The Party Line: ‘Palestinians attack, Israelis respond’

[idontwantaname]

please visit weblink below for links to stories in haaretz and JP.com

---------------------------------

In an attempt to disguise the current Israeli military operations in Nablus as a response to the suicide bombing in Tel-Aviv, the Israeli media are either directly lying that the military entered Nablus “in response to the terror attack” (Jerusalem Post) or strongly implying the same by saying the army is there “in wake of Tel Aviv blast” (Ha’aretz).

In actual fact, house occupations and shootings of Palestinian children by Israeli soldiers in Nablus were underway well before the bombing. Furthermore, the military have been in and out of Nablus almost constantly over the last week. The Ha’aretz news timeline today directly contradicts the claim by the Jerusalem Post and even the strong implication that it was a “response” in the headline of their own story. At 12:34, the timeline refers to an AP wire report covering the military operations in Nablus: “Palestinian youth shot by Israeli troops during W. Bank protest” (note that there is no mention of the Tel-Aviv bombing in this story). The bombing does not appear in the Ha’aretz site’s timeline until over an hour after the Nablus story was filed: 13:43.

<snip>

It is possible that the military operation intensified in Nablus after the Tel-Aviv bombing. But the Israeli media were ignoring the story about Israeli jeeps rolling into Nablus before it became possible for them to re-cast the incursion as a ‘response to terrorism’. A response to what is often refered to as ‘irrational, unprovoked, fanatical terrorism’. All this despite the fact that the Israeli army has been shelling civilian areas in Gaza for the past 12 days killing at least eighteen people, including at least two children with many more injured. We in the general public might be niave to think that terrorism is defined as the deliberate targeting of civilians, regardless of their natonality, but it would seem that the major media defines Israeli bombing of Palestinians as “counter-terrorism” almost by definition.

<snip>

http://www.palsolidarity.org/main/2006/04/17/the-party-line-palestinians-attack-israelis-respond/

[tatertop]

1. thank you for finding... the rest of the story

[idontwantaname]

3. some may not trust ISM

but they risk physical injury to report 1st hand accounts of what happens in the occupied west bank... or as you said 'the rest of the story'

[tatertop]

4. ISM is reporting done by peace keepers - as honest as it gets

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

2. That has been their MO since Golan Heights.

They creep into the area, someone responds to it, and then they claim they need to fight against "unprovoked" attacks. It's total bullshit.

Boil it down like this - if Canada started sending troops down into Montana and making "settlements" in New York, you bet your ass we'd respond with force. And then, if Canada were Israel, they'd claim we made "unprovoked attacks" at them and are going to start using their full military power to
"respond". Fucking nonsense.

[cali]

5. Not such a great analogy.

If you think that today's suicde attack is justified, why not just say so? It does, however diminish the legitimacy of your outrage. I would hope that if Canada invaded I wouldn't sneak across the border and blow up civilians. I condemn the Occupation. I condemn the actions of the IDF and I condemn acts like the suicide bombing today.

[number6]

6. there's a difference between understanding motivation

and thinking something is justified .....

my opinion is that no one on DU thinks,

"today's suicide attack is justified"

but we can look at motivation ...

[cali]

7. It really doesn't matter

what the motivation is, anymore than it matters what the motivation of the Israeli shelling is. It's one thing to be sympathetic to the Palestinians living under Occupation, but it's another to suggest that motivation mitigates an act such as a suicide bombing of civilians.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

8. I did not say suicide bombings are legitimate.

However, when the Israeli government sees it as okay to kill civilians and provoke attacks, I find it hard to be outraged when someone actually fights back. I don't support the killing of civilians on either side, but I'm not going to pretend this was a one-sided, unprovoked affair.

