02:19:05 PM EST

    Does no one (in power) remember that this guy is a freakin' NOBEL PEACE PRIZE winner. Jeez louise.

    Arafat + Rabin = Very close to Peace
    Arafat + Sharon = Very close to War

    Does no one else see the obvious conclusion to be drawn from this math.

    Also, has anyone noticed that Arafat is no longer President Arafat in the News (Canadian and American), but Chairman Arafat. When did he get demoted??

    [ Parent ]
    Arafat + Barak = Arafat + Sharon (NT) (3.00 / 1) (#320)
    by uriyan on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 02:26:50 PM EST


    gantse jahr fraylech... gantse jahr fraylech...


    [ Parent ]
    So is Henry Kissinger (4.33 / 3) (#322)
    by wiredog on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 02:35:42 PM EST

    For that matter, President Theodore Roosevelt was awarded one of those.

    The people who get the prize says more about the prize than about the people.

    Peoples Front To Reunite Gondwanaland: "Stop the Laurasian Separatist Movement!"
    [ Parent ]

    Demotion. (4.50 / 4) (#340)
    by sonovel on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 03:49:18 PM EST

    Maybe his demotion from presidency occurred when he canceled and failed to schedule follow on elections?



    [ Parent ]
    Well (3.75 / 4) (#380)
    by PhillipW on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 06:47:58 PM EST

    It's really hard to say how fair an election one could hold. Israel would likely interfere in some way.

    -Phil
    [ Parent ]
    irrelevent. (4.33 / 3) (#383)
    by sonovel on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 06:56:30 PM EST

    Arafat chose not to try to be relected, he preferred to remain in power as a dictator, rather than risk defeat through democracy. Your comment is merely sour grapes.



    [ Parent ]
    Haha (3.50 / 4) (#386)
    by PhillipW on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 07:06:59 PM EST

    So you expect people to abide by the results of an election that was not fair, and interfered with?

    -Phil
    [ Parent ]
    Evidence? (4.00 / 3) (#387)
    by sonovel on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 07:41:07 PM EST

    You made a guess as to why Arafat decided being a dictator was better than trying to be elected.

    He violated the Oslo accords as well a the trust of his people by doing this.

    And somehow it is Israel's fault, even you provide nothing to back up why you or Arafat might feel that way.

    Seems like a weak argument to me.

    [ Parent ]
    Well... (3.33 / 3) (#398)
    by PhillipW on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 08:47:28 PM EST

    I don't have any solid proof that any election tampering or anything of the sort would have happened, but there's quite the good chance that the Israeli's would have done something in the areas they occupy at least. This is all probablys though. But I can still see why he'd not want to do elections just so they can get screwed up.

    -Phil
    [ Parent ]
    Well (5.00 / 2) (#414)
    by sonovel on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 10:54:53 PM EST

    The biggest screw up for him would for be for someone else to be elected.

    He agreed to hold elections, yet canceled them later. It had nothing to do with the Israelis. After all, he had already been elected once, and he agreed to it.

    To blame someone else for this is a cop out.

    [ Parent ]
    Reminds me of a joke. (3.50 / 2) (#393)
    by Apuleius on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 08:21:54 PM EST

    Q: Why did Kofi Anan win the Nobel Peace Prize this year?
    A. Osama Bin Laden is unavailable, and Arafat already has one.

    A Nobel Peace Prize means nothing.




    There is a time and a place for everything, and it's called college. (The South Park chef)
    [ Parent ]
    Kofi Annan is a terrorist? (5.00 / 1) (#397)
    by Delirium on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 08:42:13 PM EST

    Odd sort of reasoning.

    I remember him actually being the most pro-Israel Secretary-General in recent memory, and the primary person responsible for Israel finally getting voted onto a regional committee of the General Assembly, which makes them eligible for participation in other committees (he managed to get them onto the European regional group, since there was no way they'd be voted into the Middle Eastern group).

    [ Parent ]

    He's talking about (5.00 / 1) (#526)
    by wiredog on Thu Apr 04, 2002 at 10:10:50 AM EST

    the meaninglessness of the prize. See this comment for some of the other notable peaceniks who've been awarded it.

    Peoples Front To Reunite Gondwanaland: "Stop the Laurasian Separatist Movement!"
    [ Parent ]
    Kofi Annan is the most recent winner (5.00 / 1) (#541)
    by Apuleius on Thu Apr 04, 2002 at 12:25:49 PM EST

    so the joke had to put him there. As for him deserving a Nobel prize, remember Rwanda. The Nobel Committee's decision is nothing short of obscene.


    There is a time and a place for everything, and it's called college. (The South Park chef)
    [ Parent ]
    Will that fuckin' warcriminal get rid of himself? (1.00 / 3) (#401)
    by Hong Kong Phooey on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 09:03:17 PM EST

    So the Israelis can get their thumbs out of their asses and develop a credible alterative to himself?

    [ Parent ]
    War Criminal? (2.00 / 1) (#472)
    by Demiurge on Thu Apr 04, 2002 at 04:32:40 AM EST

    Do you even know the background on that allegation? Or are you just witlessly parroting what you saw over on Indymedia or some other leftnik rag?

    Sharon was secretary of defense while a massacre committed against the Palestinians by Lebanese guerillas(NOT Israelis). There were allegations that he didn't do enough to prevent it from happening.

    Arafat, on the other hand, has, and still does, personally authorize suicide bombings directed against civilians.

    [ Parent ]
    Israeli-backed Lebanese guerillas (5.00 / 1) (#475)
    by Delirium on Thu Apr 04, 2002 at 04:39:24 AM EST

    A rather important fact you neglected to mention. The Phalangist militia were Israeli allies; Syria and Israel have both been getting involved in the Lebanese civil war for decades now. You're not going to claim the Southern Lebanon Army was just a Lebanese guerilla group too are you?

    There is substantial evidence that Sharon knew about the massacre as it was taking place, and allowed it to continue. There is somewhat less evidence (but still some) that he knew about it before it began. These are even the conclusions of an Israeli internal investigation, which as you can guess is probably not biased towards the Lebanese or Palestinians; a neutral third party judge would probably hold Sharon more responsible than they did.

    [ Parent ]

    Nope (5.00 / 2) (#481)
    by uriyan on Thu Apr 04, 2002 at 04:58:36 AM EST

    You're wrong. The Kahan report states that there's no evidence that Sharon knew about the massacre in advance or during it; the case against him is that he should have known. This view was also upheld by an American court, when Sharon sued Time for libel.


    gantse jahr fraylech... gantse jahr fraylech...


    [ Parent ]
    book to check out (none / 0) (#574)
    by dro0g on Thu Apr 04, 2002 at 05:13:07 PM EST

    From Israel to Demascus, available online (since its banned in lebanon and its author wanted it to be available to the lebanese) http://www.israeltodamascus.com

    It was written by one of Hobeika's bodyguards, and he asserts that Hobeika was a syrian double agent. He believes the massacre was aimed at discrediting Israel and Ariel Sharon.

    [ Parent ]
    Have sources? (none / 0) (#488)
    by kzin on Thu Apr 04, 2002 at 05:40:00 AM EST

    I have not been previously aware of such evidence, but I know that the Kahan committee ruled that Sharon did not know about the massacre. I am very interested in the Sabra and Shatilla affair and I realise that my knowlegde of it might be lacking -- do you have sources for what you are saying?

    [ Parent ]
    random stuff i dug up (5.00 / 1) (#492)
    by Delirium on Thu Apr 04, 2002 at 06:04:00 AM EST

    I had never actually read the text of the Kahan committee's report (see uriyan's link below), so I stand corrected on that point. I knew that the report concluded in effect that Sharon should have stopped the massacres, but I had extrapolated that to mean "he knew about them so should have intervened" rather than "he didn't know about them, but should have known about them and intervened."

    There's quite a bit of information, including a 3-page hour-by-hour chronology, at this site. Admittedly it's run by a group of Palestinians and left-wing Israelis, but it's not entirely propagandist and there's lots of facts to sift through. From the chronology it definitely seems like Sharon should have known; either he was incompetent or he was willfully ignorant and not willing to see what his Phalangist allies might be doing; the site also seems to indicate that several other Israeli officers were deemed more guilty than Sharon and actually convicted. Interestingly this site's primary beef with Sharon is not this massacre, but a claim that he was directly responsible for the 1953 Kibya massacre (which killed 75 Palestinian civilians). There's a rather annoyingly propagandist page on it here, which I wouldn't even bothering linking to except that it does include some rather damning evidence in the form of a quote from noted American Zionist I.L. Kenen claiming in his memoirs that Sharon was responsible for the massacre, contrary to the Israeli attempts at the time to paint it as the independent work of angry settlers (and Kenen hardly strikes me as someone who would tell slanderous lies about Israeli leaders). Salon seems to think he's responsible for that attack as well.

    On a side note, the more I read about Israeli activities 1940-1955 (even from pro-Israeli sites) the more it reminds me of Palestinian activities 1988-2002. Leaders who officially denounce terrorism but encourage it behind the scenes; painting terrorists as "freedom fighters," etc.

