Who Shot Mohammed al-Dura?

by Sal Mon May 19, 2003 13:03

Your a sick sick person Avi!

by Ary H Mon May 19, 2003 13:36

sick and sad.

by Avi H. Mon May 19, 2003 13:49

Then make up your own mind. However, the truth is sometimes stranger than fiction. Naivity is not helpful in this context: remember the Palestinian allegations of a massacre in Jenin by the IDF, which turned out to be a fraud. The Palestinians certainly have every incentive to make such a thing up, if it didn't actually happen.

by @ Mon May 19, 2003 14:19

denial of things which didn't happen
denial of things which happened
distortion of things which happened
distortion of things that didn't happen
that sort of thing is really wrong isn't it?

by Gaillimhed Mon May 19, 2003 15:14

Yeah, and the murdered boy may or may not have been a martian but now well never know because his parents wont allow another autopsy.
Come on Avi, theres no concrete evidence in that whole article, merely the suggestion that there may or may not be some evidence, not fully realised, that may or may not strengthen or weaken an argument that may or may not be relevant.
Thats a pretty wishy-washy excuse for persuasive evidence avi.

by passive Mon May 19, 2003 18:35

In fairness, if the Palestinians wanted a dead kid for propaganda purposes, they could just wait a day or two for the Israeli army to kill a few. Why would they kill one themselves? I'm not into my anti-Zionist conspiracies, but I reckon you should probably rethink your original post.

by Des Mon May 19, 2003 19:01

Avi, you are a really lousy Zionist propagandist. On the other hand maybe you have a point, maybe Rachel Corrie committed suicide and the victims of Sabra Shatila were murdered by PLO fighters disguised as Phalangist or Haddad militia.

by David C Mon May 19, 2003 22:36

...and I was surprised that James Fallows would publish something as weak as this.

There's a picture in the article of the position of Mohammed and his dad sheltering behind a barrel, plus a diagram of the line of sight from the IDF post across the intersection and from the PA post across the street. The main claim of the article is that this barrel (which was riddled with IDF bullets) made it impossible for the IDF to have shot Mohammed and his dad.

But it is very obvious from the picture and from the diagram that Mohammed was only partially sheltered by the barrel and that an IDF sniper would only have to move a few feet to the left to have a clear line of sight at Mohammed. Mohammed's dad was more protected by the barrel, but was probably shot when he reacted to his son's shooting. I can't see how any other interpretation can be drawn from these pictures...

To me there is no question but that the IDF killed Mohammed (probably in cold blood, like they have done with so many other Palistinian kids - "10-year-old stone throwing terrorists", I guess), but it is really weird that the Atlantic and James Fallows would publish something like this. I guess the $800 million/year Israeli publicity machine are starting to pay attention to this...

by Avi H. Mon May 19, 2003 23:30

I don't agree with other contributors' conclusions. I think the evidence provided by the report is much more than enough to raise a resonable doubt. When you combine the evidence of the barrel with that of the angle of the bullet holes, and in the absence of any other evidence, it looks unlikely he was shot by the IDF.

Remember also that if you are going to convict someone of a capital crime, you need the case proven beyond reasonable doubt - unless of course you think that proof of guilt is for the bourgeoisie only or some twisted, fascist, capitalist, imperialist notion...

by David C Tue May 20, 2003 00:16

Hi Avi! Thanks for responding to my post!

I don't think anyone in the IDF is going to be charged with a capital crime - there is no death penalty in Israel, and IDF soldiers are never even procsecuted for killing palestinian kids.

I still think that anyone looking at the photos and the relative position of the IDF post can see that it is easily possible for an IDF bullets to have hit Mohammed. Imagine a bullet brushing the extreme left edge of the barrel as seen from the IDF post. Can you honestly say it would not have hit Mohammed? Come on, Avi! Be honest here! Even if this was not the case, the arrow in the diagram is shown coming from the corner of the IDF post with the worse line of sight. What about an arrow from the corner of the building with the best line of sight? Or in the middle of the building somewhere? (the IDF was definitely TRYING to hit Mohammed and his dad - even the article admits this). The argument in the article on this is very weak.

You bring up another good point, though, which is the angle of the bullet holes in the wall behind Mohammed. The article claims that these are too round to have been fired from the IDF position, because only bullets hitting concrete blocks at right angles would make round holes. Well, anyone who has ever worked with cheap, third-world cinder blocks will know that it doesn't take much to make a hole in them. The angle of the IDF bullets hitting the wall would have been steeper than 45 degrees - easily enough go in with no ricochet effect. The fact that the barrel was riddled with IDF bullets (admitted in the article) would also make it strange that no IDF bullets hit the wall behind Mohammed. All the bullets fired at Mohammed and his dad were IDF bullets intended to kill them (and NOT 'crossfire', as reported in the media)...

