PA Arab Terrorists Attack Motorists in Samaria

[vminfla]

PA terrorists attacked Israeli motorists Sunday morning in Samaria with rocks and firebombs (Molotov cocktails).

In one attack, Arab rioters hurled sharp-edged rocks at vehicles with Israeli license plates as they passed near the Tzufim checkpoint. One passenger was physically injured and received treatment at the scene by rescue workers.

In the second incident, Arabs near the village of Azzoun hurled a firebomb (Molotov cocktail) at a vehicle with Israeli license plates. The driver was wounded in this second attack as well. He received first aid at the scene from IDF soldiers, while additional troops searched for the attackers.

In some cases, the attacks have actually succeeded in causing the deaths they clearly intended by smashing the windshield and causing the driver to lose control of the vehicle.

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/149455

[independentminded]

1. The attacks and the deaths are unfortunate, but

Israel really should not be in the Occupied Territories in the first place. If Israel has any common sense, she'll evacuate her troops and ultra-rightwing Israeli Jewish settlers from West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem, stop the demolition of Palestinian houses, ugly overall treatment of innocent Palestinian civilians, and the humiliating checkpoint, and allow the Palestinians their independence and sovereignity and self-determination in the form of their own nation-state alongside Israel in those territories. Israel...get your troops and settlers out of West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem...now!!

[sabbat hunter]

24. couple of things

1) there are no settlers in Gaza
2) does East Jerusalem include the old city? If so why?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

2. Do you have a non-far-right source for this?

[vminfla]

3. Sources do not need to meet an arbitrary litmus test, as long as they are legitimate news agencies

To dismiss an article because it does not meet a particular, arbitrary standard would amount to an ad hominem attack.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

4. Arutz Sheva is not a legitimate news source, it's far-right propaganda.

And yes, this is indeed an ad hominem (ad websitem?) attack - I don't think the word of AS can be trusted.

EDIT: I here use the word legitimate to mean "exists primarily to disseminate accurate information and only secondarily to promote an agenda; will not subordinate the former to the latter even when the facts are inconvenient". I don't know what you meant by the word.

[vminfla]

12. Your comments are an ad hominem attack

that have little basis in fact. Propaganda can be found at Daily KOS. Because Kos is extreme left wing, are you saying it is ok to post their propaganda and not AS legitimate news because they are somewhat right of center?

[Violet_Crumble]

16. A few questions for you...

I asked them further downthread, but you may have missed it, so here it is again...


What's yr opinion on the West Bank (in Arutz Sheva language, Judea and Samaria)? Do you think it should be part of Israel and the settlers have every right to be there? Do you support a two-state solution resulting in two independent states living side by side in peace with the Green Line as the border with mutually agreed to land swaps along it?

As for yr claim that Arutz Sheva is 'somewhat right of centre', that's incorrect. It's a newspaper of religious nationalism, it's based in the settlements and is the newspaper of the settler movement. They believe Obama is an antisemite and hate Arabs, amongst other things. How is that 'somewhat right of centre'??

[Violet_Crumble]

5. You were asked to supply a non-far RW source for it. That's a reasonable request...

Arutz Sheva is about as legitimate as Iran's Press TV, though I suspect the word you were looking for was 'reputable'. Look around you. DU's a forum for LW folk, and extreme RW sources tend to be frowned upon, though I'm not sure why an extremist pro-settler source like Arutz Sheva is allowed at DU while other far RW sources like World Net Daily and Frontpage Mag aren't allowed. If you want people to be impressed by extreme RW sources, yr on the wrong site for it...

I've got a few questions for you. What's yr opinion on the West Bank (in Arutz Sheva language, Judea and Samaria)? Do you think it should be part of Israel and the settlers have every right to be there? Do you support a two-state solution resulting in two independent states living side by side in peace with the Green Line as the border with mutually agreed to land swaps along it?

