BBC Breaking (Saturday): Palestinians hold attack suspects

[Jack Rabbit]

From the BBC Online
Dated Saturday February 5 14:53 GMT (6:53 am PST)

Palestinians hold attack suspects

Palestinian security forces have arrested three leading members of a splinter group following an attack on Israeli soldiers.
The three are top officials in the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (DFLP).

They are the first arrests of anyone linked to violence since Mahmoud Abbas was elected by Palestinians last month.

The DFLP has already claimed to be responsible for an attack which wounded two Israeli soldiers in the Gaza Strip.

The link will automatically update as facts come to the BBC

[newyorican]

1. Palestinians free attack suspects

Palestinian officials briefly held three key members of a group which had claimed responsibility for an attack on Israeli soldiers, before freeing them.

That is the latest update from the link provided.

I was wondering what exactly would these fellows be charged with. Attacking occupation forces seems more like a duty than a violation. hey could always get some weapons charges tossed against them, I guess. It's not like they were going after civilian targets, after all.

[pelsar]

2. peace or war?

guess it depends on your outlook, if peace if your first priority then perhaps not shooting and killing is probaby a good idea..talking is preferable.

if the idea of stopping the best chance this area has had for peace in years..then yes they shouldnt be charged....


I am however quite thankful the the palestenian authoritys seem to disagree with you at this point

[Jack Rabbit]

3. That's a good point

Combatants are valid targets, whether one likes it or not. That certainly goes for IDF patrols in occupied territory.

We should be more impressed if the Mr. Abbas' people would hold those responsible for planning attacks against unarmed civilians in Israel proper. Of course, they should not be released.

[newyorican]

4. That's what I'm waiting for...

Even though I also hope it doesn't happen (more civilians getting killed that is). The reaction to clearly targeting civilians should be to drop a heavy hammer on those responsible. That hammer must come from the PA.

[newyorican]

5. If peace is a priority...

then keep Israeli soldiers inside Israel. The moment they step into the occupied territories, comes the reaction. and the reaction, and the reaction...ad infinatum...

[pelsar]

6. whats complicated here?

we stop shooting at each other given the status quo..and thats it.

all those excuses of we can shoot at X and not at Y doesnt mean "squat" because shooting at x will probably then cause a gun battle with more people killed.....

soldiers have this really bad habit of shooting back when they get shot at...and since the IDF has stopped patrolling since the PA is now, the only excuse to shoot at the IDF are those that cant stand the idea of peace between palestenians and israelis....of which there are no shortage of

and were talking about a step by step process..screw up the first step....and you wreck the whole process...thats why you dont shoot at the IDF soldiers right now, and why the PA cant go and arrest all of those who are planning attacks against israelis....not yet

[newyorican]

7. It's not complicated at all...

don't present legit targets, don't get shot at. Present legit targets, get shot at.

At least it's not complicated to me.

[pelsar]

8. and the war continues...

whereas I 'm not surprised......those of us out here learned long ago that "everybody is correct and everybody has god on their side and everybody sees everyone else as the enemy...

your "legit" target is my cousin, my brother my neghbor....and i dont take kindly to them being killed (that can be said by any side)

I always wondered about the percentages....when finally there is some real movement toward a possible peace, when israel might actually leave Gaza, when each side has to "give a litle".... how many of those who are so "pro palestenian" actually prefer the war, prefer the shooting to continue.....(i.e. not so much pro palestenian, as the shooting in the end has shown to make their lives just more and more miserable)

because thats how i interpet your remarks.....keep up the shooting and ruin the chances for peace.

[newyorican]

9. Of course...

occupation equals war. End one to stop the other. It's quite simple.

You are making the argument that peace and occupation can co-exist, they cannot. The presence of a foreign army is incitement to violence, period.

[pelsar]

11. and you know?.....

thats why the war continues because one side decides that THEY KNOW and only they hold the real truth....and that is precisly what you are saying....

since there are others on the opposite side that also claim the same, one gets the recipe for a war and continued violence, because their truth is just as valid.....

I though it was obviouse after so many years of Intifada II that shooting in this case wont provide the answers and that eventually we'll start talking and that is the answer...and we may just do that...and then your claiming (at least as far as I can tell) that the palestenains should start shooting again....

my gut feeling is something to the effect of:.. well thanks alot for your vote of confidence, we're finally going to start talking and those who arent even directly involved are cheering the palestenians to start the war again.....nothing like a couple more hundred killed and maimed huh?....

my argument is far simpler and relates to the people involved not some "greater truth" that unless its understood by all, its ok to continue to kill and maim people....