Face it, Avi - the IDF killed yet another Palestinian kid. The systemic reason for this (and for the many, many other dead kids in the West Bank & Gaza) was basically because the IDF (and Israeli society generally) values the lives of Palestinians far, far lower than they value the lives of Israelis. That disparity in the relative value of humam life is the root cause of the entire conflict, in my opinion...

by Avi H Tue May 20, 2003 08:22

Remember the presumption of innocence: you are working on a presumption of guilt, which means that you don't need much in the way of evidence to come to your conclusion. In fact, the ballistic tests were on the same type of block: in fact, to have done otherwise would have been meaningless, so that it will need extremely strong counter-evidence to convict. That just isn't there.

by Yossarian Tue May 20, 2003 10:09

Avi, you don't bleat about the presumed innocence of those unfortunates who fall into bomb jackets which later explode, also known as suicide bombers. Give us a break. Tell us about something relevant, like how far Israelis are prepared to go for peace. Would they stop building settlements? Would they remove all existing settlements on occupied territory? Would they leave a Palestine administration control all thw water under their land? Would they cede control of the currently occupied territories as contiginous entities instead of strips of land criss-crossed by Israeli highways as proposed in the "best deal ever" offered by Clinton and Barak? How about control of the borders wuth Jordan and Egypt, would Israel cede control of these?

Or what?

by kokomero Tue May 20, 2003 10:21

Avi,

how dare you insult our intelligence with this amateurish farce you call "evidence".

First the IDF general admits his soldiers "could" have killed the boy.

He the IDF and others then have second thoughts and begin what Haaretz describes as an amateurish investigation.

A group of webbloggers are cited as the core of the research effort.

And after 2 years the former hang-glider from California who is running the investigation says it may or may not have been a Palestinian gunman.

How do the IDF expect this shoddy attempt to change world opinion of what we all saw on our TV screens.

By the way their ballistics data is utter rubbish as a 7.62 armor piercing round used by the IDF in their M-16s perforates 15 mm armor plate at 300 m.

If it can penetrate 1.5cm of armor plate then it can penetrate the same amount of concrete and a little boys head.

by kokomero Tue May 20, 2003 10:49

Unlike Avi's Zionist propaganda, the Channel4 documentary "The killing zone" which I saw on Tuesday evening shows objectively the methods employed by the IDF in Gaza.

A sample of what was on offer from the IDF:

One can easily imagine how Rachel Corrie was crushed to death when you see ISM protestors playing cat and mouse with a monstrous IDF bulldozer, literally trying to hold it back with their hands, the soldier driving it uncaring about the fate of the protestors.

The documentary showed equally harrowing footage of Tom Hurndall being held up for 2 hours with his brain exposed while the ISM and the British Consulate negotiate with the IDF for safe passage after he was shot by an IDF sniper who failed to see him holding up his hands while shielding 3 small children in his flourescent jacket ... perhaps IDF soldiers are all colour-blind?

Also we saw footage of the 12 year-old girl Hedda who was blinded after being shot in the head while in her classroom by another IDF sniper in a nearby observation post. No doubt this was a legitimate action given Zionists claims that the Palestinian classroom is used for political indoctrination.

The daily IDF onslaught continues ....

by Avi H Tue May 20, 2003 15:33

Nothing I have heard so far provides conclusive evidence.

by David C Tue May 20, 2003 16:31

Even the IDF report claims that the IDF did it. Are they lying too?

You are defending a sociopathic state, Avi, which is destroying the Palistinian people AND the Jewish people.

The whole point of that article is to spread this kind of murky 'doubt' about what really happened -its a tactic also used by tobacco companies and by anti-semites who argue that the holocaust didn't happen. No doubt the Likudniks will also use it of spread doubt about their up-coming 'final solution to the Palistinian problem'. Violent land theft isn't pretty.

But there is no doubt. Mohammed, like many, many kids just like him, was killed by IDF soilders who just did not value his life. The world watched it on TV. The case is closed.

by phillip morris Tue May 20, 2003 17:06

wow, didnt realise the Tobacco companies denied the holocaust too!
Funny old world

by Ali H. Tue May 20, 2003 17:08

Saying Mohammed was not killed by the IDF is the same as saying the Nazis did not kill the Jews.

by kokomero Tue May 20, 2003 17:22

This is the usual Zionist genocide-denial position we can expect from people like Avi.

This type of nonsense propaganda is leveled in order to discredit all killings of Palestinian civilians since the start of the Intifada.

You Avi have the gall to attempt to sit in judgement on the killing of Palestinian civilians when you by your own admission have been involved in such actions.