    [ Parent ]

    I remembered an old k5 article on the subject (3.00 / 1) (#495)
    by Delirium on Thu Apr 04, 2002 at 06:12:59 AM EST

    From about six months ago, here. It's clearly written from the "Sharon is a war-criminal" perspective, but has a lot of useful raw information you can cull if you ignore the propaganda. Though by this point it hardly seems worth prefacing Israeli-Palestinian conflict links with "this report is biased," because it seems they all are. Hopefully people take everything they read on both sides with a grain of salt...

    [ Parent ]
    Then you will also remember... (5.00 / 1) (#536)
    by kzin on Thu Apr 04, 2002 at 11:34:17 AM EST

    My response to the story's missing chronicle, and my criticism of the story itself.

    Really, there's hardly anything connecting Sharon to the massacre. I don't even really mind the demands for a trial, because chances are he'll end up not guilty anyway.

    [ Parent ]

    There was an excellent BBC documentary (3.00 / 1) (#522)
    by Hong Kong Phooey on Thu Apr 04, 2002 at 09:42:15 AM EST

    detailing his crimes about a month ago. Even the rightwing media had to acknowledge its reliability. If you write them they can send you a copy for a small fee.

    And trying to be consending when you're wrong make you look like a idiot, just so you know.

    [ Parent ]

    What he wants (5.00 / 3) (#324)
    by wiredog on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 02:39:16 PM EST

    This time, we understood that striking at the Palestinian Authority--a collective response to the assault on our collective being--was itself the plan.

    From The New Republic.

    Peoples Front To Reunite Gondwanaland: "Stop the Laurasian Separatist Movement!"
    [ Parent ]

    What Sharon Wants (4.50 / 4) (#346)
    by btb on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 04:11:21 PM EST

    From the Likud party platform:

    The Jordan River as a Permanent Border

    The Jordan Valley and the territories that dominate it shall be under Israeli sovereignty. The Jordan river will be the permanent eastern border of the State of Israel. The Kingdom of Jordan is a desirable partner in the permanent status arrangement between Israel and the Palestinians in matters that will be agreed upon.

    Are his actions really a surprise to anyone?

    [ Parent ]

    No, they are not (none / 0) (#629)
    by spin0 on Fri Apr 05, 2002 at 04:19:14 AM EST


    No, what Sharon is doing is not really a surprise, he has been paving the path to this since he was elected (and yes, Arafat has played his part in it too). What surprises me most is the aimless, contradictive and confused reactions in the White House. I guess Bush doesn't really understand how to run consistent foreign policies.

    [ Parent ]
    A guess? (2.00 / 1) (#622)
    by ariux on Fri Apr 05, 2002 at 02:46:57 AM EST

    Provoke a regional war, then "accidentally" throw out all the Arabs in the process of winning it.

    Hizbollah may yet provide the spark.

    [ Parent ]

    But... (none / 0) (#627)
    by spin0 on Fri Apr 05, 2002 at 04:05:44 AM EST


    Provoke a regional war, then "accidentally" throw out all the Arabs in the process of winning it

    Could be, could be, but it is a very risky thing to try out as it's difficult to keep a war regional. In today's circumstances it could escalate very quickly out of Sharon's hands and outcome would be bad for all.
    Of course - even without escalating - it would be very expensive politically. Israel could loose even US support.

    [ Parent ]
    I didn't say... (none / 0) (#700)
    by ariux on Sat Apr 06, 2002 at 12:43:15 AM EST

    ...that it wouldn't be stupid...

    [ Parent ]
    Operation Protective Wall (1.85 / 14) (#296)
    by Mutant on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 01:30:06 PM EST

    NEWS FLASH
    There was this thing the Isrealies started it is call The 6 Day War. It started on The First Day of Ramadan. So knock off the poor Jew can't get no holiday.

    - Peace -
    "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread." (from The Red Lily, 1894 -Anatole France )
    Hey numbnuts (3.00 / 9) (#367)
    by trhurler on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 05:56:52 PM EST

    The 6 day war started with an invasion of Israel. They didn't start it. They DID hand everyone involved their asses.

    --
    'God dammit, your posts make me hard.' --LilDebbie

    [ Parent ]
    Whoa there tiger (2.25 / 4) (#390)
    by Sir Spankotron on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 07:51:25 PM EST

    Maybe you've been reading too much Zionist propaganda.

    The six day war was started by Israel.

    Official history: Attack was imminent, so Israel pre-emptively attacked first.

    Reality: Israel knew Egypt wasn't going to attack, and that Egypt didn't have enough troops in the Sinai to attack, but they did it anyway.

    Here's just one link:
    http://i-cias.com/e.o/sixdaywr.htm

    Here's more:
    http://www.salam.org/palestine/1967-war.html

    And yeah, Israel attacked an AMERICAN sea ship also:
    http://www.salam.org/palestine/1967-liberty.html

    So, wake up.

    [ Parent ]
    I don't think that was the case (4.33 / 3) (#399)
    by Delirium on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 08:52:44 PM EST

    The 1967 was actually started by a pre-emptive strike by Israel after Egyptian and Syrian tanks mobilized along the border, accompanied by much rhetoric, mostly from Nasser (but no actual invasion). There is much speculation that they would not have actually attacked, but Israel had to mobilize in response to match the Egyptian and Syrian troops, and then attacked pre-emptively because as a democratic state with a working economy Israel couldn't afford to keep its army fully mobilized indefinitely (while Egypt and Syria, as dictatorships whose economies were crappy anyway, could). There was also some concern that if they actually did invade, Israel would suffer more casualties than acceptable before forcing a retreat, so a pre-emptive strike essentially prevented any chance of the Arab forces even making it a little bit into Israel before being repelled.

    reference

    [ Parent ]

    Actually... (5.00 / 2) (#476)
    by kzin on Thu Apr 04, 2002 at 04:40:54 AM EST

    The 1967 was actually started by a pre-emptive strike by Israel
    The 1967 war began with an Egyptian Navy blockade of the Israeli port town of Eilat, preceding the "pre-emptive" strike.

    [ Parent ]
    That's an interesting legal point. (4.00 / 1) (#585)
    by aphrael on Thu Apr 04, 2002 at 07:15:59 PM EST

    Blockades are considered to be an act of war under international law, so you have a point. However, Israel's forces engaged *first*, so the other side has a point. :)

    [ Parent ]
    interesting (none / 0) (#590)
    by Delirium on Thu Apr 04, 2002 at 07:58:36 PM EST

    So in that case Iraq can claim that the U.S. has been continually making war on it for eleven years now...

    [ Parent ]
    Maybe (none / 0) (#592)
    by aphrael on Thu Apr 04, 2002 at 08:01:31 PM EST

    although I think it might be different in the case of economic sanctions approved by the UN. :)

    [ Parent ]
    Operation Protective Wall (3.00 / 1) (#407)
    by Mutant on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 10:09:29 PM EST

    I am wrong! And now that I check ( as good a time as any right?) I see the SixDay War started in June. Not hardly the month of Ramadan.
    I apologize and in the future will furnish links to my madness.
    - Peace -
    "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread." (from The Red Lily, 1894 -Anatole France )
    [ Parent ]
    The 1973 war was during Ramadan (4.00 / 1) (#409)
    by Delirium on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 10:23:07 PM EST

    It's known alternately as the "Yom Kippur War" or the "Ramadan War"; the Arab states invaded Israel on Yom Kippur, which also happened to be during Ramadan.

    [ Parent ]
    Powell speaks out on IDF action (4.62 / 8) (#310)
    by demi on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 01:56:54 PM EST

    On the IDF incursion into Palestine, US Secretary of State Powell urges [cnn.com] Israel to "get it over with as quickly as possible" in a CBS interview.

    On Yasser Arafat US Secretary of State Powell from an interview with CNN:

    "Chairman Arafat is head of the Palestinian Authority and he is recognized, whether you approve of it or not, as the leader of the Palestinian people," Powell told CNN.

    "And he will be the leader of the Palestinian people whether he is sitting in Ramallah or whether he is sitting in some exile location elsewhere in the Middle East or somewhere in Europe.

    "So it seems to me, let's deal with him where he is and let's continue to apply pressure to him and other leaders of the Palestinian people to get into the Tenet work plan," Powell said.

    On Yasser Arafat Former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger from an interview with CNN:
    I have a lot of sympathy for the Israeli position. I think the suicide bombing has to stop before any real negotiations (begin). It just has to stop. And the other Arab states have to tell them -- stop making heroes out of the suicide bombers.

    On the other hand, the Israeli obsession with Arafat is totally confusing the issue. They cannot appoint a leader of the Palestinians. And I think they're taking attention away from the suicide bombing -- which will kill the equivalent of about 2,500 Americans in three days if you take the population -- and focus it on whether Arafat is in two rooms, three rooms, has electricity or not -- that is not a useful exercise for the Israelis.