[newyorican]

12. Yes, I know...

I know that your take on my statements is mistaken.

There is a world of difference between understanding actions, and condoning them.

I could easily deliberately misinterpret your words to mean that you want Palestinians to stop shooting at occupation forces, while those same forces continue to conduct "operations" and kill Palestinians. Very easily. But I don't, because I don't believe you, or anyone else, are that stupid.

It's a shame the feeling doesn't appear to be mutual, but that's life.

[pelsar]

14. help me out here

this has happened to me already here...and I am definitly missing something (part of my brain perhaps....)

My overall impression of your previous writings was that your for the two sides to talk, work it out etc. even though you believe that the occupation is evil.

that said, when i read your words, I get confused, all of a sudden it seems as if you write that, like i wrote, thats its ok to keep shooting.

what confuses me, is why write it?...why not write something that is far more clearer? ocupation is evil, talking is good, shooting is bad?

and if you do misinterpret my words, as above, I would quickly explain myself so as to eliminate any imbiguity.

your mentioning that you dont believe "people are that stuiped"....I disagree, if not stuiped very very malleable, and words are the weapons used.....

[newyorican]

15. I'll try...

I don't wish for the fighting to continue, period.

I understand shooting at occupation forces. It's as natural as breathing. I wish they wouldn't, but to be surprised or astonished that it happens is folly.

I understand that the GOI feels it necessary to stay in the WB, Gaza and Golan. I don't agree with the reasoning, but I comprehend the argument.

I feel the presence of the IDF and settlers are the lubrication of the war machine. They keep it running like a clock.

What might happen if they pull out and start real negotiations? What if Palestinians continue to attack (inside Israel assuming the IDF and settlers are removed)? You might as well ask what the gravitational forces of a black hole do to the human body. Get me to a black hole and we'll see. Cause we sure as hell aren't going to find out from here.

I must, however, disagree with your last with a caveat. I do not believe anyone in this forum is stupid enough to believe it's ok for the IDF to roll around the occupied territories, killing Palestinians, and not get shot at. Disingenuous, yes...stupid, no.

[pelsar]

21. newyorican...

its your last sentence.....the IDF is now pulling back, and NOT rolling around the territories (at least not everywhere)..and the PA's forces are now coming out....

this is called breaking the cycle of violence..what will be long run we dont know, but excuses to restart the shooting are easy to find...on either side.

The point is not be so "eager" to give a "pass" to either side. (that was my objection....)

[bpilgrim]

10. SHARONS record has been bloody and ugly

the FACTS on the GROUND demonstrate quite cleary that his AGGRESSIVE and BRUTAL policies are utter FAILURES.

when will his 'rain' of TERROR end?

peace

[DemFromMem]

13. Was this rant supposed to advance the discussion?

Good thing the PA and Israelis seem to be moving past the propaganda talking points even if DUers (on both sides) are not.

[bpilgrim]

16. just stating the FACTS ON THE GROUND

what's the body count since sharon came to power? (both sides)
what was it in the previous admin?

i think that point is relevant and should not be over looked when trying to understand the roots of the escalating violence.

:hi:

peace

[eyl]

17. relevent, perhaps,

but it shouldn't be taken too far. By that criteria, I can show Churchill was responsible for WWII because more British and Germans died during his term than Chamberlain's.

[bpilgrim]

18. Sharon as the leader of his state IS responsible

he isn't the only one, but there certainly is no 'perhaps' about his responsibility.

and judging the record of the man who promised to bring PEACE, PROSPERITY and SECURITY to his people on just such measure is very appropriate.

peace

[DemFromMem]

20. No peace with this mindset

There are people on both sides who are so invested in demonizing the opponent that they are incapable of grabbing peace even when it is dangling right in front of their noses.

My point is that you make peace with your enemies, not your friends. And it is the rare war where both sides can't legitimately point an accusatory finger at the behavior of the other. This one is no different. That's why your post is so unproductive. The natural response is to reel off a list of Israeli grievances against the Palestinian leadership. These gripes - legitimate or not - allow each side to get off the hook when it comes to accepting compromises and taking risks for peace.

What would you rather have - endless war but the satisfaction of knowing you took what you considered to be a consistent uncompromising and unforgiving moralistic position? Or peace with the understanding that you will need to forgive (even if the enemy does not ask for it) and give ground?