We don't need your worthless opinion Avi and it doesn't change the fact that Mohammed and hundreds of other Palestinians have been murdered by the IDF, three of them for every Israeli killed by Palestinian terrorists.

All of this from an army armed with state-of-the-art smart weaponry. If the weapons are smart then they could not hit civilians by accident.

I put it to you Avi that the wholesale massacre of Palestinian civilians is a deliberate policy by the Israeli government.

by Avi H. Tue May 20, 2003 17:31

Sorry but hysterical ranting isn't evidence. It doesn't matter how many people do it...

by David C. Tue May 20, 2003 17:46

You're absolutely right - hysterical ranting isn't evidence, and there is clearly a lot of hysterical ranting going on on this thread...

But if you're honest about it Avi, you'd admit that you have a bit of ideology-driven bias as well...

Do you really think that stealing the West Bank and Gaza and subjugating, exterminating or ethnicly cleansing the Palestinians is going to make Israel more secure? (it has to be one of the 3). Or will that just make Israel more evil? (as demonstrated by the killing of little Mohammed).
This is an honest question...

by kokomero Tue May 20, 2003 18:36

All the "evidence" Avi can produce comes from a Californian hang-glider pilot who does a sideline in forensics ... need I say more?

by Ali H. Tue May 20, 2003 18:44

ARTICLE 37(a), The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child:“No child shall be subjected to torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”

The intentional targeting of children is certainly one of the most grotesque but crucial parts of the Israeli 'Security' (Ethnic Cleansing) Program in the Occupied Territories. Beyond the sheer horrifying nature of these atrocities themselves, they constitute grave breaches of International Law that beg for prosecution. Children are targeted in almost every conceivable way. Those involved in stone-throwing are often shot dead, blinded, or mamed by snipers, or else have their bones broken in beatings, detained and further tortured. Children not involved in any kind of demonstration, or even anywhere near one, are simply shot dead or blinded or otherwise mamed by Israeli snipers simply for the crime of being Palestinian children. These are not cases of collateral damage. Bullet holes repeatedly put through children's eyes and heads, which kill, blind, or produce profound brain damage are well-placed shots by well-trained snipers. Beatings and torture are clearly not cases of collateral damage either.



This 12 year old boy was shot dead by Israeli snipers for no apparent reason (March 2002)
This 6 year old Palestinian girl was shot dead during the April 2002 atrocities in Rafa
Picked up for stone throwing this boy had his bones broken during a lengthy period of 'interogation' before he was returned home
"The boys, most no more than ten or eleven years old, scatter, running clumsily across the heavy sand.....the bullets from the M-16 rifles tumble end over end through the children's slight bodies. Later, in the hospital, I will see the destruction: the stomachs ripped out, the gaping holes in limbs and torsos.....Yesterday at this spot the Israelis shot eight...This afternoon they kill an eleven-year-old boy, Ali Murad, and seriously wound four more......Children have been shot in other conflicts I have covered (in El Salvador and Guatemala, and Algeria, and Sarajevo)...but I have never before watched soldiers entice children like mice into a trap and murder them for sport." (Chris Hedges, Gaza Diary, Harper's Mag)
UNITED NATIONS HIGH COMMISSION FOR HUMAN RIGHTS(8-16 November 2000):
"..the injuries being sustained, including by young people, could only be consistent with a military response which was both excessive and inappropriate. With only minor regional variations, this pattern was, said the observers, repeated in different locations throughout the affected areas...

A high percentage of the injuries...have been to the upper part of their body, including a large number of eye injuries, some caused by the firing of "rubber" bullets at close range. The result is often the loss of an eye, but can also be severe brain damage or death...

A 15-year-old, now a parapalegic....a 14-year-old wounded in the arm and leg...a classmate had been shot and blinded in both eyes....

During just the 6 week period of the Commission for Human Rights study "...86 Palestinian children had been killed and over 3,000 injured, two to three hundred of whom, it is estimated, will have permanent disabilities."




Another 'terrorist' is captured by the the 'courageous' IDF, and taken in for 'interrogation' (beating, torture, mutilation)
Palestinian children are 'picked off' every day by Israeli soldiers or settlers.
Sniper fire directly to the head or through the eyes is not 'collateral damage'.
During the period of the study (which was not during a time when one of the larger scale massacres was going on) there was AN AVERAGE OF 68 PALESTINIAN CHILDREN KILLED, BLINDED, PERMANENTLY MAMED OR INJURED EVERY DAY although you won't see that reported in the American media.