    12 Tanzimis flee Santa Maria Convent. (4.44 / 9) (#315)
    by Apuleius on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 02:12:23 PM EST

    A minor update here. 12 gunmen fled the convent, and successfully evaded the IDF. Now they can have all the excitement of being hunted down in the now-curfewed city of Bethlehem. The nuns and monks in Santa Maria are no longer hostages. (Those in the Church of the Nativity are not so lucky.) Other note: a guy by name of Anton Salman has been talking by cell phone to CNN from inside the Nativity.


    There is a time and a place for everything, and it's called college. (The South Park chef)
    beh (4.00 / 3) (#328)
    by qwedert on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 03:09:25 PM EST

    58) THE ANTONIAN CHARITBABLE SOCEITY OF BETHLEHEM, PALESTINE, PRESEDENT : ANTON SALMAN

    his signature on an open letter to sharon

    http://www.al-bushra.org/LabibKobti/sharon1.html)

    [ Parent ]
    Israel, Palestine, and the US (3.00 / 4) (#330)
    by Merk00 on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 03:17:12 PM EST

    It appears as if the Palestinians and Arabs want the United States to force Israel to stop. This would seem a reasonable request as the US is one of the greatest supporters of Israel and can put some of the largest political pressure on Israel. However, there seems a lack of recognition that it is very difficult for people in the US to identify with a people that glorifies those who can strap a bomb to their chest and intentionally target civilians. Whether or not Israel targets civilians is irrelevant, because they do not claim to whereas it is readily apparent that the targets of suicide bombers is civilians.

    The US does, however, want peace in the region, regardless of whether or not they believe that the Palestinians have actual grivances with Israel. If the Palenstinians truly want the US to intervene in the conflict, than they must take some other road besides that of suicide bombings. With every suicide bombing, they make the US less likely to pressure the Israeli government to make concessions.

    ------
    "At FIRST we see a world where science and technology are celebrated, where kids think science is cool and dream of becoming science and technology heroes."
    - FIRST Mission

    definitely (3.80 / 5) (#333)
    by Delirium on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 03:24:06 PM EST

    I think if the Palestinians were to limit their attacks to soldiers, they would find the U.S. much more willing to help. Hell, even suicide bombings in the settlements would be a bit better. Suicide bombings in Tel Aviv are simply not acceptable.

    [ Parent ]
    The wonderful solution... (2.66 / 3) (#337)
    by uriyan on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 03:41:35 PM EST

    You must surely feel ecstatic at the fact that you've just let the blood of men, women and children, all of whom are civilian non-combatants. Allowing their extrajudicial death at the hands of murderers and looters was probably a tremendous boost to your moral stance.


    gantse jahr fraylech... gantse jahr fraylech...


    [ Parent ]
    Updates on Church of Nativity standoff (5.00 / 10) (#332)
    by Delirium on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 03:22:51 PM EST

    Some news at CNN -- Israeli tanks have surrounded the church; approximately 100 Palestinians, mostly fleeing militants, are reported to be inside.

    More news at El País, but it's in Spanish. Main points:

    • Israel is threatening to storm the Basilica.
    • Reports ~200 Palestinians inside.
    • The Catholic Patriarch of Jerusalem has granted sanctuary (official protection of the Catholic Church) to the Palestinians inside the church, saying that they have laid down their weapons: "The Basilica is a place of refuge for everybody, including militants and partisans as long as they leave their firearms. In this case our debt is to give them shelter independently of the fact that they are Palestinian or Israeli."
    • The Vatican has summoned the ambassadors of Israel and the United States to discuss the situation.
    Credit to IMC Jerusalem for pointing out the El País story and providing a rudimentary translation of some parts.

    Are you sure it's not a hostage situation? (3.16 / 6) (#338)
    by uriyan on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 03:42:38 PM EST

    First of all, it seems most improbable to me that the IDF would actually storm the church or attack it some other way. It seems odd, though, that the Patriarch has granted the gunmen santuary, as housing a combatant means taking a stance in this conflict, and as far as I understand, the Vatican's stance is usually one of neutrality. I must therefore wonder whether the priests inside the church aren't actually held hostage (like it was reported in Santa Maria).


    gantse jahr fraylech... gantse jahr fraylech...


    [ Parent ]
    Observe this. (3.62 / 8) (#344)
    by Apuleius on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 04:09:05 PM EST

    Nobody called the situation at the Santa Maria Convent a hostage situation until after it was over. The standoff at the Nativity isn't described as a hostage situation. Yet.


    There is a time and a place for everything, and it's called college. (The South Park chef)
    [ Parent ]
    An Observation (2.50 / 6) (#339)
    by zastruga on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 03:46:43 PM EST

    Many people seem to be horrified that the Church of the Nativity has become caught up in this conflict -- and rightly so. A point worth noting, though, is that it is precisely because Palestinian terrorists know Israel is deeply reluctant to infringe on holy places that they took refuge in the Church. They have voted with their feet against all those who argue for moral equivalency between Palestinian terrorism and Israeli self-defense. Contrast the absence of an Israeli assault on this holy site with the Palestinian suicide bomber who killed 26 people at a Passover Seder, one of the holiest celebrations for Jews.



    [ Parent ]
    perhaps (4.71 / 7) (#342)
    by Delirium on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 03:57:00 PM EST

    The other explanation is that churches have a long tradition of giving sanctuary to all non-violent comers, regardless of past history. I could see your point if the Palestinians were using the Church as a sniper's nest or shooting out its windows, taking advantage of the fact that Israel would be reluctant to return fire, but that doesn't appear to be the case -- there has been no fire from the church, so those seeking refuge there do seem to be legitimately seeking refuge there, not using it as cover for hostilities.

    [ Parent ]
    The gunmen had to bust the locks (3.80 / 5) (#348)
    by Apuleius on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 04:15:11 PM EST

    to get in. Doesn't sound like the church was all that willing to let them in.


    There is a time and a place for everything, and it's called college. (The South Park chef)
    [ Parent ]
    Hmm (4.00 / 3) (#377)
    by PhillipW on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 06:39:40 PM EST

    Since that fact wasn't pointed out in the article that is being discussed here, please do something to back that claim up.

    -Phil
    [ Parent ]
    Citation -- Palestinians *Did* Shoot Their Way In (3.60 / 5) (#385)
    by zastruga on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 07:03:11 PM EST

    Hate to compromise your fantasies about Nobel Palestinian Freedom Fighters, but check out Paragraph 12 of this article



    [ Parent ]
    Laughable (1.00 / 1) (#581)
    by PhillipW on Thu Apr 04, 2002 at 06:49:59 PM EST

    An "eyewitness?" Hah!

    -Phil
    [ Parent ]
    Yes, there's even a video (none / 0) (#582)
    by zastruga on Thu Apr 04, 2002 at 07:03:48 PM EST

    See my top-level post, "More Evidence...".

    [ Parent ]
    Bethlehem is a palestinian town (4.16 / 6) (#362)
    by headphone on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 05:43:20 PM EST

    You would expect there to be Palestinian fighters in Bethlehem. Most of the minor churches are controlled directly by palestinains and major churches are controlled by a cooperation between palestinians and vatican representatives. NEWS FLASH -- THERE ARE MANY CHRISTIAN PALESTINIANS. 25 to 30 percent of palestinians are christians. Just like 25 to 30% of Lebenese are christians.

    Israel would have invaded a minor church without hesitation, Isreal does invade minor mosques without hesitation. The reason Isreal hasn't invaded the church of Nativity is because vatican would be pissed, and you don't want to piss of the pope. IDF is not as glamorous as you think.


    [ Parent ]
    Allow me to retain my opinion about that (5.00 / 1) (#445)
    by uriyan on Thu Apr 04, 2002 at 01:00:45 AM EST

    First of all, according to our friends at CIA, there are no more than 8% Christian Palestinians (by the way they're discriminated against but that's another story). Secondly, the Vatikan has been so far neutral, that is, it did not willingfully aid either side, and both sides respected it (until armed Palestinians entered the Church of Nativity, that is). Finally, Israel has enjoyed a more-or-less positive relationship with Christian Arabs (facts are that very few ever participated on attacks, most of them distanciated themselves from the PLO), and would be likely to respect them and their religious sites.


    gantse jahr fraylech... gantse jahr fraylech...


    [ Parent ]
    Israel And Christian Palestinians (5.00 / 1) (#461)
    by the trinidad kid on Thu Apr 04, 2002 at 03:47:09 AM EST

    Israel does not enjoy good relations with Christian Palestinians:
    • Edward Said
    • George Habash
    • Arafat's Wife
    • Azmi Biashara - Knesset member on trial for taking Israeli Arab Pensioners to see their families in Syria
    It is not possible for you to paint this a West versus Islam conflict. The only Palestinian group that the Israelis have established a modicum of rapport for are the Druze minority.


    [ Parent ]
    not exectly (none / 0) (#465)
    by Oblom on Thu Apr 04, 2002 at 04:03:02 AM EST

    Actually also Beduins serve in Israely army.