Sadly, I think the DU hardliners on this board would choose the former. Everytime anyone posts anything hopeful on this board, people like you come on to try and drag the discussion back to the anti-peace tone we typically see here. And by "anti-peace" I mean, taking the view that the other side is evil and they are completely responsible for the war, and they should make all the concessions. Since that is impossible, the effect is endless war. So whether you think you are pro-war or not, your position effectively means you are

[Djinn]

19. what makes you think

that Palestinians shot by your army have no brothers, neighbours etc???

to interpret "soldiers of an occupying force are a legitimate target" as "keep shooting keep the war going" is a nice one pelsar - you've outdone yourself.

Here's an idea - the IDF should IMMEDIATELY stop shooting at ANYONE and EVERYONE including any heavilly armed militants/terrorists (whatever) running towards them, coz hey legitimate target or not that militant waving a gun has brothers and sisters etc - and if the IDF were to shoot him it'd proove they don't want peace???

see what a blatantly stupid theory that is

[pelsar]

22. djnn....

you've taken my writing a bit too far...the discussion was that though a movement toward peace has started its still ok for the palesteniains to continue shooting.....

that attitude would effectivly destroy the movement towards peace.....(and then the explanation why).

as written above, for those who really are interested in peace, then we make concessions with our enemies.....

keepings ones "principles" with no compromise just keeps the war going and I doubt those who claim those principles do so in their own personal life, in fact quite the opposite. I am sure their lives are full of compromises...

[Djinn]

23. so

the IDF also need to stop shooting? Israel needs to stop building settlements (like the last time when they "stopped") why is it you seem to see only ONE side as having responsibility to end the violence?

have all IDF actions (shootings, home demolitions etc) stopped as well

as for reading too much into your post - hey that's kinda funny coming from someone who hears "all movements kill collaborators" and yet somehow feels that means "I excuse torture"

[pelsar]

24. Djnn....from where?

I dont believe I ever wrote " all movments kill collaborators"....(and if I did would you show it, since thats a pretty wide generalization, which would include the sierra club)...and did you miss the part where, it all started with the comparison?...I believe I explained how it took me to "excusing torture" and wondered about it....you never explained...so the accusation remains in the air...(I personally dont believe it, but the wriiting suggests it)

Of course I see both sides, and its one step at a time:

the first two very basic steps have already been taken, the IDF has stop patrolling within many palestenian areas and the palestenians stop shooting


if the above cant be handled, then there is no next step.....so for those who advocate to the palestenians to keep shooting (as I've read in various places)...those same people are advocating for the violence and killing to continue-and they are the real enemies of peace

no one serious and knowledgeable about this conflict expects everything to happen all at one, each side has a a lot of politics to deal with and confidence to build, and most important, which is usually lacking here, is that each side has to understand what is most important to the "other side"-that requires a certain amount of cultural knowledge

[Djinn]

25. it's not that hard to follow

I said all movements kill collaborators (maybe I should have clarified that because it's true the Girl Guides and the Alphington Ladies Knitting Auxilliary don't) and then YOU decided that meant I excused the torture of one alledged collaborator

try to remember

[pelsar]

26. we're still not getting it....

you're concentrating on "my conclusion" not on my initial question, which led me there....if you get back and clarify the initial question, that then gives me more information and possibly gives me a different conclusion.

for some reason you've been ignoring it every time i bring it up, but thats where it all started, the core.

[Djinn]

27. no the core is

that EVERY single time anyone says anything you make up your own mind as to what you beleive they were REALLY saying and post that warped version of their opinions as if it's fact.

there IS no "initial" question - if I state that guerilla/resistance (whatever) groups kill collaborators, that it's not anything new and YOU take that to mean I advocate torture then I'm not actually obliged to refute suggestions I never made.

Kinda like if YOU state that all armies shoot civilians (atleast now and then) that would be an absolutely true statement, however if I decided that meant you ADVOCATED that shooting then I would be full of shit....do you get it now

[pelsar]

28. let me quote myself...

this is what I wrote you:

I dont understand, i really dont. as far as I understand your saying that "its ok that the palestenians tortured that guy for a couple of days because they are fighting the israelis....did i get that right?

i am asking for clarification...because I am assuming I misunderstood something

[Djinn]

29. oh OK then

so if you say "all armies kill civilians when they're at war" and then I write

I dont understand, i really dont. as far as I understand your saying that "its ok that the IDF kill children because they are fighting the palestinians....did i get that right?

would you find that insulting? the question disengenuous or would you simply think I had SEVERE problems with comprehension.

seriously pelsar I'm sorry I don't beleive you misunderstand THAT much as you only seem to have these "misunderstandings" - with those you disagree with and it's ALWAYS gets interpreted in your mind to mean the poster is advocating violence against Israelis