Israel Army action breeds fresh hatred

[Resistance]

Family waits to bury boy, 7, as camp scorns Sharon's 'propaganda'

Guardian Special Report

Conal Urquhart in Balata refugee camp
Tuesday December 23, 2003

Mohammed was eating beans and bread when he heard the soldiers outside. He stood up and ran to close the door, but stopped and turned back when he saw the soldier.

It is not clear what threat the soldier identified from the seven-year-old, but he fired and Mohammed fell dead, still clutching his piece of bread.

Yesterday Balata was waiting to bury Mohammed and two other casualties of the Israeli army's week-long incursion into the West Bank's largest refugee camp, but troops continued to patrol the streets, confining everyone to their homes.

[bluesoul]

1. 7 year old killed

:-(

[Resistance]

2. holding a piece of bread.

[brainshrub]

3. And another terrorist is born:

"Who are the terrorists - the people who kill a boy as he is eating?" said Aya, 17. "All Palestinians should join the resistance, because it does not matter whether you are holding a bomb, a stone or a piece of bread, they will still kill you.

[Muddleoftheroad]

4. Or perhaps

It's the terrorists who hide in the civilian population or the terrorists of the PA who don't do anything about it and force Israel to act on its own.

When terrorists hide among the civilian population, innocents like this are the ones who pay.

[Resistance]

5. wow

you justify the murder of a child holding a piece of bread.

Way to go.

[Muddleoftheroad]

6. Didn't justify it

And it's not murder by any standards. Terrorists are the reason why soldiers are in that area. In a combat zone, soldiers make mistakes, react quickly, etc.

This death is yet another horrible tragedy that should be layed directly on the doorstep of the terrorists and their biggest fan Arafat.

[Violet_Crumble]

7. How do you know it's not murder?

The article said no-one knows why the troop fired. Without that knowledge no-one can say for sure if it was intentional or not. Do you know something no-one else knows, perhaps?

Violet...

[Muddleoftheroad]

8. Murder

Well, legally for there to be murder, someone must be charged. At very worst it seems like it could be called manslaughter, causing an accidental death.

[Violet_Crumble]

9. That's not true at all...

And we've been over this before, Muddle. For something to be murder, there does NOT have to be charges. There's many unsolved murders that don't magically become manslaughter because there's been no charges laid. Again, the article said that no-one knows why the troop fired that shot, so no-one, including you, can say whether it was or not...

Violet...

[Muddleoftheroad]

11. Actually, yes we have and yes there does

In proper terms, it remains a slaying till charges are filed.

[Jack Rabbit]

13. This discussion is absurd

Whether it was murder or not depends on what was on the soldier's mind. If he was thinking "Nits breed lice and I'm gonna pick off a little nit," it was murder. If he was thinking the kid had a rock or was an older person with a explosive, then it was not.

No one can prove it, one way or the other. The soldier won't be charged.

[Violet_Crumble]

18. Couldn't agree more...

Though I do disagree that if he was thinking it was a kid with a rock that it wouldn't be murder...

Violet...

[Resistance]

29. since nobody knows why the kid was killed

I'll offer this as a possible explanation:

Some Israeli soldiers are no better than their Hamas counterparts, and go around shooting innocents (such as this child) for no rhyme or reason other than acting on their hatred of Palestinians.

Frankly, given the overwhelming reports on these kinds of killings, I think my explanation is the most plausible one. These aren't accidents. It isn't nervous soldiers. It isn't self-defense. These killings are cold-blooded acts of murder. How else to explain the reports we see, day after day - unarmed Palestinians gunned down. Peace activist shot in the face. Kid holding bread shot down. Day after day we see these reports. Yet every single time somebody's got to explain it all away as "mistakes" and sometimes "negligence".

Bullshit. These civilians are being murdered by people who are no better than the Hamas bombers that murder innocents on the Israeli side. I condemn all the senseless killings.

[The Magistrate]

34. Indeed, Mr. Rabbit

This same incident was discussed at some length previously here, based on a different article.

It is clear the soldier was not just strolling through the place and shooting for sport: the patrol was the target of at least one explosive device and several molotovs. It is an unfortunate thing, but in such a situation, people fire into open doors where a figure can be discerned, and quickly too. There is no particular reason to doubt the Israeli army account of the engagement against the soldiers, as such things are frequently boasted of in other connections by the Arab Palestinian organs, when they seek to boast of the vigor of the resistance offered, rather than to wring pathos from the inevitable results of doing so in densely populated areas.