    [ Parent ]
    Christian, Muslim or Druze beduin? (none / 0) (#468)
    by the trinidad kid on Thu Apr 04, 2002 at 04:21:42 AM EST

    Given that this thread is about differential relations between Palestinian communities and the Israelis.

    I am not enourmously familiar with the ethnic composition of Israeli Arabs...


    [ Parent ]
    Relations and Origins (none / 0) (#474)
    by Oblom on Thu Apr 04, 2002 at 04:38:36 AM EST

    Buduins are Beduins.
    Druzes are Druzes.
    Palestinians are Arabs

    And those arabs that has israely citezenship i doubt that would like to change thier citezenship to palestinian. They can afford to themself pretty much everything they want ( houses that they live at in thier villages, i'll be lucky if i will be able to afford one like this in 10years).
    Actually when intifada started 18monthes ago i talked to some guy that his familiy in 1967 runed into Lebanon (where palestinians aren't granted citezenship, just like in every other country around). Now he studies medecine in Arab Emirates. And he said that he prefers to live in Israel under Barak then in Emirates, Lebanon or any other arab country. Since everybody in this countries hates/despites palestinians guts ( i were told this by people (arabs, not palestinians) from egypt, jordan and lebanon (on very long ICQ conversations that were starting when they were yelling about throwing me into the sea and killing me and everybody, and in 1 case out of 15 i were managing to develop it into more intellegent discussion).

    [ Parent ]
    Wrong! (2.50 / 2) (#473)
    by uriyan on Thu Apr 04, 2002 at 04:36:34 AM EST

    I love your reasoning. There are 4 Christian Palestinians with whom Israel isn't in accord, and because of that Israel isn't in accord with all of them? Arafat's wife (she has a name, by the way, Suha) - you made me ROTFASTC.

    How about you counting the number of Christian suicide bomber, and comparing this to their part in the Palestinian population?


    gantse jahr fraylech... gantse jahr fraylech...


    [ Parent ]
    Major Political Leaders (2.00 / 2) (#480)
    by the trinidad kid on Thu Apr 04, 2002 at 04:56:10 AM EST

    I know Arafat's wife has a name (I just didn't know it).

    Major political and military leaders of the Palestinians are Christians - the Christians are not friendly to the Israelis.

    In relation to suicide bombers - I don't know if there are any Christian suicide bombers, but I do know that plenty of Israeli citizens and soldiers have been killed by Christian Palestinians.


    [ Parent ]
    Names (none / 0) (#487)
    by uriyan on Thu Apr 04, 2002 at 05:39:47 AM EST

    Give me names of Fatah members who are Christians (I won't even mention Hamas or IJ). Classifying Arafat's wife as a leader was quite unfounded, as she has not led anyone anywhere in the last 3 years (except perhaps her new boyfriend, that is). Azmi Bishara is under trial because he called for the murder of Israeli soldiers (now imagine an American senator doing the same to American troops, he'd be back in Wyoming in a split second), George Habash is abroad and out of business lately (last 20 years), and so is Edward Said. Any others?


    gantse jahr fraylech... gantse jahr fraylech...


    [ Parent ]
    trial (5.00 / 1) (#489)
    by Delirium on Thu Apr 04, 2002 at 05:44:28 AM EST

    Azmi Bishara is under trial because he called for the murder of Israeli soldiers (now imagine an American senator doing the same to American troops, he'd be back in Wyoming in a split second)
    He'd be back in Wyoming, sure, but I doubt he'd be tried for a crime. If I walk down the street holding a sign saying "I hope Al Qaeda succeeds," I will not make many friends, but I'm not doing anything illegal either.

    [ Parent ]
    Incorrect analogy (none / 0) (#505)
    by uriyan on Thu Apr 04, 2002 at 06:42:23 AM EST

    Bishara said that while he was on an Arab summit in Syria, with such honorable guests as Sheikh Hassan Nasralla and the Syrian president Bashar Al-Assad. This is analogous to an American senator telling Osama Bin-Laden (in front of cameras) that he should feel free to kill American servicemen since they're doing an injust thing. Although American senators are not as disloyal and prone to violence as Israel Members of the Knesset (so there's no precedent), my guess that our hypothetical senator would eventually be tried for high treason (calling for armed opposition to his own country's representatives).


    gantse jahr fraylech... gantse jahr fraylech...


    [ Parent ]
    Not a good analogy... (none / 0) (#513)
    by the trinidad kid on Thu Apr 04, 2002 at 07:50:17 AM EST

    Azmi Bishara MK was shot in his own house by members of the Israeli security forces in October 2000 in an incident that remains univestigated.

    Your analogy leaves a lot to be desired.


    [ Parent ]
    A link please (NT) (none / 0) (#515)
    by uriyan on Thu Apr 04, 2002 at 08:32:38 AM EST


    gantse jahr fraylech... gantse jahr fraylech...


    [ Parent ]
    Lets merge these threads... (none / 0) (#528)
    by the trinidad kid on Thu Apr 04, 2002 at 10:31:16 AM EST

    I will continue on this one...


    [ Parent ]
    Let's see (4.75 / 4) (#496)
    by the trinidad kid on Thu Apr 04, 2002 at 06:13:04 AM EST

    Consider the following:
    • The elected president of Palestine is married to Christian (yes I know he cancelled the second election and no I am not a supporter of his)
    • the leader of the second biggest PLO faction is a Christian
    • the most famous Israeli Arab politician is a Christian
    • the most distinguished American-Palestian (who is also the most trenchant international critic of Arafat) is a Christian
    These four alone represent the majority of the Palestinian people (most of whom live in exile still - Professor Said is from Jerusalem after all and cannot return to his home).

    Please tell me the names of any significant Christian Palestinians (citizens of Israel or not) who support Israel?

    In relation to Azmi Bishara the notion that good relations between Christians and Israelis shown by his calling "for the murder of Israeli soldiers" is obviously ludicrous, even were your statement true (which it is not). This site gives details of the charges against Azmi Bishara. The site uses frames so I can't give a direct link: let me quote:

    MK Bishara and his assistants are charged with assisting Palestinian citizens of Israel to visit relatives in Syria, in violation of Regulation 18(d) of the Emergency Regulations (Foreign Travel) (1948). Most of the participants in these visits were elderly people who had been separated from members of their immediate families for more than 50 years. These family members had been forced to flee Palestine for Syria as refugees during the 1948 war, and were barred by the Israeli authorities from returning to their homes. According to the Attorney General's argument, Regulation 18(d) prohibits any Israeli citizen from assisting others in traveling to states listed in Article 2A of the Prevention of Infiltration (Offences and Jurisdiction) Law, which includes Syria, without first obtaining a permit from the Minister of Interior.


    [ Parent ]
    Response (4.00 / 1) (#509)
    by uriyan on Thu Apr 04, 2002 at 07:01:59 AM EST

    • Suha Arafat: she's not a leader, she's the wife of one in the best case. Is Laura Bush a leader because George is the president?
    • George Habbash: he's the nominal head of the PFLP, which is quite a minor faction on the Palestinian scale (Nr. 4 after Fatah, Hamas and IJ). Moreover, he's been retired for at least 10 years now, being replaced by the late Mustafa Abu Zibri.
    • Bishara is not the most famous Arab-Israeli politician, he's the most controversial (more on him below)
    • I don't have anything in particular to say about Said, except the fact that he's been keeping an extremely low profile (most Israelis don't even know his name) - if he is not on CNN he isn't a leader. I'd classify him as an intellectual.

    As to Mr. Bishara, honestly, when you last heard a politican admitting his guilt? As to his sayings, you can find them here (he calls there for armed resistance - i.e. continuation of violence), and charges - here. Also see here. In my opinion (as a citizen of Israel), the allegedly humanitarian aims of Mr. Bishara did not justify the breach of law (and impact on the country's security) which he sponsored.


    gantse jahr fraylech... gantse jahr fraylech...


    [ Parent ]
    You haven't proved your assertion (none / 0) (#511)
    by the trinidad kid on Thu Apr 04, 2002 at 07:45:53 AM EST

    You asserted that Israel has good relations with Christian Palestinians - for which you have provided no proof.

    Please name significant Palestinian Christian supporters of Israel?

    In relation to my points:
    • You are correct, Suha Arafat has no importance in this except as Arafat's wife.
    • I was of the opinion that neither Hamas nor the Islamic Jihad were member organisations of the PLO which is why I said that the leader of the 2nd largest PLO faction was Christian. Could you clarify please?
    • Edward Said is one of the most famous Palestinians apart from Arafat (he's no where near as famous as Arafat but he is well known in the UK and his books sell by the bucketload - I have half a dozen.)
    • We may disagree about Bishara - but I still don't see how he proves that Israel has good relations with Palestinian Christians.

    Perhaps you could give me your comments on the fact that Azmi Bishara (a member of the Knesset) was shot and wounded at his home by a member of the Israeli security forces in Lydda in October 2000 and this 'incident' was not even investigated. (Source interview with AB in The New Intifada: Resisting Israel's Apartheid.