Anyway, I just noticed you haven't been keeping up to the task with posting just about every article in Arutz Sheva into this forum. Do you need some assistance? You've missed a real funny one about Glenn Beck! ;)

[shira]

7. It's funny you're asking someone else if they support 2 states when you don't...

was the final straw that sent me doing some soul-searching and got me realising that it's now at the point where I do support one binational and democratic state with equal rights and protections for all citizens rather than continuing to pretend that two viable and independent states will ever emerge...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=328071&mesg_id=330072

So tell me, you root out rightwingers by asking whether they're for 2 states...

And if they're against like yourself, they must be rightwingers.

So what does that make you?

[Violet_Crumble]

8. Ah, but I do support a two-state solution...

I've said that quite a few times even more recently. Seeing you clearly have some sort of archive of my utterances, I'll wait for you to quickly pull one out and post it rather than have me waste my time and wade through the archives. I must say I find it disappointing that you take the time to save a copy of something I posted a long time back, but still so regularly falsely claim I say and believe things I don't (a very recent example was where you falsely claimed I'd called Livni a war criminal when I hadn't). Now, if you can sit there and try to explain how what you posted from me can be interpreted as being me saying I don't support a two-state solution, that'd be pretty entertaining...

And here's a hint for you - At least if yr going to go way back into the archives to repost something I said, try and read it and understand what I said before posting in future. Oh, and that second last sentence of yrs? It's missing something. Try and make it a bit more coherent in future if you do get the burning urge to share whatever's

While you appear to have taken great offence at me asking another DUer a few questions, let's hope yr interruption doesn't deter them from answering. I'm sure I'm not the only person in this forum who'd be interested in hearing the other poster's views, even if you find it somehow threatening for them to be asked a question...

[shira]

10. You keep changing your mind. I'm wondering when you'll do so again...

Tell me, when you were against 2 states just last year, were you rightwing?

Just wondering.

======

but still so regularly falsely claim I say and believe things I don't (a very recent example was where you falsely claimed I'd called Livni a war criminal when I hadn't).

You must have somehow forgotten that you did...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=4483237&mesg_id=4487458

Just wondering if there are 2 Violet_Crumbles on DU, since the 2 of you can't seem to keep track of what you're saying...

:)

[Violet_Crumble]

15. I do sometimes change my views, though I've NEVER opposed a two-state solution...

And if you bothered to read what yr so carefully saving into yr *Archive of Violet Posts*, you'd have noticed that I didn't say I oppose a two-state solution. I actually find it a bit on the disturbing side that you take the time to save other people's posts and then get it completely wrong when you repost them. As for the other one, why is it that back when I asked you to supply me with a link to where I'd called Livni a war criminal, you couldn't? Would have saved a bit of time and effort if you'd been genuine and honest at the time...



So unless you want to continue trying to divert attention away from the questions I asked another poster in this thread by trotting out more nonsense, I think we're done...

[shira]

17. You opposed both offers from Israel for 2 states in 2000/2008...

...so it's hard to believe you don't oppose a 2 state solution. It's not as if you've ever criticized the PA for rejecting both offers without making a legit counter offer in return.

As to the Livni/war criminal post, I couldn't find it back then as I only recently found it (today). Did you somehow forget you wrote that?

[Violet_Crumble]

18. Did I? Show me the posts where I said I did...

The problem is that you've made so many false claims in the past about what other people say, it's very hard to take anything you say seriously. So provide me with examples of where I said that and we'll go from there if you really think this is such an important thing to talk about...


Try to get yr mind wrapped round this: I SUPPORT A TWO-STATE SOLUTION. I've never said I don't. (I suggest seeing yr so fascinated by what I post in this forum that you save it into yr archive to remind yrself in future before wasting my time again)..

Yes, obviously I forgot I'd said that about Livni, which is why I'd asked you repeatedly to supply a link to where I'd said it. Yr repeated refusal to do so at the time suggested that I hadn't said it. You've never forgotten you've said something in this forum? I find that very difficult to believe...

[shira]

21. Here's one in which you called the Olmert 2008 offer a crock...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=268258&mesg_id=268293

That went farther than both Camp David and the Clinton Initiative that Arafat later said he should have accepted.