Though likely none will be forthcoming, it would be interesting to have some account of the state today of the soldier who did this: my guess would be that, as he is a human being, he is sick to heart, and would wish nothing more than not to have pulled the trigger in that instant.

[Resistance]

40. why is it not possible, to you

that the soldier is no better than a Hamas militant, willing to strike down an innocent without a second thought?

[The Magistrate]

46. Honestly, Sir

What makes you think a Hamas militant is thoughtless?

There seems to be a process of auto-hypnosis and group manipulation at play in such people, in which they become convinced what they are doing is absolutely right and necessary, indeed, that it is holy work, and the best and greatest thing a human being can do, that will gain them certain admittance to the Garden. Thus, there is not only thought involved, but a great deal of mental effort over time. It is not a mere twitch on the trigger.

It is in general, Sir, my custom to give people the benefit of all possible doubt in their actions, and there is little doubt in my mind that, in the soldier's position myself, my action might well have been just what his was. The other thing, the sacred intoxication, is foreign to me, and it is possible for me to know to a moral certainty it would never be my choice to do.

[Resistance]

63. I argue that the same can be said

of Israel's military personnel:

That there is a "proceess of auto-hypnosis and group manipulation" at work in the Israeli Army ... where the soldiers "become convinced what they are doing is absolutely right and necessary" and what they are involved in is "holy work" which is "the greatest thing a human being can do, that will gain them certain admittance to the Garden..."

For the Israeli soldier, as with the Hamas militant, it is also more complicated than a "mere twitch on the trigger". Instead, there is the thought and mental effort going into the killings of enemies on the other side.

[Resistance]

10. you say you don't justify it

then in the next sentences, you justify it.

:crazy:

[Muddleoftheroad]

12. No I don't

I lay the blame in the right place on the right people.

We all know that innocent people are the ones who suffer because of the actions of the terrorists. This is just another example.

[Resistance]

so next time a suicide bomber blows up innocent people

I guess it will be alright with you, when someone writes that "innocent people suffer because of the actions of the Israeli military"

[Muddleoftheroad]

16. It is ALL because of the damn terrorists

As we both know.

[Resistance]

20. oh ok

so because of damn terrorists, Israeli soldiers have a right to run around murdering kids eating bread?

:crazy:

[Muddleoftheroad]

21. Not murder

People die in combat zones. The reason the soldiers are there is because terrorist hide among the civilian population.

Blaming the soldiers is like blaming the police when a bystander gets shot during a robbery. It makes good headlines, but it is outright incorrect.

[Resistance]

23. Good lord

listen to yourself, man!

A child has been gunned down, and the only thing you've done so far is to rationalize the killing. The following are separate posts of yours:

"innocents like this are the ones who pay"

"In a combat zone, soldiers make mistakes, react quickly, etc."

"innocent people are the ones who suffer because of the actions of the terrorists"

"It is ALL because of the damn terrorists"

"People die in combat zones"

Then, you later argue "I didn't rationalize this horrible death"

OH REALLY???

[Muddleoftheroad]

25. None of that is a rationalization

It is a sad and horrible thing for any child to die -- Palestinian, Israeli or other.

But to blame soldiers there who are trying to keep the peace is even more sad.

[Violet_Crumble]

26. There is nothing sadder than the death of a child!

Yr opinion that blame for that death is misplaced being disagreed with is NOT sadder than the death of any child....

Violet...

[Muddleoftheroad]

28. English

I think Churchill once made a comment about us being separated by a common language.

Even more means, in this case, in addition to. It is not sadder than the death of the child.

[Violet_Crumble]

31. Then why did you say it was?

Here's what you said after you said the killing of that child was sad.

"But to blame soldiers there who are trying to keep the peace is even more sad."

Violet...

[Muddleoftheroad]

32. When you get to America

Then we can talk about American forms of speech.

[Violet_Crumble]

33. No thanks...

To say something is even more sad than something else does not mean something else in other English speaking countries, Muddle. If it is, then another American can confirm what yr saying....

Violet...

[Muddleoftheroad]

35. America

Is a large nation. We have many ways of speaking.

I have asked, answered and explained.

That's all you get.

[Violet_Crumble]

36. But Muddle...

Even if I go back and reread yr post as saying: 'But to blame soldiers there who are trying to keep the peace isn't even more sad.' that makes absolutely NO sense in the context of what was being said. That's why I strongly believe that nowhere in the US does 'even more sad' mean something other than what it says...

A simple explanation of saying you made a mistake in what you said would have sufficed, y'know...