    13 other Israeli Arabs were also killed at the time.


    [ Parent ]
    Response (none / 0) (#516)
    by uriyan on Thu Apr 04, 2002 at 08:41:26 AM EST

    leader of the 2nd largest PLO faction

    First of all that's correct (blind me), but the PFLP is nowhere near as large as Fatah (or the competition). Secondly, Habbash is long out of business, having been replaced the late by Abu-'Ali Mustafa, so he can't be classified as a "leader" anyway. Habbash (and Bishara by the way) are communists, which means they're often ignoring the religious aspect entirely.

    Edward Said is one of the most famous Palestinians

    Perhaps in the UK, but not in Middle East. It's quite really quite simple. If a guy is a leader, we see him on CNN. If he's not, we don't. Said does not appear on CNN.

    Perhaps you could give me your comments on the fact that Azmi Bishara (a member of the Knesset) was shot and wounded at his home by a member of the Israeli security forces in Lydda in October 2000 and this 'incident' was not even investigated. (Source interview with AB in The New Intifada: Resisting Israel's Apartheid.

    Bishara never made that claim in public, as far as I remember, and neither did he turn to the Israeli Police. Can you refer me to any (reasonably objective) mentionings on the web? Bishara did get shot at Lydda (Lod) once, in June 1999, and he was injured once more in the events of October 2000 but I've found no mentioning of an attack at his home (are you sure he meant his physical house?). As to the 13 Arabs, have you ever heard about the Or Commission? (another link here). Also, may I recommend you to treat facts in books, articles and web pages under provocative titles with a grain of salt?


    gantse jahr fraylech... gantse jahr fraylech...


    [ Parent ]
    ...my last... (no one else is reading) (none / 0) (#553)
    by the trinidad kid on Thu Apr 04, 2002 at 02:43:52 PM EST

    You made the initial assertion about good relations between Israeli and Christian Palestinians which you still have not backed up with any evidence.

    The paper (but not the online) version of today's Financial Times has the following paragraph:

    Father Paphenius, an Orthodox Priest, said there was no firing from the church. Christian militiamen were taking part in prayer services that were taking place normally. He said the gunman had been given sanctuary "like the church gave the Jews sanctuary from the Nazis"


    I defer to your knowledge of the PFLP...

    Edward Said was the guiding intellectual force behind the two-state faction on the PNC which argued that Israel was here to stay at a time when that position was dangerous in Palestinian politics. He has the distinction of having his publications banned in the PA for his criticism of Arafat. Hanan Ashrawi was one of his students. He is a significant historical and political figure.

    Azmi Bishara made his claim public in a letter to Kofi Annan, the Secretary General of the United Nations - you can't get more public than that...

    No, I hadn't heard of the Or Commission - I wish I had judging by this tantalising summary from the Google cache!

    The interview I quoted is dated 29th January 2001 - so Bishara wasn't lying when he said it... I bought the book a couple of months ago and didn't realise it was published last year ...the error is mine.

    You say "Bishara didn't turn to the police" and I say "I wonder why?"...

    As to The New Intifada: Resisting Israels Apartheid this collection has a foreward by Noam Chomsky, a large article by the aforementioned Professor Said as well as a contribution by the distinguised Irish journalist and author Robert Fisk - it is an entirely reputable publication.

    Given that the Occupied Territories contain Jewish only roads, that Palestinians are subject to Israeli military law in the same area that Israelis are subject to Israeli civil law, I feel that the title is very apt...


    [ Parent ]
    My (last) response (none / 0) (#554)
    by uriyan on Thu Apr 04, 2002 at 03:09:12 PM EST

    Good relations in this region are not expressed by joint photos, they're expressed by not shooting at each other. But by the way, an example of them would be the petition signed by the citizens of Beit Jala asking the Fatah to stop using their city to shoot at Gilo.

    As to the alleged lack of violence, I saw on TV today a Fatah man throwing an explosive charge at Israeli troops from within the Church. Indeed, gunmen are reported to periodically come out and shoot around for a while.

    Perhaps Said was 'a significant historical and political figure' once, but he's not active now, and he hasn't been for many years. As to Bishara, I see nowhere in his letter a claim for being personally ambushed and/or shot, or indeed that the mob actually damaged his house.

    You say "Bishara didn't turn to the police" and I say "I wonder why?"

    Bishara is a known Arab leader; moreover, he enjoys (or enjoyed at that time) a lot of screen time from the press. I can't imagine his shouts all over the TV if the police tried to mismanage the investigation. But so far, I don't even see mentionings of the incident you speak about. Are you sure you understand it all correctly?

    As to Noam Chomsky &Co., you're proving my point. You have to be wary when reading anything the guy wrote - he's partial as hell, and in my opinion the book is very far from being 'entirely reputable'.

    As to the Palestinian territories, the situation which you describe exists because there's a war going on. If Arafat chose to bargain instead of shooting, by now the Palestinians would be driving on Palestinian-only roads, subject only to whatever evil corruption of human morality the PA would have declared as its law. Describing this as 'apartheid' would be kindof like a guy who started shooting at the police, got a leg shot off and now complains that he's limping.

    P.S. This is obviously my lass message in the thread, but the way things are developing, it seems that we'll be having another article on this topic shortly.


    gantse jahr fraylech... gantse jahr fraylech...


    [ Parent ]
    Unarmed Palestinian Killed In A Mosque (4.50 / 2) (#464)
    by the trinidad kid on Thu Apr 04, 2002 at 03:52:17 AM EST

    Here is a report from today's Guardian about an unarmed man shot dead in a Mosque in Bethlehem.


    [ Parent ]
    Unlike what Israel wants the world to believe (3.40 / 10) (#359)
    by headphone on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 05:34:09 PM EST

    There are a lot of Christian Palestinians, and all the inhabitants of Bethelehem are Palestinians. Israel and its supports are trying to make this sound like a hostage situation, which it is not. These are palestinian fighters and civilians taking refuge in a house of worship in the palestinian territories with full approval of the church leadership. I am willing to bet that some of the fighters holding up in the church are actually christian. STOP fooling the world.

    [ Parent ]
    Unlike what you want to believe, (3.22 / 9) (#366)
    by Apuleius on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 05:54:51 PM EST

    Christians aren't even a plurality in Bethlehem these days, and since Arafat came to power they have been leaving the city at a steady rate. You're the one trying to fool, fool yourself mostly.


    There is a time and a place for everything, and it's called college. (The South Park chef)
    [ Parent ]
    This article is awesome! (1.50 / 18) (#370)
    by Ken Pompadour on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 06:06:08 PM EST

    I get to watch Apuleius get an erection over the thought of piles of dead Palestinians in realtime!

    ...The target is countrymen, friends and family... they have to die too. - candid trhurler
    [ Parent ]
    Update to the update (5.00 / 3) (#502)
    by Delirium on Thu Apr 04, 2002 at 06:29:56 AM EST

    There's reports flying all over the newswires that the IDF attacked church, but there are other reports denying this. The Associated Press is reporting that Palestinians claim the IDF blew off a back door of the Church and fired inside, while Ben-Eliezer claims that this is not the case, and that the IDF has been given explicit orders that the Church is off-limits to Israeli fire. Other newswires are reporting everything from Israeli troops inside the building to Israeli snipers firing at the building to Israeli denials that anything at all is going on.

    Please post if you have a more reliable source that can confirm or deny...

    [ Parent ]

    Just a distraction (none / 0) (#624)
    by ariux on Fri Apr 05, 2002 at 03:16:09 AM EST

    A church is one building. The army has set a free-fire zone in what, five cities?

    [ Parent ]

    Tanks invade Nablus (5.00 / 7) (#347)
    by Delirium on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 04:12:26 PM EST

    Nablus is the largest town in the West Bank, and the first town not adjacent to Israeli towns that has been invaded. Map of the West Bank for reference.

    Ha'aretz Report

    CNN Report

    BBC Report

    Non-Violence (2.87 / 8) (#351)
    by Merk00 on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 04:23:38 PM EST

    The Palestinians would probably accomplish a lot more through nonviolent protest than they ever will with violent protest. If they had the self-control to wage a non-violent campaign in the way that Ghandi or Martin Luther King Jr. did, they could accomplish much more than they would have otherwise. Violence just serves to move them farther away from the mainstream and move the world's sympathies farther from them. The Palestinian's would also gain wider support for ending the cycle of violence.

    Although one of the major problems with the Palestinians, and one of the major reasons that a nonviolent campaign just wouldn't work at the moment, is the fact that they lack a central authority or figure. There is no one to control them and keep the from violence. Yasser Arafat would love to be this figure and for a time he possible was but he has been repeatedly proving that he is not the real leader of the Palestinian people. Until they have a leader, Israel probably won't be willing to deal with them as there really isn't anyone to bargin with.