Forced to sit in a container of water with live electric wires running into it, this 14 year-old was among those children held without being charged and tortured for over a year in Khiam (1).
(left) Another "brave" IDF soldier fights 'terrorism' at a checkpoint
"Like adult Palestinian prisoners, (children) are jammed into crowded, airless cells, denied adequate food, exercise, or sanitation facilities, and often beaten or tortured...(anonymous) a 9 year-old boy (was) hung by his heels by Israeli soldiers and beaten for three hours, suffering two broken bones and welts all over his body (2).
"The victims were youngsters aged fourteen to seventeen. In most of the cases, the police arrested them at their homes in the middle of the late night and took them to the police station in Gush Etzion, where police interrogators tortured them until morning. The police objective was to obtain confessions and information about other minors. The methods of torture described in the report included: Forcing the minors to stand in painful positions for prolonged periods; Beating the minors severely for many hours, at times with the use of various objects; Splashing cold water on the detainees in the facility's courtyard in wintry conditions; Pushing the minor's head into the toilet bowl and flushing the toilet "(B'Tselem).
(B'Tselem)(Subject a) "The interrogator said that he was going to electrocute me and I would die...I felt the sensation of two iron wires being stuck on me...(later) I was taken to the room where Ahmad Sabatin was. The interrogators began to beat him right in front of me..."

by David C. Tue May 20, 2003 19:07

And don't forget the 90 Israeli kids killed since Sharon took his little walk to the wall...They were not responsible for Israeli state terror...

by Yossarian Wed May 21, 2003 10:15

I wasn't being hysterical at all, Avi, I asked you some perfectly reasonable questions which you have not yet answered.

by Joseph Anderson Wed May 21, 2003 16:16

GOOD MORNING, MOSHE -- Thoughts on Israel, Palestine
by Angie -- Posted by Joseph Anderson Wed, May 21 2003, 7:30am

There is no law that states Israel is set apart, that says it cannot be judged on its conduct, that it can kill at will, disregard international law, and moral, ethical and judicial conduct. So why is this tyrannical behaviour allowed to continue?

Originally from webpage http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2003/05/1607372_comment.php#1609212
[Slightly edited, generally for punctuation and clarity.]
====================================================

Good Morning, Moshe -- Thoughts on Israel, Palestine

Good Morning, Moshe,

My unhappiness with Israel is based on history, and works by well-known and respected authors, as well as television news reports. I do not consider my sources to be propaganda, malicious or otherwise; nor do I believe that facts and figures in libraries around the world are sources of propaganda either.

Israel's inability, since its formation, to be upfront and honest is legendary. It's always been, “Poor us... We didn't do it... It was their fault... It was self-defence... It was…” -- and on and on, ad nauseam. A peace activist, a journalist, a UN worker murdered. “It wasn't our fault.” There is never an apology. Always going to be an "investigation." We are used to it by now--even though we do not accept it and know it to be untrue.

Remember the night time bombing of an apartment building in July, 2002, wherein not only was Salah Shehadeh, a Hamas leader, killed, but fourteen civilians, nine children, hundreds injured. And there was Sharon, the real butcher of the Middle East, gleefully telling the cameras, "This operation, in my view, was one of our biggest successes." Nine children murdered. And we get, “[it] was one of our biggest successes.” Please!

We were told that the people of Israel were "horrified" at the massacre, and I'm sure they were. In the same breath Peres was telling us it was "self-defence." Please! Israel NEVER says it's wrong. And that is very, very SAD. There is no responsibility for its cruelty and savagery. It is always the fault of the other party. I don't like it, my friend. I simply do not like it at all. AND THIS IS JUST ONE EXAMPLE.

Civilized nations would have arrested Shehadeh and charged him for his crimes, if any, and a court would assign his guilt or innocence. Imagine if every country assassinated alleged offenders? Yet Israel goes on its murderous way, knocking off one so-called militant after another, blowing up another house, sometimes with people inside (as was the case back in 1954, in another massacre led by Sharon).

With respect to the recent conflict, Ariel Sharon knew damn well what he was doing when he puffed his way to Temple Mount, accompanied by his thugs, on September 28th, 2000. He had been asked not to do this (we are told by a brilliant PBS documentary regarding the Clinton-led peace talks), but knowing the Palestinian psyche, he went ahead anyway. We see the result.

The Israeli Government loves tossing around the word "terrorist," but it ignores its own terrorist leaders, like Shamir and Begin, who had their gangs in Palestine in the ’40’s and ’50’s, then went on to become Prime Ministers of Israel. And now Sharon.

We remember the 1982 invasion of Lebanon, some 17,000-plus slaughtered, mostly civilians. We recall the refugee camp massacres at Sabra and Shatila, with mass graves still being located. "It wasn't our fault," even though Sharon was found "indirectly responsible" by an Israeli commission of inquiry.

I've seen Fergal Keane's brilliant "The Accused," and I've read the tirade of abuse that was hurled at him. Why are you bringing this up twenty years later, friends of Israel demanded to know. They forget that Israel, even to this day, is still hunting down war criminals fifty years later.