[cali]

9. It's a constant cycle of provocation and attack with

both sides participating. And it's clear your outrage is directed only at one side. Blowing up civilians is not fighting back. Your statement that: "I find it hard to be outraged when someone actually fights back." belies the following statement that "I don't support the killing of civilians on either side," Words count.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

10. So tell me then - what IS fighting back?

Attacking army installations when you have nothing but homemade weapons that aren't going to do a damn thing against tanks and fighter jets (all of which are bought with American taxpayer money, I might add). I'm sorry, but I don't see how those two statements are a contradiction. Do you expect unarmed peasants to actually fight a war against a well-trained, well-armed military?

It's fucking horrible to say, but fighting back for these people is doing anything. And while I don't support them blowing up civilians, it's incredibly difficult for me to well-up any significant outrage.

As far as my outrage only being directed at one side, perhaps it feels that way because everyone else in this country directs their outrage at the OTHER side. Few in this country speak out against the blatant human rights violations by the Israeli government against the Palestinian people, yet even despite the well noted terror attacks committed by the Palestinian people, nearly every human rights organization lists far and away more violations by the Israeli government. Yet how many in this country actually hear about it? And the ones who do hear about it dismiss them as being anti-Semitic, even though there are groups like B'Tselem that are founded by former Knesset members that speak out against these atrocities. I fully admit that my outrage is directed at primarily one side, but that side has gotten a disproportionate lack of attention within the U.S. When 75% of all Israeli murders are reported on the front pages of our newspapers while only 5% of all Palestinian murders are ever reported at all, you start feeling like you have to be a little one-sided to level things off a bit. (Source: If Americans Only Knew)

[cali]

11. I agree that the U.S. press

does an atrocious job covering the I/P conflict. It is terribly unfair and one sided. That's not true on DU. True too, is that the charge of anti-semitism is used too often for the purposes of stifling debate. In any case, it isn't the fault of Israeli civilians that the U.S. press does such a poor job. I find your lack of outrage about these deaths disturbing.

There is no way for the Palestinians to fight militarily against the Israelis, but had they mounted an organized non-violent campaign against the Occupation, they'd have the moral high ground. They'd also, in all likelihood, have far greater sympathy and understanding from the West, including the U.S. What a shame that the Palestinians have never had a Gandhi or MLK. It would be much easier to effectively fight for the Palestinians in the theater of public opinion if they didn't undermine their own cause by carrying out and supporting suicide attacks.

My strong opposition to the Israeli Occupation and the tactics they use against the Palestinians doesn't translate into understand that: " fighting back for these people is doing anything." Essentially, I see what you're saying as, too bad, but they deserved it. If you're outraged about the deaths of innocent civilians on one side you should be outraged by the deaths of innocent civilians on the other side. To do anything else is simply to say that some innocent lives are worth more than others.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

12. Let me ask a stupid question

Why is it that people always demands the Palestinians take the non-violent "moral high ground" route? Why should we expect a largely disorganized and impoverished people to take the high ground when we don't expect the well funded highly organized Israeli government to take the high ground?

Let's weigh the circumstances: The Palestinian people have seen increasing numbers of Israeli settlements over the years throughout their lands. They see a military that has had no qualms about collateral damage and have seen the Israeli people elect leaders like Sharon that have absolutely reveled in their bloodshed. For them, taking the moral high ground means risking being wiped off the face of the earth. Maybe that's a bit much, but that's how they feel. Now, for the Israelis, they have a vastly superior army and the backing of the only superpower in the world. If they simply laid down their weapons and took the moral high ground for a while, even if anything were to happen to them, they have the means and the support to immediately reverse course and minimize the problem. The same absolutely cannot be said for the Palestinian people. They cannot rely on the United States, because quite frankly, there are a lot of people here that wouldn't mind seeing them wiped off the face of the earth.

So tell me - why do you hold the Palestinians to a higher standard than the Israelis? Why do you demand that they take the moral high ground but not Israel?