    ------
    "At FIRST we see a world where science and technology are celebrated, where kids think science is cool and dream of becoming science and technology heroes."
    - FIRST Mission

    Another point: (3.00 / 2) (#395)
    by JChen on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 08:36:15 PM EST

    Both King and Gandhi had militant sects vying for the same cause as well; the movie Gandhi showed the militants (I forgot what they were called) attacking British property, and King was desperate to stop the Black Panthers from giving the civil rights movement a bad name. The situation in Palestine is no different, though the tables of power in the independence movement have switched: it is the militant faction that has the dominant power, while those that are calling for peace through negotiations like Arafat are hard pressed diplomatically because of both the lack of controllable muscle and an unwillingness by the Israeli government to compromise.

    Let us do as we say.
    [ Parent ]
    Arafat never called for negotiations (none / 0) (#447)
    by uriyan on Thu Apr 04, 2002 at 01:04:32 AM EST

    During the last 18 months Arafat never, ever called for negotiations or has even tried applying his power to stopping terrorism. Recent documents indicate that he actually sponsored the militant Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades. So I guess he's no Gandhi after all.


    gantse jahr fraylech... gantse jahr fraylech...


    [ Parent ]
    Hrm? (none / 0) (#458)
    by Delirium on Thu Apr 04, 2002 at 03:24:29 AM EST

    I thought that was the sticking point -- Arafat said that he wanted political negotiations concurrent with a cease-fire, while Sharon insisted on a cease-fire and then seven days of quiet before any political negotiations.

    [ Parent ]
    Re: Hrm ? (none / 0) (#462)
    by Oblom on Thu Apr 04, 2002 at 03:48:09 AM EST

    Sharon gave up on his "seven days of quiet" like month and a half ago. (and was badly beaten for this by his party and generally population since it was his slogan/policy since before elections)

    [ Parent ]
    Sponsoring attacks == Not negotiating (none / 0) (#471)
    by uriyan on Thu Apr 04, 2002 at 04:30:49 AM EST

    Not only Sharon withdrew from his claim for the 7 days, all during that time Arafat continued to make a claim for political negotiations while not actively trying to stop terrorism and sponsoring escalation behind the scenes. His offsers were made mala fide, and were therefore not offers at all.


    gantse jahr fraylech... gantse jahr fraylech...


    [ Parent ]
    Racist? (3.25 / 4) (#449)
    by freefall on Thu Apr 04, 2002 at 01:08:15 AM EST

    When the Nazis were killing the Jews in Europe, no one asked them to independantly launch a non-violent revolution during a state of genocide.

    Just because Gandhi accomplished something under a unique circumstance does not mean that civil disobedience is the solution to all of the world's problems. That's an unintelligent view of the world.
    The British withdrew from India, but that does not mean that the Israelis will withdraw from Palestine. In fact, that is NOT the case - they are basically preparing for some sort of genocide.

    Sharon and Israel have serious anger management issues. This will forever scar the relations between Israel and the rest of the world. Not everything is easily forgotten.

    If you ever find yourself looking at a map of the world someday, and can't seem to locate Palestine - it probably all began here, with Sharon.

    [ Parent ]
    The violence has to stop (4.00 / 2) (#508)
    by Thwk on Thu Apr 04, 2002 at 07:01:22 AM EST

    A lot more tolerance and a lot less extreme fanatic religious and/or nationalistic feelings are the requirements for ever reaching a lasting peace.

    The hate between the groups will continue to increase as long as the infinitely growing cycle of violence continues. The Palestinians can not force Israel to give up land with violence, since Israel feels that controlling the occupied areas leads to increased security. The Israelians can not force the Palestinians to stop their violence with violence, since the Israelian violence only leads to further hate and more people being ready to be "martyrs".

    A serious non-violent campaign sadly seems to be impossible to accomplish at the moment because of the hate between the groups. There are also too much extremists on both sides, who probably don't even want peace. Rabin was murdered by an Israeli for being too willing to compromise and many Arabs still refuse to accept the existence of Israel.

    I really don't see any solutions to the conflict, but the violence has to stop. And it can not be stopped with further violence.

    [ Parent ]
    Sneeches on the Beaches (none / 0) (#587)
    by hawaii on Thu Apr 04, 2002 at 07:29:18 PM EST

    Seems like now is the time to call in McMonkey McBean and his star-changing machine. Rememeber that guy from the Sneeches on the Beaches story by Dr. Seuss?

    It's perfectly applicable in this situation. If you don't know the story, go out and read it. Better yet, get it and read it to your kids.

    [ Parent ]

    Never gonna happen. (3.00 / 1) (#544)
    by Apuleius on Thu Apr 04, 2002 at 12:32:23 PM EST

    In Arab society, Jews are expected to be submissive toward Muslims. For Muslims to engage in civil disobedience against Jews is about as likely as the Ku Klux Klan using civil disobedience.


    There is a time and a place for everything, and it's called college. (The South Park chef)
    [ Parent ]
    This is part of the problem on both sides (none / 0) (#569)
    by Delirium on Thu Apr 04, 2002 at 04:57:39 PM EST

    In Arab society, Jews are expected to be submissive toward Muslims, yes. But in religious Jewish society, Arabs are expected to be submissive towards Jews. For example:
    [Palestinian] autonomy cannot but lead to transgressions of a number of religious prohibitions. [The first is] the prohibition against allowing the Gentiles to live in the Land of Israel, except on condition of agreeing to serve the king of Israel, and refraining from behaving impudently to the Jews.
    -Rabbi Ya'akov Navon, Shilo settlement
    This is particularly compounded by the fact that a large portion of the Jews that feel this way towards the Arabs live in settlements, where they are in more direct contact with the Palestinians than mainstream Israeli society is.

    [ Parent ]
    Next: Nablus. (Other details in nutshell.) (3.62 / 8) (#352)
    by Apuleius on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 04:46:20 PM EST

    A battle for Nablus has begun. All peacenik twits have been evacuated from Bethlehem. 700 men in Ramallah are now detained, and number is growing. All areas under active occupation are now being subjected to house-to-house searches.


    There is a time and a place for everything, and it's called college. (The South Park chef)
    lol (1.41 / 12) (#360)
    by Ken Pompadour on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 05:36:39 PM EST

    The thought of violence just gives a woody, doesn't it.

    Note to self: Jews are A-OK by me, but Zionists are scum.



    ...The target is countrymen, friends and family... they have to die too. - candid trhurler
    [ Parent ]
    Ah... (3.83 / 6) (#517)
    by Stickerboy on Thu Apr 04, 2002 at 09:01:51 AM EST

    The "Negros are fine, but Niggers I really hate" argument. I haven't heard that one in awhile.

    [ Parent ]
    actually... (2.66 / 3) (#531)
    by chopper on Thu Apr 04, 2002 at 10:40:18 AM EST

    its more like "blacks are alright, but Black Panthers are assholes"

    learn to use a metaphor.

    give a man a fish,he'll eat for a day

    give a man religion and he'll starve to death while praying for a fish
    [ Parent ]

    Yeah (1.00 / 2) (#540)
    by Ken Pompadour on Thu Apr 04, 2002 at 12:12:40 PM EST

    'Jew' is functionally equivelant to 'Zionist'. If you don't know any better, you think they're the same thing.

    I guess you don't.



    ...The target is countrymen, friends and family... they have to die too. - candid trhurler
    [ Parent ]
    It is functionally equivalent. (2.00 / 1) (#543)
    by Apuleius on Thu Apr 04, 2002 at 12:31:18 PM EST

    If you're a Jew in the Mideast, you're fair game. Hell, if you're a Jew in France nowadays, you're fair game. Hair splitting about Zionists is meaningless.


    There is a time and a place for everything, and it's called college. (The South Park chef)
    [ Parent ]
    Ah yes (2.00 / 2) (#546)
    by Ken Pompadour on Thu Apr 04, 2002 at 12:40:08 PM EST

    I vaguely remember now, articles by that famed Zionist Noam Chomsky pleading for all Jews to return to Israel.

    ...The target is countrymen, friends and family... they have to die too. - candid trhurler
    [ Parent ]
    I also remember (2.50 / 2) (#548)
    by Ken Pompadour on Thu Apr 04, 2002 at 12:54:28 PM EST

    Statements by that famed Jew, Henry Kissinger, about how the United States should prop up Israel, no matter what the circumstances.

    ...The target is countrymen, friends and family... they have to die too. - candid trhurler
    [ Parent ]
    Thankies Spankies Mr.Racist (1.75 / 4) (#549)
    by Ken Pompadour on Thu Apr 04, 2002 at 01:19:27 PM EST

    BTW, stop implicitly calling me a racist, racist. I'm an anti-zionist.

    PPS My comment about the holocaust is true for some jews - I forgot the qualifier 'some.' Try to prove me claim wrong, racist.



    ...The target is countrymen, friends and family... they have to die too. - candid trhurler
    [ Parent ]
    btw (1.50 / 2) (#558)
    by Ken Pompadour on Thu Apr 04, 2002 at 04:01:19 PM EST

    You seem to have a reasonable opinion on the secularization of Iran, so it's a shame your religious blinders are on when it comes to the religious oppression in Israel. I guess you prefer the Aryan Muslim to the Semetic Muslim. Interesting.