It's the double standard that angers me, my friend. Strange as it may be for Israel to believe, it is no more important to the scheme of things than any other nation on earth, than any other peoples on earth. Israelis, despite what they seem to think, are just people. So are we all. They are no better than anyone else. They are not superior to anyone else. A siege mentality is not applicable here unless it suits the Israeli image, of course.

Brilliant Canadian, Gwynne Dyer, devoted Part 3 of his critically acclaimed series, "War," to Israel. It is a history lesson in itself.

Robert Fisk and John Pilger give us a rational and honest, not to mention courageous, coverage of events in the Middle East. The fact that they are constantly vilified for their work is proof they are telling the truth. Israeli writer, Israel Shamir, I also trust. Even Ha'aratz had a headline recently claiming "He Must be Stopped," referring to Sharon.

The Israeli army is out of control. The killing of James Miller on Saturday, and it was, “Oh, we (Israel) didn't do it.” Rachel Corrie was run over by a bulldozer. “It was her fault.” Two other peace activists were shot, one in a coma, and when his parents come to visit they are shot at. What is it, Moshe? What has this army become? This is not self-defence. This is murder.

I look at the images on television, and I see the hovels the Palestinians are living in. I see the hopelessness, the utter despair. It's as if they are living in an open-air prison or worse. This is what your country has done to another people. And you expect us not to be angry?

There is no work, no money, children going to school with tanks, guns, missiles everywhere. The horrific effect this must be having on these children is unimaginable. Some of them have never known any other kind of life. It is tragic. And if they fight back in the only way they can, they are terrorists. If they are, my friend, so is the Israeli army.

The suicide bombers who blow up Israeli civilians and property are guilty of murder as well, but one does not make the other less guilty. Perhaps if the Palestinians had their own army and equal weaponry, then we could call this conflict a "war," as Sharon likes to refer to it.

I am happy to know you are helping out in any way you can. Others should follow your example. I am sure that there are good, decent people in Israel just as there are in any nation of the world. Sadly, these are not the ones we see or hear.

It is only the horror we hear about. Daily on our news reports we hear, "The Israeli army shot and killed…," and another number of Palestinians, mostly civilians, are being buried by their grieving families. And every time we're always told that, "It was self-defence. We were attacked," etc., etc. Sorry, my friend, I do not believe it.

The Palestinians, or anyone else for that matter, have a right to fight for their people, their freedom, and fight in the only way they know (or can) with the limited resources they have. We are not talking about a level playing field here, are we?

Vilifying Israel, incidentally, is no different than Israel vilifying anyone else, and as you know, they do it well. Spreading hate against Israel is no different than Israel spreading hate against anyone else.

There is no law that states Israel is set apart, that says it cannot be judged on its conduct, that it can kill at will, disregard international law, and moral, ethical and judicial conduct. So why is this tyrannical behaviour allowed to continue? Why is it encouraged by the Israeli leadership with help from the U.S.? The only one responsible for the actions of Israel is Israel itself.

Those of us who write our thoughts, for the most part, are doing so out of a genuine concern for our fellow humankind, and I don't care much if it is Israel or any other country on earth. If I believe something is wrong, I shall point it out in any forum available. If you consider us spreading "hate" because we dare criticize Israel, then that is your problem, not ours.

The situation in Israel (and in the terrortories [an apt typo: where Israel is the terrorist]) is not so complex that a little truth and compassion cannot create understanding. Voting out the Likud party and its fanatics might be a start.

Oh, and, Moshe, it is not up to us, who comment, to visit Israel and stop what we believe are atrocities committed against the Palestinians. The ISM (the Int’l Solidarity Movement) hasn't fared too well in its efforts to protect the civilian population, has it? We can (and do) write letters to our governmental representatives, etc., but this is [really] up to the people of Israel.

Angie

related link: sf.indymedia.org/news/2003/05/1607372_comment.php#1609212

add your comments
COMMENTS

Cut and Paste
by Avi H. Wed, May 21 2003, 7:51am

This sort of hysterical tirade is all very well but could we have a bit of balance, please? Just in case contributors haven't seen the news lately, in the last week, it is quite clear the Palestinians have - as usual but a bit more than usual - been totally out of control and on a murder rampage deliberately targeting innocents.

Query
by ??? Wed, May 21 2003, 8:02am

What or who is an "innocent"?

Trail Israeli breaking of international law provide a context
by Ali H. Wed, May 21 2003, 8:48am

As non-Zionists know there are underlying reasons why Palestinians (and Israelis) have arrived in their present situation.

Israel and the US actions in the Middle-east have led directly or indirectly to the radicalization of an entire generation of Arabs. The encouragement of radical Islam is down to US funding and training in Afghanistan and Israeli actions in Lebanon and elsewhere.