[pelsar]

13. it is a stuiped question......

because it shows ignorence of the cultures and peoples involved. The israeli "weakness" if you will is the fact that in a "good" day the vast majority of the population doesnt give two shits about the palestenains...unless they feel threatened. In that case they let the IDF and other security forces deal with it...and they're lack of interest in how its done keeps the those bleeding hearts in Tel Aviv "happy". (and lets the settlers get away with what they do.)

using arms against the IDF which beat back several times multiple attacking armies is if not stuiped, foolish

if however, the palestenians went non violent, non violent to the point where it was clear to all involved that this was the new mantra...massive sit down protests on the roads to the settlements, (as what started in intifada I), the IDF and all its tanks and helicopters would be useless. Their soldiers would have no idea what to do, as they are not trained in non violent protests. They would have two choices either massacre the protesters (on live TV) or give in.

finding the enemies weakness is how to win...

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

14. The IDF has shot children at funerals.

They bulldoze homes of suspected terrorists with women and children still inside. They fire missiles into crowded city streets from fighter jets. And they do this regularly.

What in the world makes you think the Palestinian people would put it past the Israelis to opt for the massacre? When you read about Palestinians genuinely fearing an open genocide if Netanyahu took over the country, what makes you think they'd even consider for a moment that the Israelis wouldn't opt for the massacre?

I'm sorry, but it is you that has a complete and utter lack of understanding of the cultures involved.

[pelsar]

16. ignorence is probably easiest....

what makes you think they'd even consider for a moment that the Israelis wouldn't opt for the massacre?

probably because i'm familiar with both cultures, including many IDF soldiers, and have a pretty good understanding of what makes them tick.....

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

17. Your assertion sounds quite laughable.

And you've done absolutely nothing to refute my comments except to expose your direct bias.

[pelsar]

18. your scenario...

as i understand it, is that the palestenians (lets call the number around 500)..would be sitting down on a road..and not moving. The IDF in a couple of jeeps, etc would then pull up and the soldiers would then get out, put their weapons on automatic and "mow down" all the palestenains sitting there.

is that correct?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

22. That's not MY scenario.

That THEIR scenario. That's how THEY see it happening. It's not true, but given their circumstances, I don't blame them for believing it.

[pelsar]

33. do you even know any palestenains?

because the ones i know, actually know the IDF, what they do and dont do.....and such a scenerio is not one of them.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

36. I guarantee I know a lot more of them than you do. (nt)

[pelsar]

43. I wouldnt doubt that...

but then I probably know a few more israelis than you do....

I'm not sure the relevance of the quantity as much as the understanding of the motives behind each culture. And though i have limited knowledge of the palestenian culture (and will not assume i understand much of it) i can say that your understanding of the israeli culture is very limited at best.



btw do you speak arabic? and can read the local papers? or is your knowledge limited to the english speakers?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

44. I don't know arabic.

I do read the English translations of many Israeli and Palestinian newspapers regularly, including JPost and Haaretz.

And I don't dispute my understanding of Israeli culture is much more limited than that of Palestinians. Quantity does factor into the equation - you can't really claim to know the culture by knowing only a few people. It's not a pissing contest - that's just how you garner knowledge.

[pelsar]

46. your limiting yourself...

much of a culture is embetted within the language...more than that, only a certain specific part of the palestenain culture knows english.....one cant understand a culture without knowing its language, translations are someone elses interpretations of those culture.(talking to the cab driver, with 5 kids will show a far different view from the univ student...)

more so the english info coming out of the palestenain areas are far more limited than the jpost or haaretz, infact from what i can tell its almost non existant in terms of the internal politics, which further limits the knowledge base.

whereas i will not claim to speak for the palestenains on what they believe, on what is less important to them or what is more important, i can do so for the israelis..and in that respect since you do claim that your knowledge of the israeli culture is limited, perhaps instead of telling us what we believe, it would be less egotistical to listen to how we see things?..and accept those views as part of the equation?

[cali]

19. So your direct bias is OK

but pelsar's isn't? I find his bias understandable, even if I don't agree with him most of the time. He lives there. He has a direct stake in every little thing that happens. Do you? The most important thing about having a bias is to recognize it as such.