Violet...

[newyorican]

37. This sub-thread should come with a laugh track

or does it depend on how you define, "sadder". :crazy:

[Violet_Crumble]

39. I'm sorry, Newyorican...

but you could be speaking some American-English dialect that may mean something completely different to what yr saying. Give me a few minutes while I trot off to find the Alta-Vista babelfish thingy that translates English into English ;)


I think there's been a few sub-threads around the place tonight that should have built-in laugh tracks!


Violet...

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

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

[Resistance]

54. we're going to have to take you in for questioning, Violet

And no you may not bring a dictionary.

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

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

[brainshrub]

14. There is no PA!

The PA is like Santa Clause, the Loch Ness Monster and the Yeti. People claim they exist, but there is no actual proof they do.

And let's assume for a moment there is a PA and a willingness to arrest the terrorists: Where are they going to put the prisoners? Israel blew up the prison!

Why do you use the avatar of MLK? Do you think he would have justified the killing of a child the way you just did?

[Muddleoftheroad]

17. There is a PA

Nice rationalization of their lack of action, however.

Truth is, they didn't do anything before Israel struck at them either.

And I didn't rationalize this horrible death. I just blamed those who really caused it.

[brainshrub]

22. There is no "they."

That's what Sharon wants the world to think. The only thing left in the occupied territories are a rag-tag bunch of starving, desprite people.

Anyone carring a gun in Palestine gets shot, how the heck is any alleged PA supposed to enforce rules? It's a catch 22.

Ultimately, the cause of the childs death is the occupation.

[Muddleoftheroad]

24. No, that is not correct

Even if there was no "occupation," there would still be terror. That much is clear. Since the PA or the Palestinians in general refuse to deal with the terrorists, Israel would still be doing so.

As for the PA, they have made no attempt at enforcing rules. If they wanted to, they would have all the help in the world.

[brainshrub]

27. The terror is caused by the occupation

and land-grabs. That should be clear to you by now. The Palestinians don't consider themselves terrorists, that's a label you put on them. From their perspective, they are fighting for freedom from an occupying force, using the only weapons at hand: rocks, sticks and an occasional bomb-strapped person.

An occupied people are under no obligation to make tyrany easy for their oppressors. Palestinians are refusing to deal with so-called terrorists because Israel is not dealing with it's own expansionist tenancies.

No occupation = no terrorism.

I think you know my own opinion on this matter: The Palestinians are doomed, what we are witnessing is the death-rattle from the locals.

Israel has won, just like my ancestors won against the native Americans. In 50 years, the Israelis will make a "Dances With Wolves" like movie and weep crocodile tears the way we white people do in the United States.

[Muddleoftheroad]

30. The PLO was founded before the 1967 war

How do you explain that?

How do you explain that so many Palestinians and their terrorist brethren consider the "occupation" to include all of Israel?

And certainly, the "bomb-strapped person(s)" are more than "occasional."

If things are so bad for the Palestinians, as you claim, how come their population numbers keep going up?

[Aidoneus]

42. is this density or fishing for a particular line?

How do you explain that so many Palestinians and their terrorist brethren consider the "occupation" to include all of Israel?

That has to do with what happened in the late '40s, and sorta kinda maybe possibly because it is so that all of historical Palestine is occupied by all of what is Israel. Considering the past, the latter should think themselves fortunate that '67 is the only bit that will be considered to be on the table for discussion. That an inch of that is even considered "negotiable" is appalling.

[Resistance]

43. I agree, Aidoneus

many Palestinians do expect the internationally recognized Right of Return to actually be upheld for them at some point; most simply want the continued theft of land, killings, bulldozings, and gradual ethnic cleansing to just stop

[Muddleoftheroad]

44. The Right of Return

Personally, I want Santa to bring me a whole bunch of goodies. Along with the Right of return, they will not be happening.

[Aidoneus]

45. what do you think of Israel's "Law of Return"?

[Muddleoftheroad]

47. Israel is the homeland for the Jewish people

As such, it has encouraged immigration for all who are Jewish. All nations set their own limits on immigration and citizenship. Israel is perfectly entitled to do the same.

[Aidoneus]

48. how did it come to be such?

[Muddleoftheroad]

49. That is the way it was founded

As you well know.

How do YOU feel about the Law of Return?

[brainshrub]

50. If Jews can return to land they haven't occupied for thousands of years

why can't Arabs who were kicked out a few decades ago?

[Resistance]

51. because the planners have chosen Apartheid and oppression

[Muddleoftheroad]

52. Jews have been there the whole time

But others are being allowed to return not that the state has been restored.