The injustice perpetrated by Israel with US support on a daily basis including murder of civilians by IDF occupation forces must end now. The UN resolutions must be complied with, the international community and justice demand it.

For those not aware of the UN resolutions Israel is in breach of for the last 55 years:

On December 11 1948, the UN General Assembly passed Resolution 194, stating that Palestinian refugees who wish to return to their homes should be permitted to do so and that those who do not wish to return should be compensated by the state of Israel.

In response to the six-day war in 1967, the UN Security Council passed Resolution 242, which calls for the "withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict [in official UN languages other than English the article "the" precedes "territories," thus implying that Israel has to return all the conquered territory]; termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every state in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force." This resolution, with its formula of "land for peace," is the basis of for all subsequent peace negotiations between Israel, Palestinians, and the surrounding Arab states.

In 1973 following the Yom-Kippur war the UN Security Council passed Resolution 338, which calls for an immediate cease-fire and the immediate commencement of negotiations toward the implementation of UNSCR 242 with the goal of "establishing a just and durable peace in the Middle East."

In 1988 the UN General Assembly passed Resolution 53/196, which "reaffirmed the inalienable rights of" Palestinians and Syrians in the Golan, called on Israel not to exploit natural resources in the occupied territories.

In 1993 the PLO gave up its claims to Israel’s territory as defined by its borders before the 1967 war. The Palestinians also agreed to end the Intifada and establish security in the West Bank and Gaza.

Israel has proposed handing over a walled Bantustan perforated by Israeli settlements, roads and security installations, sealed within Israeli fortifications, a glorified jail.

Palestinians believe they should not have to accept less than 100% of the West Bank and Gaza because the total of both territories only comprises 22% of what was originally Palestine.

Palestinians also view the Israeli proposal as unacceptable because it would divide the Palestinian state into disconnected regions; a situation that would not free them from Israeli occupation and would not make for a truly independent state.

The Palestinians and the international community expect that they have control over 100% of the West bank and their borders. Anything else does not constitute a state or a settlement.

Avi
by pat c Wed, May 21 2003, 8:57am

Was strangely silent about the murder of 50 Palestinians by the I"D"F in the 2 weeks leading up to the latest wave of Suicide Bombings.

Israelis use sledgehammers to crack a walnuts
by kokomero Wed, May 21 2003, 9:32am

Indeed Pat,

the motivation for many of these deadly incursions was the firing of home-made Qassam missiles (glorified fireworks from what could be seen on Channel 4s "killing zone" program earlier in the week) accross the Israeli prison-wall around Gaza.

These weapons are completely ineffective according to IDF spokesmen and have caused no Israeli deaths, minimal injuries (a few slightly injured out of 1100 attacks) and no loss of property, and are used as a pretext for massive loss of life and property inflicted by the IDF on the Palestinians.

For instance on May 16th 2003 Israeli troops seized a Gaza town on Thursday and five Palestinians were killed, including a 12-year-old boy and two 15-year-olds, in response to the firing of these weapons in the direction of Sderot, an Israeli town about a half mile from the Gaza border fence and well out of their range.

Despite the known ineffectiveness of these weapons Israel and pro-Israeli lobby groups in the US have been trying to talk up the threat posed by these weapons, and longer weapons Israeli sources claim are in development, exagerating their range and accuracy as a cover for their disproportionate military response, primarily against Palestinian civilians and property, rather than trying to look for a peaceful resolution of the conflict.

related link: www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-meast16.html

Innocents
by Avi H. Wed, May 21 2003, 9:39am

Innocents are the old people, children, mothers, dads, anyone in fact, killed in a suicide bombing in Israel or anywhere else. I would also include Cirill Sharmenko, 23, from Afula, who kept the suicide bomber out of the shopping mall by jumping on her at the entrance in the latest attack. He prevented far greater loss of life and is a hero, although he paid with his own life.

And of course, there is a universe of difference between people killed inadvertently by the IDF and people killed deliberately suicide bombers. Israel never, ever deliberately targets innocent civilians. I know. Trust me.

By the way, if it goes on like this, with their refusal to stop indiscriminate extremist murders, the Palestinians will just wind up even more well and truly beaten than they already are: it's not Israel that's going down, it's them.

Zionist racism even in death
by Ali H. Wed, May 21 2003, 9:47am

Zionist racism even in death ... Avi says only Israeli victims are innocent ... the Palestinians had it coming ... (whoops ... I didn't mean to kill them ... I was only joking as I was aiming at his head and my finger slipped on the trigger ... I was only trying to push her out of the way with my 50-ton bulldozer ...) ... and by the way ... believe me ... I Avi the honest broker and independent source ... but ... "I've been there when targeting happened".