And if you'll recall, the folks at the Geneva Initiative said it was close to what they've proposed.

[Violet_Crumble]

22. How does calling it a crock get twisted into opposing a two state solution?

Not sure how you managed to get that out of it. And I'm still unclear as to why you appear to object to people's views changing on something.

[shira]

31. You're against reasonable Israeli offers for a 2 state solution & do not hold the PA accountable...

...at all for rejecting each offer without putting a serious counter-proposal down on paper, for all to see, in return.

At the very least, you could say the PA was wrong to turn down each offer without making credible counter-offers in return. It's fine to say Israel didn't offer enough, but you should propose what you think is fair and hold the PA accountable for doing the right thing for their people.

[Violet_Crumble]

35. What you consider 'reasonable' is not what everyone else must agree with...

Are you capable of answering the very simple question you got asked? Clearly not. I asked you how calling an offer a crock can be twisted into supporting a two-state solution. I'd like an honest answer that doesn't involve making up complete nonsense about what you claim I think.

Make sure you save what I've got to say on this into yr archive of my posts, just in case you get the urge again to sit there and try to tell me I think something I don't:

I would strongly support any reasonable offer that Israel makes. Offers that sound good on paper but can't be carried through on due to upcoming changes of government are pretty much a crock. If things had turned out differently and the extreme RW thugs of the Nutty government hadn't gained power, then there would have been a possibility a real offer would have been made that could have been carried out by the government. That didn't happen, though it's no surprise extremists opposed to Palestinian statehood and a peaceful and fair (to both Israelis AND Palestinians, not just the former) end to the conflict would be of the mindset that any 'offer' is reasonable and must be accepted...

[shira]

38. You don't have to agree they're reasonable but if you're for 2 states...

...the least you can do is hold the PA accountable for coming up with a reasonable counter-offer in return. The folks at the Geneva Initiative thought Olmert's offer was reasonable as they were ecstatic about it. That says a lot....

Abbas and Erekat also said Olmert's offer was serious, but you could care less whether the PA responded in like.

Realize that rejectionists are also in favor of the PA not making legit credible offers to Israel. So what makes you different from them?

[Violet_Crumble]

40. Clearly I would have to seeing you referred to 'reasonable Israeli offers'

Let me repeat this for you again, because you appear to have ignored it in yr haste to sit there and tell me what I supposedly care or don't care about:

I support a two-state solution. Anyone who says I don't is a fucking liar...

Clear enough for you?

[shira]

42. So you're for a 2 state solution but don't mind when Abbas poses in photos with maps of Palestine...

...replacing all Israel. Correct? I mean, anyone for 2 states should have a problem with that. Here's an entire page full of proof where the PA and Abbas with showcasing maps that eliminate Israel:
http://palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=413&fld_id=556&doc_id=4275

And you don't mind that the PA never countered Olmert or the Clinton Initiatives with anything reasonable on paper? You just expect Israel to make better offers while the all the PA has to do is answer 'yes' or 'no'? I'm not sure how an advocate for 2 states doesn't expect one side (the PA) to come to the negotiating table making reasonable offers or counter-offers in return.

Maybe you can explain these things rather than just claim you're for 2 states.

After all you were apparently for 2 states, then against, and are now for it again. Maybe at one time you tolerated the PA's belligerence WRT the 2 state peace process...

[Name removed]

43. Deleted message

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

[shira]

45. So what do you think of Abbas and his Fatah cronies posing in photos with a map...

..of Palestine replacing all Israel?

Is that worth criticizing?

[Violet_Crumble]

47. How about you just go ahead and make up what I think? It's what you usually do anyway n/t

[shira]

48. How about you answer without deflecting? Are you able to criticize Fatah? n/t

[Violet_Crumble]

49. No, you seem to prefer just inventing what I think, so I don't want to get in yr way...

Go crazy! It's not for me to stop you from telling me what I supposedly think about everything...