Let me ask you, do you support the UNIVERSAL right to return? Do I have a homeland in Africa or Ireland. Can all the Irish who were kicked out move to NI? How about the former residents of Tibet? How about American Indians?

Face facts, Israel exists and to allow a couple million anti-Israeli citizens in would be the death knell for that state.

Fortunately, ALL states choose who their citizens will be. Israel has that choice.

[Resistance]

53. things to think about

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (10 December 1948)

The right to return has a solid foundation in international law. Article 13(2) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) states, "Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country".

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

The right to return is most clearly enshrined in the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) under its provisions on the right to freedom of movement (Article 12).

Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (28 July 1951)

International refugee law and international human rights law mutually reinforce each other on the right to return.

United Nations General Assembly Resolution 194 (III) of 11 December 1948

11. Resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date

http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/israel/return/

All nations should assist in finding durable solutions to refugee problems. Ideally, this consists of giving each displaced person three options: local integration, third-country resettlement, and voluntary repatriation. In the Middle East context, countries where Palestinians now reside should offer them the option of full local integration. Palestinian families, many having lived in these countries for more than fifty years, have built lives there which they should be granted the option of continuing to lead. Similarly, the international community should be generous in offering the possibility of third-country resettlement to those who might desire it, and in providing aid to assist the permanent settlement of those who choose to remain in the region as well as those who choose to exercise their right to return. Neither the options of local integration and third-country resettlement, nor their absence, should extinguish the right to return; their humanitarian purpose is to allow individual Palestinians to select during a specified period among several choices for ending their refugee status.

[Muddleoftheroad]

55. Ah more fantasy

Reality now: Every nation decides who enters and leaves their nation. Even more, they decide who are citizens and NO NATION will invite in or allow entrance to known or likely enemies.

[newyorican]

56. some reality:

Here is the latest update on the barrier.
http://www.amin.org/eng/uncat/2003/dec/dec30.pdf

Every nation decides who enters and leaves their nation. Even more, they decide who are citizens and NO NATION will invite in or allow entrance to known or likely enemies.

How many nations build a barrier around hostile populations outside of its own borders?

2- Around 15,000 Palestinians holders of Israeli IDs from Qalandia town, Qalandia
refugee camp and Kufur Aqeb will be enclosed between the new barrier and Jerusalem
municipality border. The residents will be paying the taxes as the other Israelis but will
not be receiving the same facilities and services as they will be staying in a special
security zone.

http://www.arij.org/paleye/Segregation-Wall/Section%207.7.pdf

Another query: Do we wait until the last Palestinians becomes serfs to question whether we are still discussing a democracy when talking about Israel?

No services or facilities *and* the pleasure of paying for your occupier for the favor. I call that a form of Aparthied.

[Muddleoftheroad]

57. More reality

Actually, Israel is building the Peace Fence on territory that it currently holds. Since, maintaining peace in that area is part of its responsibility, the Peace Fence is perfectly legitimate.

Access to facilities is withheld when people pose a security risk of blowing up things. Perhaps if no Palestinians blew up things we might not see such precautions.

[bluesoul]

58. Very lame excuses

Muddle. But then I haven't seen anything but such when Palestinians are concerned. Security for Israelis, total disregards for Palestinians from the occupying force (even though it's responsibilites their are actually primarily for Palestinians, or they should move the hell out!)...

[Resistance]

62. Perhaps

if no Israelis went on killing sprees then there would be real peace

[dave46]

15. It's true

if the Palestenians laid down their arms what would happen? What would happen if the Israelis laid down theirs? If I were a Palestenian I'd be a little mad that fellow Palestenians were shooting at heavily armed Israelis in the midst of my children.

[Resistance]

19. This Palestinian child

didn't have any arms - he had a piece of bread. You ask what would happen? He'd be murdered as this example demonstrates.

[Blitz]

59. Baloney

The very day that Palestinians laid down their arms and sued for peace, there would be peace. The very day that Israelis laid down their arms and sued for peace, there would be a massacre. Those are the facts. Your many recent posts calling Israelis murderers, thugs, barbarians and the like are a classic case of projection (on behalf of the murderers, thugs and barbarians whose cause you champion; certainly, I am not saying that those terms apply to you personally).

[number6]

60. I don't buy it ...

"The very day that Palestinians laid down their arms and sued for peace, there would be peace."

[Resistance]

61. The Israeli military has murdered many in cold blood

That is why I call them murderers.