Enough of the excuses, get out of Palestine and back to the 1967 borders now!

And another thing...
by Avi H. Wed, May 21 2003, 10:42am

Who did the land belong to in 1967? Not the PLO at all, the Jordanians. Here are some facts:

1) The Jordanians have renounced their claim to it forever.

2) The last war the Jordanians fought was not with Israel, it was with the PLO - to chuck it out of Jordan.

3) Most Jordanians are Palestinians

4) If the Palestinians want to live in a Palestinian state, all they need to do is move 10-15 miles to the East, to Jordan: it ain't so different.

5) Virtually all Jewish settlements (so-called, most of them are now modern, prosperous towns and cities)were built on land where no Arabs lived at all.

6) Only one state is viable West of the Jordan, because the whole area is so small (smaller than Wales). Since the Palestinians already have a state (Jordan) and the Arabs have 23 states in all and the Jews have only one, are the world's most picked on people eve now and have nowhere else to go, why can't it be the Jewish state?

None of the above is an excuse for violating international law
by Ali H. Wed, May 21 2003, 11:22am

1) The Jordanians have renounced their claim to it forever.

>> This does not entitle Israel to ethnically cleanse the westbank as you suggest in 4

2) The last war the Jordanians fought was not with Israel, it was with the PLO - to chuck it out of Jordan.

>> Not relevant as 99.9% of Jordanians wish to see a Palestinian state in the west bank.

3) Most Jordanians are Palestinians

>> So what? Maybe this is news to you ....

4) If the Palestinians want to live in a Palestinian state, all they need to do is move 10-15 miles to the East, to Jordan: it ain't so different.

>> Excuse for ethnic cleansing? Didn't the Serbs and others use similar arguments?

5) Virtually all Jewish settlements (so-called, most of them are now modern, prosperous towns and cities)were built on land where no Arabs lived at all.

>> Settlements have been built in contravention to UN resolutions and must be dismantled. The world doesnt care how much they cost to build etc. You are squatting on land that is not yours and will eventually be evicted or have to leave.

6) Only one state is viable West of the Jordan, because the whole area is so small (smaller than Wales). Since the Palestinians already have a state (Jordan) and the Arabs have 23 states in all and the Jews have only one, are the world's most picked on people eve now and have nowhere else to go, why can't it be the Jewish state?

>> This is rubbish as we know in Europe. Perhaps with your limited knowledge and understanding of anything outside Israel you have never heard of Lichtenstein, Andorra, San Marino etc. etc.

Viability has nothing to do with size. It has much more to do with learning to live and trade with your neighbours.

I'm quite sure Israel would be very viable if they invested in and traded with their neighbours rather than investing a vast proportion of their GDP in maintaining the worlds 4th largest standing army armed with WMD including nuclear weapons.

None of these arguments are strong ones.
by Avi H. Wed, May 21 2003, 11:40am

Try again.

Incidentally,
by Avi H. Wed, May 21 2003, 11:45am

The international law argument is a particularly weak one, as the UN resolutions do not have the force of law and in any case, the relevant ones do not say what you think they do. The main one, 242, gives no legitimacy whatever to the Palestinian claim to this land. The West Bank never, ever belonged to the PLO or the Palestinians. In fact, Israel has a much, much stronger relative claim - both historically and currently due to facts on the ground.

Avi
by Gaillimhed Wed, May 21 2003, 11:52am

Oh my God i could strangle that Avi.
Listen man, you are doing more damage to Israel than good, you have yet to convince anyone that Israel is in any way defencible, never mind deserving of complete exhoneration of its crimes as you constantly extoll. What you do achieve with your minimalist cut and paste drivel and your doublethink evasive comments is to illustrate to everyone here the depths of ignorance and arrogance that underlies your shameless defence of the inhuman and criminal regime of the state of israel.

stay tuned for the 'anti-semite' knee-jerk reaction from Avi.

Claims
by Yossarian Wed, May 21 2003, 12:16pm

Avi: "In fact, Israel has a much, much stronger relative claim - both historically and currently due to facts on the ground."

Yossarian; So, it is written by jewish people in an arguably fictional book over 2000 years ago that the jewish people have a right to some land in the middle east (historical claim).
Israel now has military control over the whole territory and nobody can do anything unless Israel agrees (current claim) ie doesn't matter how we got here, we're here now so we have a right to be here forever.

Also from an earlier post...

Innocence
by Yossarian Tue, May 20 2003, 9:09am

Avi, you don't bleat about the presumed innocence of those unfortunates who fall into bomb jackets which later explode, also known as suicide bombers. Give us a break. Tell us about something relevant, like how far Israelis are prepared to go for peace. Would they stop building settlements? Would they remove all existing settlements on occupied territory? Would they leave a Palestine administration control all thw water under their land? Would they cede control of the currently occupied territories as contiginous entities instead of strips of land criss-crossed by Israeli highways as proposed in the "best deal ever" offered by Clinton and Barak? How about control of the borders wuth Jordan and Egypt, would Israel cede control of these?