    ...The target is countrymen, friends and family... they have to die too. - candid trhurler
    [ Parent ]
    No, I'll tell you the difference. (2.00 / 1) (#626)
    by ariux on Fri Apr 05, 2002 at 03:47:08 AM EST

    The difference is between those who fight only those who fight them - and those who fight even the inoffensive.

    You know who just joined your government's security cabinet? Effie Eitam.

    [ Parent ]

    Yikes. This guy's a scary bastard. (3.00 / 1) (#701)
    by BlackTriangle on Sat Apr 06, 2002 at 12:50:49 AM EST

    Brig.-Gen. (res.) Effie Eitam, who retired from the army about five months ago and has since given many speeches around the country, spoke with Arutz-7 last week about the current warfare and what, in his opinion, should be done."We must realize that it's not just a question of isolated shootings and the like, but a real war between us and a gang of terrorists that we ourselves armed. It is clear to me that every passing day in which we do not dismantle the PA, just makes it harder to do so in the future; this action is simply unavoidable as something that a state must do for its citizens...It is now time to set out on what is, in the most elementary sense, a justified military mission of self-defense. Its first aspect is, first of all, to make sure that absolutely no private Arab transportation is allowed on the roads... In addition, the top brass of the military and diplomatic leadership of the PA must be made to disappear, either physically or functionally. All the weapons must be taken from within the Palestinian Authority, even at the cost of warfare against the pockets of resistance that will exist. The PA's territorial contiguity must then be broken up, and we will have to hold separate negotiations with each separate area as to how it will run its own municipal affairs. It must be clear that there will no longer be one foreign sovereign entity west of the Jordan...

    Why are the Jews in Israel so opposed to giving Palestinians citizenship? What's the history I'm missing, here?



    Moo.


    [ Parent ]
    Palestinian citizenship (3.00 / 1) (#703)
    by Delirium on Sat Apr 06, 2002 at 01:50:31 AM EST

    Two things:
    1. The Palestinians don't want Israeli citizenship. They want a state of Palestine.
    2. The Israelis want a Jewish state. A state which is 40% Palestinian (with the Palestinian portion rapidly growing) barely fulfills this, and likely won't in 20 years.


    [ Parent ]
    Sorry (2.00 / 1) (#709)
    by BlackTriangle on Sat Apr 06, 2002 at 11:07:03 AM EST

    I didn't know :(

    Moo.


    [ Parent ]
    EU to send mission (4.66 / 6) (#374)
    by Oblomov on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 06:26:10 PM EST

    AP reports:
    • The head of the EU executive Commission urged the United States to stand down as primary peacemaker and let a broad alliance of nations mediate peace in the region.
    • The European Union plans to send a high-level mission to the Middle East on Thursday to urge Israel and the Palestinians to immediately implement a cease-fire in line with a new U.N. resolution.
    • Spanish Prime Minister Jose-Maria Aznar said he was ready to lead the EU mission, but only if he can see Sharon and Arafat. Officials said Sharon initially rejected that but later agreed to put the idea to his Cabinet.


    Some problems with this (4.50 / 6) (#396)
    by Delirium on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 08:37:19 PM EST

    The Palestinians would certainly have no problems with this, but I doubt the Israelis will accept the US being replaced as mediator by a "broad alliance of nations." Mainly because almost every single nation in the world is more pro-Palestinian (and by extension, more anti-Israel) than the United States is.

    [ Parent ]
    Also a political game (3.66 / 3) (#404)
    by Oblomov on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 09:48:50 PM EST

    Calling on the "United States to stand down as primary peacemaker" hardly seems normal diplomatic language.

    The EU desperately wants to play an important diplomatic role on the world stage. Although I do not doubt the honest intentions in the EU's efforts, this would be a high-profile effort with a pretty high upside. Being seen as stepping in where the U.S. failed and succeeding at improving the situation (and it can hardly get worse) would be a nice polical victory.



    [ Parent ]
    Actually (4.00 / 2) (#529)
    by Betcour on Thu Apr 04, 2002 at 10:34:39 AM EST

    The biggest enemy of the EU is itself - if the members can agree on a common foreign policy (and a policy that it different than "doing nothing") then lots of things can be done. The main problem is that the EU is divided between pro-active nations (Germany, France, Spain, etc.) and passive nations (Holland, UK, etc.) who prefer to let the US do all the work and play the sidekicks.

    [ Parent ]
    oh, yes! (3.00 / 1) (#635)
    by KiTaSuMbA on Fri Apr 05, 2002 at 04:53:17 AM EST

    why should EU care about?
    Say, we are closer to that bomb-to-explode called middle east?
    why should EU replace US playing "miami vice" around the world?
    because we (EU) have an interest on that (sorry folks, diplomacy is about interest)
    why should the world want EU instead of US?
    no reason at all. It would still be about interests and not justice.

    There is no Dopaminergic Pepperoni Kabal!
    [ Parent ]
    Israel successfully outmanouvered the EU (4.66 / 3) (#551)
    by Oblomov on Thu Apr 04, 2002 at 02:30:57 PM EST

    Yup, you're 100% right, the EU was outmanouvered by Israel, and pretty quick as well:
    • (...)a delegation from the European Union abandoned its mission to the Middle East, saying it had been denied a meeting with Mr Arafat(...)
    • (...) Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon later agreed to allow US envoy Anthony Zinni to meet Mr Arafat.
    Could see that one coming.

    [ Parent ]
    Hey! (1.00 / 1) (#538)
    by imayes on Thu Apr 04, 2002 at 11:56:56 AM EST

    Are they sending in the same people that dealt with Hitler? They were pretty successful weren't they?

    ;)

    [ Parent ]
    Citation -- Palestinians *Did* Shoot Their Way In (1.87 / 8) (#384)
    by zastruga on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 07:01:16 PM EST

    Hate to compromise your fantasies about Noble Palestinian Freedom Fighters, but check out Paragraph 12 of this article. Authoratative enough for you?



    not neccessarily (3.33 / 3) (#389)
    by btb on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 07:44:52 PM EST

    "Witnesses said" is not very authoritative. Sounds more like an IDF spokesperson to me.

    [ Parent ]
    Not according to the Latin patriarch of Jerusalem (4.33 / 3) (#408)
    by emad on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 10:19:19 PM EST

    In this article from the AFP:

    Christ's birthplace under siege

    By MICHEL SAILHAN

    Agence France Presse

    April 3, 2002

    ...

    Michel Sabbah, the Latin patriarch of Jerusalem, said the Palestinians could claim sanctuary inside the church and had already lain down their arms.

    "The basilica, a church, is a place of refuge for everybody, even fighters, as long as they lay down their weapons," he said. "In this case, we have an obligation to give refuge to Palestinians and Israelis alike." ...

    [ Parent ]

    Counterevidence no counterevidence at all (1.50 / 2) (#410)
    by zastruga on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 10:39:43 PM EST

    Exactly nowhere does it say the Palestinians did not shoot their way in. It seems to me the Patriarch speaks only of their status once inside the church and says not a word about their means of ingress. Of course, I don't have the entire article in front of me...

    [ Parent ]
    And moreover (2.25 / 4) (#411)
    by zastruga on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 10:41:42 PM EST

    Why exactly do you find it the least bit implausible that these Palestinians might shoot their way into a church? Is it simply because it contradicts the image of them you subscribe to?

    [ Parent ]
    If they had done so (4.50 / 2) (#556)
    by aphrael on Thu Apr 04, 2002 at 03:30:14 PM EST

    why would the Patriarch say what he did? I suppose it's possible that he's being held hostage, but if he were an honorable man of the church, he wouldn't say what he has if it weren't true. So, if you believe in the integrity of religious figures, you have to accept what the patriarch says at face value, absent any evidence otherwise. Since the only "evidence" otherwise comes from the mouth of officials of the Israeli government, it isn't credible, either.

    [ Parent ]
    Please look at my just-posted top-level comment (2.00 / 1) (#565)
    by zastruga on Thu Apr 04, 2002 at 04:41:08 PM EST



    [ Parent ]
    Weak source (4.75 / 4) (#412)
    by Oblomov on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 10:44:22 PM EST

    Both the article you linked to and an ap story contain more or less the same information. If you look at the sources in that article (AP, Reuters, Israeli and Palestinian spokesmen) the only original thing seems to be to add the word "witnesses" from time to time. These are just two journalists watching the telex roll out press releases.

    Just do a search on both authors. The first author Serge Schmemann seems to be watching TV (and probably attending press conferences) in Jeruzalem. The second author, Sherri Day, did an article on Worldcom job cuts the same day.