[pelsar]

20. but i try.....

biased yes...but ignorent....no......i would suggest that my desire for the palestenains to have their own country is actually far greater than many here. The difference is that I'm also looking beyond the mere establishment of a country but also want a country that wont follow in the footsteps of iran, syria, lebanon...meaning a country that has strong democratic institutions that also understand the concept of responsability for ones actions. That requires some change in the local culture, a difficult task at best, but one that is essential for the long term.

btw in principle i actually agree with you that israel does have more responsability than the palestenains, it being the major regional power, but it doesnt absolve the palestenains from their own responsabilities.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

25. They just democratically elected their government.

And while you claim it will require a "change in the culture" (which I might add smacks of racism), what it really required was a change in government. Palestine has not been very unified when it comes to control of the area. Yes, the PA and Arafat were "in charge" for quite a while, but for one, they weren't democratically elected, and for another, they hardly even held influence over all of the terrorist and political groups working within the Palestinian regions. They have very little governmental infrastructure, and thanks to decisions like the ones by EU and the US, they will continue to have very little governmental infrastructure with which to actually hold terrorist groups responsible. No one's even giving Hamas a chance to rule, even though it's guaranteed to be a vastly different situation when you actually have a system of accountability in place (which is starting to be formed).

[pelsar]

29. so the palestenaisn are absolved of being responsable...

they will continue to have very little governmental infrastructure with which to actually hold terrorist groups responsible

it could be very easily argued that such a view "smacks of racism" as if the palestenains arent responsable for their own culture. The palestenian culture is one of their own making, yes there were countless influences from both within and with out, all of that has absolutely no bearing on their own responsabilities toward their own. (just as israel is responsable for its own culture, be it the settlers or the IDF)

The various security services are all part of the PA, it was they who developed them, paid them, gave them weapons etc. When one declares that "the governing body is not responsable for its citizens" one is also in the same breath saying they arent responsable enough to have a state as well....

otherwise one is making the way for a "failed state" not a very responable position

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

32. No, it doesn't smack of racism

When you're not allowed to build an infrastructure because of withheld tax dollars and little to no international aid, plus an economy that has been squeezed dry by a foreign power, that's not racist at all. How can you hold them responsible when they aren't even allowed to adequately produce on their own?! They have nothing, they are receiving nothing, and thanks to the Israeli checkpoints, bulldozings, and embargoes, they have little chance to actually MAKE anything!

[pelsar]

34. what year are you taking about?

i believe suicide bombers arent recent....whereas your "excuses" are

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

21. There's a big difference.

I'm backing my assertion with statistics, facts, and sources. He is not. I am absolutely biased - but at least I support my case.

[cali]

24. Codswallop.

Quite often you make assertions on these threads with zip to back them up. Pelsar at least has some sympathy for the Palestinians. Your unvarnished hatred of all things Israel, and thus by extension of Israelis themselves, puts you in what I view as an indefensible position. I have never seen you express anything other than strong antipathy toward Israel. I haven't seen Pelsar exhibit that toward Palestinians, though I've certainly seen it from others on the pro Israel side- and called them on it.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

26. Oh really? "Zip" you say.

www.btselem.org
www.hrw.org
www.amnesty.org
www.ifamericansknew.org/

On edit: I've referenced those groups repeatedly.

[Andromeda]

47. What you say is brash---Vash.

Pelsar lives in the region so I think he has more credibility to access the situation than you do.

[King Mongo]

41. If all Palestinians practiced non-violence...

...Israel would annex East Jerusalem and some settlement blocks while recognizing a permentant border between Israel and Palestine. Palestine would increase trade with Israel and its economic condition would improve. The refugees would have to settle in Palestine or Arab States. Thus, it would certainly be beneficial for all Palestinians to practice non-violence. But, of course, we must consider that if England was occupied by the Zulus, England would never give up London in exchange for an end to the occupation, so we can't expect for Palestinians to do what we would never do. Yet, then again, it does seem as if the Irish are willing to let England keep a part of their Island, so, anything is possible.