[shira]

50. Would you answer if someone else asked? Or just deflect? n/t

[Violet_Crumble]

51. No, I'd tell them to ask you what I think seeing you apparently know better than me what I think....

No effort on my part and you'll end up extremely happy!

[shira]

52. That's what I figured. I can't recall you ever criticizing Fatah, but always defending them. n/t

[Violet_Crumble]

53. Glad you've got it all sorted out on yr own...

I know I for one will sleep better tonight with that out of the way!

[shira]

54. Fatah's far more rightwing than Likud but you can seemingly find nothing to criticize them about.

Fascinating.

An extreme rightwing organization you defend and never or very rarely if ever criticize.

I'm wondering why you expect others to answer your questions about Israel's rightwing policies when you refuse to do so WRT Fatah policies.

[Violet_Crumble]

57. If you say so...

I'm wondering why you expect others to answer your questions about Israel's rightwing policies when you refuse to do so WRT Fatah policies.

The difference is that I'm not wasting time answering 'questions' from you and I've explained why very clearly. I have no problems at all answering questions from most other folk. I ask questions in the hope that I might gain insight into other people's views, especially when they're new to the forum and I'm not familiar with their position.

[King_David]

39. ha ha

:)

[Violet_Crumble]

41. What was funny about that?

Well, apart from the tendency of that poster to continually make false claims about other people's views?

[Nelson Tondreau]

6. Sorry but "Israel National News" is hardly right-wing

if anything it's just a little bit right of center.

[Violet_Crumble]

9. It's extremely right-wing. It identifies with the settlers and religious nationalism...

Are you honestly trying to say that the Israeli settler movement isn't RW? That in some way it's progressive?

[Nelson Tondreau]

13. logical fallacy

I believe you're reasoning by analogy. You classify AS as being "right-wing" when in fact it is not, according to superficial observations rather than empirical evidence. ArutzSheva is not merely right wing because SOME settlers happen to hold religious views nor because it is different from mainstream American Media. The European Left might support Palestine (in part because Europe is slowly being flooded by Islamic immigrants), but in the US it is the far right like David Duke, Ron Paul, and Pat Buchanan who are the loudest pro-Arab voices. And, in fact, even supposedly "liberal" news in the US make a sharp right turn when it comes to Israel and Zionism.

The right of the Jewish people to return to their homeland IS in a way very progressive. It is in the same tradition of decolonization and anti-imperialism that Ghandi practiced.

[LeftishBrit]

14. Europe is not being 'flooded with Islamic immigrants'!

That is a slander by people who mostly aren't even particularly interested in people's religion, but are using this as the latest excuse for racism against non-white immigrants and their descendants. It was other excuses in the not-too-distant past.

If Europaean countries are 'flooded with immigrants' at all, it is mostly non-Muslim, white, immigrants *from other Europaean countries*. Immigration is unrestricted between EU countries; but most countries have strong restrictions on immigration from elsewhere. With the possible exception of France (due to its particular association with Algeria and Morocco), no Europaean country has a Muslim population of over 5%; in the UK it's 3%; in many countries almost nil. And Muslim immigration to most Europaean countrise has been decreasing, not increasing, in recent years.

In any case, the Left tends to be secularist, not Islamist (indeed, Islamists are very socially right-wing); and not all leftists are pro-Palestine or even particularly interested in the Middle East.

You are quite right about many far-right individuals, in both Europe and America, being anti-Israel as a result of xenophobia in general and antisemitism in particular, But that doesn't mean that Arutz Sheva is not right-wing, or that it is reliable. The enemy of my enemy is not always my friend!

[shira]

20. Wait Violet, you previously argued al Jazeera isn't an extreme rightwing rag. So are you serious?

Al Jazeera is arguably farther rightwing than Arutz Sheva.

[Violet_Crumble]

23. Did I? There you go n/t

[shira]

32. Really? You don't remember again? Want me to find that post for you?

I'm wondering why you're so forgetful of your views.

Maybe there's another Violet_Crumble posting for you. You should look into that.