    Some comparisions:

    NY times:

    (...) the Palestinians rested on the building's stone pews (...)
    AP:
    The Palestinians rested in pews and on the stone floor.
    NY times:
    "First of all, most of the guys have run out of bullets and, secondly, we're completely surrounded," a Palestinian policeman told The Associated Press by telephone.
    AP:
    Samir, a Palestinian policeman, (...) "Most of the guys have run out of bullets and secondly, we're completely surrounded," said Samir, who would not give his last name.
    NY times:
    Israeli forces have also taken over a municipal building overlooking the church, Mayor Hana Nasser of Bethlehem said.
    AP:
    (...) and troops occupied the municipality building overlooking the square, Bethlehem Mayor Hana Nasser and other witnesses said.


    [ Parent ]
    Meanwhile in Egypt... (3.00 / 10) (#403)
    by zastruga on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 09:43:09 PM EST

    ...state-run T.V. is having a WWII revival, broadcasting Star-of-David/Swastika test patterns. But no doubt Israel's peace treaty with the Palestinians will be much, much warmer.



    Actual quote is completely different (3.66 / 3) (#413)
    by Oblomov on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 10:51:38 PM EST

    (somewhere near the bottom) is:
    Over the weekend, one of Egypt's main government-controlled television channels overlaid the Star of David with a swastika and said that "Zionism has opted for the final solution used by Hitlerite Germany to exterminate the Jews."


    [ Parent ]
    Read this article closely (2.42 / 7) (#417)
    by Ken Pompadour on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 11:02:22 PM EST

    And you'll realize that the zionists can't be reasoned with. Israel is Jewish holy land, therefore only Jews should be there, therefore anything is justifiable in removing Arabs (and later Christians, presumably) from their holy land.

    Lying, Torture, Political Manipulation, Murder. The Zionists would have their wet-dream Holocaust Mark 2 if they knew they could get away with it.



    ...The target is countrymen, friends and family... they have to die too. - candid trhurler
    [ Parent ]
    You don't know what Zionist means, (3.20 / 5) (#469)
    by Demiurge on Thu Apr 04, 2002 at 04:26:46 AM EST

    do you?

    Or are you the type of person who thinks the Protocols of The Elders of Zion makes for great, accurate reading?

    A Zionist is somewho who believes the Jews should have a country. You seem to find them worthy of nothing but contempt, for some reason. So how can you still support the right of Palestinians, which are not a separate cultural or ethnic group like the Jews are, to have their own nation?

    [ Parent ]
    Because they live there (4.00 / 6) (#477)
    by Delirium on Thu Apr 04, 2002 at 04:45:18 AM EST

    I personally don't care much for the Palestinian culture or ethnicity. I care that there are 3.5m people living in the West Bank who are ruled by a government that does not represent them. To solve this, one of two things needs to happen:
    1. Israel annexes the West Bank and gives Israeli citizenship to all its residents, regardless of race or religion.
    2. Israel withdraws from the West Bank, giving the Palestinians self-rule.
    The current situation, where Israel rules the Palestinians without giving them representation, is not acceptable.

    As for Zionism, my problem with Zionism was not the "Jews want their own state" per se, but the "Jews want their own state in a place where other people already live and drive the residents out to make room for their state". If they could find a place to make a state that wouldn't displace millions of people, I'd be considerably more in favor.

    But that's rather in the past; Israel is an extant state, and "un-making" today would be a worse humanitarian catastrophe than making it in 1948 was. So my current opposition is to those who want to continue to displace Arabs from their homes because of some 3000-year-old religious book ("Judea and Samaria" and whatnot).

    [ Parent ]

    The problem with option #1 (3.00 / 1) (#555)
    by aphrael on Thu Apr 04, 2002 at 03:28:03 PM EST

    is that doing so would severely undermine the *religious* nature of the Israeli state.

    [ Parent ]
    yeah (3.50 / 2) (#570)
    by Delirium on Thu Apr 04, 2002 at 04:59:55 PM EST

    That's the point I suppose. Israel can't both retain the West Bank and remain a Jewish state. As a Labor party MK said (paraphrased), if Israel retains the territories it will either be a non-Jewish democratic state (if the Palestinians get the right to vote), a Jewish non-democratic state (if they don't get the right to vote), or a state of war criminals (if the Palestinians are forcibly expelled). As neither seem like particularly attractive options, he supports withdrawal.

    [ Parent ]
    good saying! (2.00 / 1) (#633)
    by KiTaSuMbA on Fri Apr 05, 2002 at 04:43:59 AM EST

    cheers :-)
    There is no Dopaminergic Pepperoni Kabal!
    [ Parent ]
    Israel and Zionism (3.00 / 1) (#640)
    by Peaker on Fri Apr 05, 2002 at 08:22:41 AM EST

    Have you heard of Camp David?

    Israel tried giving them self-rule, and got terror in return.

    As for a location for a state: No place in the world is empty, and where Israel is today there were only about a dozen of thousands of people of local arab tribes without nationality or any unity.

    If we go back to 48, unless you offer a solution to the Jewish problem, you are basically allowing them their own solution. Since no empty places existed, and no other solution was possible, a solution displacing or coexisting with local people had to be used.

    That is what was used, except it all went wrong when the locals started riotting and slaughtering the new settlers under British regime.

    [ Parent ]

    it was not a couple of dozen thousand (3.00 / 1) (#647)
    by Delirium on Fri Apr 05, 2002 at 11:00:53 AM EST

    It was approximately 350,000. Over 50,000 Arabs were displaced from the city of Jaffa (near where Tel Aviv currently is) alone.

    [ Parent ]
    excuse me? (3.50 / 2) (#533)
    by chopper on Thu Apr 04, 2002 at 10:44:56 AM EST

    So how can you still support the right of Palestinians, which are not a separate cultural or ethnic group like the Jews are, to have their own nation?

    and the Israelis are? since when are Israelis all ethnically similar, anyway? the come from all over the place, just like the Palestinians.

    Hell, if I felt like it, i could convert and become an Israeli citizen in a year's time, would that mean I would suddenly become part of the 'Israeli ethnic group?'

    no, no more than converting to Islam and moving to Ramallah instantly makes me an Arab.

    give a man a fish,he'll eat for a day

    give a man religion and he'll starve to death while praying for a fish
    [ Parent ]

    Fuck you, Zionist (1.45 / 11) (#537)
    by Ken Pompadour on Thu Apr 04, 2002 at 11:48:01 AM EST

    I know exactly what it means to you. And hopefully, I've helped, just a little bit, to show what it means to the Zionists on K5, at least.

    Hopefully thousands of people will read this article, so they can watch the Zionists' true objectives made clear.



    ...The target is countrymen, friends and family... they have to die too. - candid trhurler
    [ Parent ]
    Right.....And So? (1.66 / 3) (#418)
    by zastruga on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 11:02:55 PM EST

    So in your view there's no problem with the Egyptians broadcasting viciously anti-Semitic, morally repugnant propaganda? During the riots following the Rodney King trial, would it have been O.K. for "white America" to broadcast footage from the Rwandan genocide?

    [ Parent ]
    Argh! (3.25 / 4) (#419)
    by Oblomov on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 11:20:44 PM EST

    I made no such statement.

    Reading that paragraph, it was a simple animation to underline the point (again, no qualification from me) that Israel's policies toward palestinians are comparable to Nazi Germany's policies toward the Jews.

    A long shot away from the your interpretation that Egypt is preparing to build gas chambers.

    Let me remind you that Egypt is one of the few Arab states that actually recognises Israel and one of two Arab states that has a peace treaty with it.

    Troll.

    [ Parent ]

    More video footage (5.00 / 9) (#421)
    by Delirium on Wed Apr 03, 2002 at 11:37:08 PM EST

    Apparently the IDF has an informal arrangement where the major Israeli networks won't broadcast things it vetoes, and it vetoed this particular footage of the IDF violently entering a civilian home after shooting to death the woman inside as being "too embarrasing," but Israel's Channel 2 broke the informal arrangement and broadcast it anyway, creating a bit of a controversy.

    The footage with commentary on its circumstances and reaction to its airing in Israel courtesy of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.

    I don't understand (3.75 / 4) (#434)
    by Ken Pompadour on Thu Apr 04, 2002 at 12:25:57 AM EST

    From the tape:

    I don't know what we're doing here. Purification, maybe. It's dirty here. I don't know why a good Hebrew boy would be here.

    What did this woman do? Why did the Israelis kill her? Who gave the order? Were the soldiers acting of their own accord, or under order?



    ...The target is countrymen, friends and family... they have to die too. - candid trhurler
    [ Parent ]
    What would you do? (4.00 / 2) (#494)
    by pepperpusher on Thu Apr 04, 2002 at 06:10:57 AM EST

    Look, the situation is difficult: We got a suicide bomber everyday and the palestinian authority doesn't do anything about it (but keep sending them: proven). Palestinian terrorists who hide in the refugee camps use the following tactic: One sniper starts shooting from a house window, once a small troop is sent to kill him the whole house explodes. To avoid being hit israeli army goes from wall to wall (we had minimum casualties like that). Innocents are getting killed because they let terrorists hide in their homes, yet, sometimes, I guess panic