[pelsar]

42. the big difference...

woud be that the palestenains would find a major partner with the majority of the israelis...while the settlers would find themselves to be a minority that has two major blocks against them.

More so the IDF would find itself with a "gray" rebellion. (as it had during intifada I)....there would be major upheavels in both societies

[King Mongo]

45. Agreed

Israel and Palestine would become like Europe where the majority frown upon the extremists.

[cali]

15. I really have a hard time with

your language, Vash. First of all, I can't speak for other people, but I can say that I absolutely have never demanded that the Palestinians take the high ground. I have repeatedly stated that there is an even greater burden on the Israelis than on the Palestinians. I believe that both parties should take the the higher moral path. Israel should abandon attacks on Palestinians. Palestinians should abandon the position that suicide attacks against civilians are legitimate resistance. Both tactic suck.

"For them, taking the moral high ground means risking being wiped off the face of the earth."

That's a shameful statement, but even more, it's absurd. Suggesting that suicide attacks on Israelis actually prevents Israeli attacks on Palestinians? Damn straight that's a little much. . It also attributes nothing but sheer evil to the Israelis.

Your suggestion that Israel simply lay down it's weapons is wildly impractical. I think it's imperative to demand that they not fire rockets into civilian populations and that they seek no reprisals for this bombing, but they have every right and obligation to try to stymie attempts of suicide bombers.

It's clear that I don't hold the Palestinians to a higher standard. As I've pointed out to you, I've posted in several threads that Israel has an even higher burden than the Palestinians. That doesn't absolve the Palestinians from responsibility. Alas, your passionate advocacy for the Palestinians, much of which is admirable, blinds you to any suggestion that the Palestinians have a responsibility to not commit the acts against civilians you so despise when committed by the Israelis.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

23. First of all, you misconstrued my quote.

You missed the "FOR THEM" part of my quote. That is how they feel about their situation, and given the disproportionate responses of attacks committed by a small percentage of the Palestinian population, I can't say I entirely blame them for feeling that way, even though it is wrong. Look at our ridiculous response to 9/11. 9/11 happens pretty much every day for the Palestinians, and then you toss in the impoverishment, segregation, and subjugation, and how do you really expect them to feel? It is an absolute horror of humanity that the entire situation is the way it is, but that's what we're dealing with here. There are very, VERY few "good guys" involved here at all for either side.

Secondly, I'm not sure why one needs to fire rockets from fighter jets or the use of illegal flechette rounds to stymie suicide bombers. Further, they have one of the best intelligence outfits in the world in the Mossad. No matter what you think of Bush, our government has, in the past, used non-violent means to stymie terrorist attacks. I'm not sure why the Israelis can't do the same, and as such, I don't see how it's "wildly impractical" to expect them to lay down their arms for a while. I'm not asking disarmament. If things get out of control, they would be more than justified to pick them back up again. If Bush had a stealth bomber take down a building in Seattle because a few suspected Al Qaeda members hang out there, that would not be an acceptable way to stymie terrorism and it is not in this case either.

Thirdly, I have said repeatedly that the Palestinians should not commit suicide bombings or any other terrorist attack. You fail to realize there is a difference between understanding and acceptance. Given all of the atrocities committed over the years by our government, one can easily understand why 9/11 happened, but that is far and away an acceptance of the event. I do think I'm a bit unclear and incorrectly using the term when I say I'm not outraged, and for that, I apologize. Under no pretense or exceptions do I condone the use of violence. All I meant to say is that I'm not surprised at all and that I understand the situation.

Finally, you repeatedly say you hold Israel to a higher standard than the Palestinians, yet you fail to elucidate exactly what that means.