[Violet_Crumble]

36. Where did I say I don't remember? Was I not clear in hinting that I don't care?

I'm finding it very telling that unlike others here who are genuine supporters of Israel, you try to deflect attention away from the extremism and bigotry of Arutz Sheva with a nonstop flurry of attention-diverting 'Look! Over There!' posts...

So how about this for a fun game? Every time you blatantly try to divert attention away from the extremism and bigotry of Arutz Sheva and those who claim it's only slightly to the right of centre, I'll be here to pull yr focus back onto the topic, which is Arutz Sheva. I reckon I can find plenty of extremely bigoted articles from Arutz Sheva to post in this thread to keep yr attention where it should be...

[LeftishBrit]

11. A LITTLE bit right of centre?

It's the RW settlers' biggest mouthpiece, and is well to the right of the Likud-dominated Israeli government.

[oberliner]

19. It is definitively (and proudly) right-wing

It is stunning to me that the powers that be at DU have no problem with it being a source here, but that's another kettle of fish altogether.

[BeenThereDoneThat]

25. You can argue with their editorial position

But until you and others offer proof of untrue or false news stories, you are just playing "kill the messenger" because you don't like the message.

[oberliner]

26. I'm not claiming there are any untrue or false news stories

I am not killing any messengers.

Just making the claim that it is a right-wing source.

And it's a surprise (to me) that DU would be cool with such a right-wing source.

[vminfla]

30. Being Progressive means listening to a diverse group of voices and not living in an echo chamber

Although there are many claims that this particular news source is "right wing" and promotes "propaganda", no one has cited anything untrue in any article.

[shira]

33. I disagree. Being Liberal means listening to a diverse group of voices...

Progressives are another story altogether.

[vminfla]

44. Quite true

If you were to create a Venn Diagram of Liberals and Progressives, there would only be a marginal overlap.

[Violet_Crumble]

46. Glad to see you back in the thread. You must have missed the question I asked you...

Could you maybe attempt to answer it. I doubt I'm the only person in this forum who'd be interested to see what yr views are:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=371216&mesg_id=371683

[vminfla]

55. Asked and answered

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x371153

[Violet_Crumble]

58. Did you post the wrong link by mistake? That link was to an OP...

The OP you linked to was by someone called Benjamin Pogrund. I was looking for an answer from *you* expressing yr own views.

[vminfla]

59. It concisely summarizes my opinions

I am not concerned by settlements on slightly more than 1% of disputed land. Israelis have torn down settlements before. If the arabs choose to honestly negotiate, they can negotiate for this 1% of land. However, the settlements are just a pretext for obstructionism. Abbas has no intent on negotiating.

[Violet_Crumble]

60. On reading the article, their view is that everyone's totally unfair to Israel...

That's not what you were asked. I asked you: 'What's yr opinion on the West Bank (in Arutz Sheva language, Judea and Samaria)? Do you think it should be part of Israel and the settlers have every right to be there? Do you support a two-state solution resulting in two independent states living side by side in peace with the Green Line as the border with mutually agreed to land swaps along it?'

What you posted didn't answer those questions at all.

As to what you did post, here's a few corrections.

I am not concerned by settlements on slightly more than 1% of disputed land.

'Although the actual buildings of the settlements cover just 1 percent of the West Bank's land area, they have jurisdiction over more than 42 percent, the B'Tselem report said. Much of that land was seized from Palestinian landowners in defiance of an Israeli Supreme Court ban, the group said.'

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/06/israel-settlements-cover_n_635907.html

The B'Tselem report has a lot more information on the settlements. In 2009 when this report came out, the breakdown was:

Total built up areas in settlements - 0.99%
Total municipal jurisdictional areas in settlements - 9.28%
Total areas of regional councils - 33.5%
Total area controlled by the settlements - 42.8%

http://www.btselem.org/download/201007_by_hook_and_by_crook_eng.pdf

As for claiming the West Bank is merely disputed territory, it's occupied, not disputed. The Israeli Supreme Court acknowledges that it's occupied, and past Israeli govts have referred to it as occupied territory. The West Bank has never been part of Israel, and it's no more disputed territory than it was when Jordan occupied it.