Or what?

related link: www.indymedia.ie/cgi-bin/newswire.cgi?id=48968&start=20

No valid counterarguments so far...
by Avi H. Wed, May 21 2003, 12:57pm

As far as I can see, you haven't answered any of my arguments - you have simply restated your assertions, only with somewhat more invective. These territories are at best disputed territories. It is the Palestinians who say they are theirs and the Israelis who say they are theirs. Get it? That's a dispute. Only for some reason, you adopt the Palestinian position without even questioning it. In fact, it is quite possible to make the argument, and I would, that it is the Palestinians who are trying to ethnically cleanse the Jews by force and not the other way round. Witness, the ongoing suicide bombings. You see, we don't mind if the Palestinians live among us, but they don't want us to live among them. Why not? What's wrong with Jews, anyway?

Trust me
by Simpson eh? Wed, May 21 2003, 1:06pm

Avi - I do not trust you. Nor could I ever trust an apologist for Sharon & the IDF's atrocities. If there is a war between the Palestinians and Israelis then there have been a multitude of war crimes on both sides.

I am still not anti-semitic or pro-suicide bombing (just anticipating the conclusions you usually draw from anything remotely criticising Israel).

Invective by the truckload
by Avi H. Wed, May 21 2003, 2:16pm

Invective doesn't really get us anywhere: you see, I could just turn round and say that you are an apologist for Palestinian atrocities. In any case, as I have said many times before, the Israel and the IDF do not deliberately commit atrocities. Israel is actually a very civilised country, believe it or not.

Israeli Anschluss
by Ali H. Wed, May 21 2003, 2:18pm

Avi,

you and other Zionists don't get to sit in judgement over what goes and doesn't in Palestine ... get it?

The only people who classify the West Bank as disputed territories are Zionists, the 99.9% of the worlds population represented by the UN suffers from no such illusions as to the intent behind UN resolutions, ie to give the Palestinians a fully independent state with control over all aspects of life including security and borders.

The reason Jordan renounced claims to the west-bank was not to enable an ISRAELI ANSCHLUSS, it was to enable a broader peace deal to be put in place.

You say you don't mind if the Palestinians live among you, as long as, to quote you, they know their place as "behaving like animals". I'm sure they're queueing up to be let back in as second or third class citizens (after all of the African Jews)in your facist state as we speak!

In any case what you are saying about them being welcome to live in Israel is a LIE and direct contradiction to your other posts in recent weeks denying the Palestinians the right to return and even to compensation to the 700,000 Palestinian refugees for 55 years of forced exile from their own homes and villages hundreds of which were razed by Israeli terrorists.

Wrong, wrong, wrong
by Avi H. Wed, May 21 2003, 2:28pm

The previous post is so wrong is so many ways, I don't know where to begin in refuting it. So I don't think I'll bother: I'm just going off for a cup of coffee and a peanut butter sandwich instead.

Mind you.
by Avi H. Wed, May 21 2003, 2:31pm

I have to say, mind you, that there are an awful lot of ignorant, arrogant people taking up anti-Israel positions on this site.

Avi
by Zorro Wed, May 21 2003, 2:46pm

I hope you develop a spontaneous allergy to peanuts and die in agony.

by Avi H. Wed May 21, 2003 16:56

of the idiot is just aggression. Looks like I will be needing my Galil for some time yet...

by Yossarian Wed May 21, 2003 18:32

These questions posed for the third time this post:

Give us a break. Tell us about something relevant, like how far Israelis are prepared to go for peace. Would they stop building settlements? Would they remove all existing settlements on occupied territory? Would they leave a Palestine administration control all thw water under their land? Would they cede control of the currently occupied territories as contiginous entities instead of strips of land criss-crossed by Israeli highways as proposed in the "best deal ever" offered by Clinton and Barak? How about control of the borders wuth Jordan and Egypt, would Israel cede control of these?

Or what?

by kokomero Wed May 21, 2003 21:56

Avi is incapable of answering a direct question especially where a truthful response does not support the Zionist cause. He prefers to disappear when his views are contested.

His activity on this site could be characterised as "mordi e fuggi" (bite and run away).

In any case we already know what he thinks and it isn't pretty. Come to think of it what Avi usually posts can't really be described as thought, more a conditioned reflex to anything he believes is anti-Israeli.

If he thought a little more before posting ....

by Ali H. Thu May 22, 2003 09:59

The last refuge of the idiot is agression ... and you'll be holding on to your Galil assault rifle ...