[cali]

27. Actually I didn't miss your use of the words

"for them". I included them in the post you're responding to now. You associated yourself with the sentiment. You opened the door. While we're at it, let's look at it from the other perspective. Israelis carry the burden of the holocaust and 2 millenia of anti-semitism. Despite their being the strongest military force in the region and having a strong ally in the most powerful state in the world, I imagine that's still a specter that's difficult to shed. It's like asking African-Americans to forget that slavery ever happened, and that it no longer impacts on their lives. It's a psychic burden. It may not be logical but it as you say about the Palestinians, understandable. It doesn't justify the Occupation or their actions. Just trying to demonstrate that picking up a situation, turning it over and examining it closely can bring to light another perspective.

Of course I've elucidated you on how I hold Israelis to a higher standard. I wrote:
"I think it's imperative to demand that they not fire rockets into civilian populations and that they seek no reprisals for this bombing, but they have every right and obligation to try to stymie attempts of suicide bombers" What isn't clear to you about not seeking reprisals for suicide bombings? In addition, I deplore the checkpoints and the grinding humiliation of the Palestinians. If I don't believe there should be reprisals, it's pretty damned hard to make the case that:I'm justifying or supporting firingrockets from fighter jets or the use of illegal flechette rounds to stymie suicide bombers.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

28. While I understand and accept your point

It's a LOT harder to swallow a historical burden over a current and on-going one. Asking the Israelis to rise above that burden is asking far and away less than asking the Palestinians to rise above theirs.

Reprisals and the use of unnecessary force in prevention are two entirely different things. You left it more than a little unclear, though I can surmise how you feel through your further explanation.

One last thing - there is a difference in the words "misuse" and "miscontrue". To misconstrue is to mistake the meaning of words, to misinterpret. A misuse is an intentional distortion. I did not accuse you of intentional distortion.

[pelsar]

30. you assume too much

It's a LOT harder to swallow a historical burden over a current and on-going one. Asking the Israelis to rise above that burden is asking far and away less than asking the Palestinians to rise above theirs

ask an israeli...

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

31. I have.

I've asked Palestinians too. Have you?

[pelsar]

35. yes...

and if you talked to israelis you would discover that the next holcaust is only as far as iran or a dirty abomb coming from Hebron....

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

37. ...none of which is coming from the Palestinians

whose throats those same Israelis have their feet upon.

[pelsar]

38. long term?

the basic difference as i understand is long term vs short term.

as i understand (from your point of view, from your previous posts) the palestenains as a society have no responsability for their situation today.....and once having independence, given that no one can read the future, an immediate indedendance may or may not continue on its present course....no one knows.

And from what i understand of the world, once they have their independence, their internal affairs (as they are today) will be nobodys business. So if they hook up with iran, hizballa (who were supposed to stop shooting at israel once israel pulled back the UN sanctioned intl border). or "cant control the various missle shooting groups, it will in essence be nobodys business.

Israel on the other hand will now have an enemy state that can (is?) shooting long range missles imported from Iran onto Tel Aviv, the airport etc....something like the situation with the jordanian in jerusalem in 67.

-------------------------------------
scenario two, is that the palesteanins get a hold of their various factions, have a minor "controlled and limited" civil war and start building up their society making full use of their contacts with israel

a far better one, no doubt, the trouble being what happens if the first one is the actual scenario?

_______________________

btw your response saying that "neither is coming from the palestenians"...does show how little you either understand about israelis or even care to understand...a very telling remark

[idontwantaname]

39. get a hold of their various factions

what do you think will happen if israel releases marwan?

[pelsar]

40. no idea....

there are so many variables, most linking beneath the surface, with all the interpersonal relationships, (between palestenains between israelis and between each other)...not to mention events and pressures from outside such as other countries..

i just stay away....too many times i've watch the "experts" get it so wrong.... not to mention that fact that people also change in time given experience and age.... (and they dont always tell us)

[scipian]

48. If the Canadians invaded...

We would fight them off. Only some idiot would think that going to Quebec and killing innocent civilians would help.

BTW- If the Palestinians didn't attack the Israelis, there would be a MUCH higher chance of a peaceful Palestinian state being created. Either they're ignorant, wanting to kill Jews (they've openly advocated genocide), or just filled with too much emotion for their own ggod.