Israelis have torn down settlements before.

That's nice, seeing as how Israel's got a whole bunch more it's going to have to remove. It's got to learn the golden rule that it can't just build wherever it wants outside Israel and try to claim sovereignty over that land.

If the arabs choose to honestly negotiate, they can negotiate for this 1% of land.

Yeah, well, you know those arabs and how they never have and never will honestly negotiate. Unlike Nutty, who's as honest as the day is long! :sarcasm:

Seriously, the settlements are illegal under international law. Israel's a party to the convention that states the illegality of moving citizens of an occupying power into occupied territory, and while a peaceful resolution to the conflict should be negotiated, that doesn't apply to the settlements, which are illegal and which Israel should remove immediately...

[Violet_Crumble]

37. I've got some questions for you about yr views...

They're reasonable questions that anyone interested in a genuine discussion would be more than willing to answer.

I asked them further downthread, but you may have missed it, so here it is again...


What's yr opinion on the West Bank (in Arutz Sheva language, Judea and Samaria)? Do you think it should be part of Israel and the settlers have every right to be there? Do you support a two-state solution resulting in two independent states living side by side in peace with the Green Line as the border with mutually agreed to land swaps along it?

As for yr claim that Arutz Sheva is 'somewhat right of centre', that's incorrect. It's a newspaper of religious nationalism, it's based in the settlements and is the newspaper of the settler movement. They believe Obama is an antisemite and hate Arabs, amongst other things. How is that 'somewhat right of centre'??

You keep on claiming that no-one's found anything untrue in Arutz Sheva. The way it peddles the line that Palestinians are terrorists and inferior to Israelis is not only untrue, but extremely bigoted. I also recall seeing some articles there about Obama that again were not only untrue but extremely ugly...

But if you want, maybe some of us here can try listening to a diverse group of voices like PressTV and Stormfront and remind you when you complain about the sources that 'Being Progessive means listening to a diverse group of voices and not living in an echo chamber'. That should be fun...

The reality is that this is supposed to be a discussion forum for people who are Left Wing, and sources that promote hatred, extremism and bigotry are not welcome here. At least that's what I was always led to believe in the past...

[Donald Ian Rankin]

27. Not kill, just ignore.

There are thousands of people out there with thousands of messages; I'll only give credence to those I have reason to trust.

[BeenThereDoneThat]

28. In other words

You both prefer the coziness of an echo chamber.
BTW, you were playing "kill the messenger" whether you try to deny it or not.

[Violet_Crumble]

29. What echo chamber?

You've got longtime DUers pointing out the bleeding obvious fact that Arutz Sheva is an extreme RW source full of religious nationalism, bigotry and hatred. What echo chamber do you think we're all inhabiting? Because there's some folk with some very differing views on the conflict pointing the same thing out about Arutz Sheva.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

34. ...you think I/P is an echo chamber?

Come to that, FYI, I read both Ynet and Jpost daily. I also semi-regularly read Arutz Sheva, but in the spirit of "know thy enemy".

[vminfla]

61. "And I even have a black friend too"

Yes, an echo chamber. "know thy enemy" is evidence of that fact. How is AS "the enemy"? Have they assaulted you in any way? Please tell us how they wronged you

[BeenThereDoneThat]

62. ROTFLMAO

I never expected you would be the poster with the inability to understand the usage of the indefinite article "an"

[azurnoir]

56. The title alone of this OP is a study in propaganda

"PA Arab Terrorists Attack Motorists in Samaria"

PA is that Palestinian Authority? the title would indicate that these 'terrorists' were working directly at the direction of the Palestinian Authority when there is nothing to indicate that no evidence just a claim

the use of Arabs rather than Palestinians would indicate a much larger ethnic group while simultaneously seeming to deny Palestinian identity separate from that of generic Arabs

Samaria rather than West Bank Judea and Samaria are the names that right-wingers give the OPT in a sort of literary annexation

and that is just the title