BBC: Israeli Troops Fire on Reporters/Peace Demonstrators

Grizzled:

I can understand your concern - secrecy is almost always a bad thing. But it is sometimes necessary...

If exposing the horrors of war propmted us to avoid the wars that weren't necessary, then it would be a great deal. But if it prompted us to avoid the wars that actually were necessary, then it is extremely counterproductive. If we were getting actual combat feeds from Afghanistan, then I suspect that support for it would immediately drop - even though it is an absolutely vital war. Contrary to popular opinion, Desert Storm was not a "sterile" war - it was probably the ugliest war since WWII, or at least Vietnam. It was also a vital war.

The Israelis have no choice but to fight this war. Their national survival is at stake here. When that clip was first aired, the reaction in Israel was one of disgust, but the Israelis then realized that they have no choice but to continue, and hope that similar incidents are not repeated. Of course they will be, because of the nature of war.

In that case, they were able to see beyond the horror and keep in mind the vital nature of this war. But they have been under siege for a while, and their nerves have been steeled... Ours have not. They can "keep the eye on the prize", but we might not be able to - even if the war is vital. That is why we censor wars.

Thanks for the sendoff. Like I said, I'll be back...

 

boy -

Here’s a slightly better map than the one you posted:

http://www.fmep.org/maps/v11n4_Barak_Sharon_map.pdf

Regarding this map (and yours), it needs to be kept in mind that the Barak deal was supposed to be carried out in phases. Your map represents only the first phase, I believe. By the end of the process, the Palestinians were to end up with a 100% equivalency of the territories, keeping in mind that 4% or so of it was to be traded for Israeli land.

Arafat most certainly should have accepted it. It is the best offer that they will ever get.

An article:

http://www.time.com/time/teach/glenspring2001/22.html

An excerpt:

When the Palestinian and Israeli diplomats were seated, Clinton walked in, pulled his chair up to the table and unfolded his notes. "I want to be as precise as I can, so I’ll read this slowly," he said. As the envoys scribbled on pads, Clinton, sounding like a settlement attorney, calmly laid out American "ideas" for finally closing a peace deal. Arafat would get a Palestinian state, with Israel ceding all of the Gaza Strip and 95% of the West Bank (in exchange for the 5% of the West Bank Israel keeps for its settlements there, the Palestinians would get an extra slice of territory in Israel’s Negev). Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat would have to give up his demand that millions of Palestinian exiles have the "right" to return to homes in Israel lost during Mideast wars. Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak would have to make concessions as well: Palestine would gain sovereignty over East Jerusalem neighborhoods and the top of Temple Mount, a holy site sacred to Jews and Arabs, who call it Haram al-Sharif, or the Noble Sanctuary. (For more on Temple Mount, see page 24.) Clinton folded his notes and looked up. "If you want to reach an agreement, I think that the only way to get it done is to accept this," he said.

Barak and Arafat had a few days to let Clinton know if they were ready to negotiate based on the U.S. outline. Barak said he was willing to accept the plan "as a basis for discussion" if Arafat was. Arafat’s response: a long letter delivered to the White House with 26 questions, clarifications and objections he wanted answered first. It was a stall, and an irritated Clinton had no intention of answering. "There’s no point in our talking further unless both sides agree to accept the parameters that I’ve laid out," he said icily. "Both sides know exactly what I mean, and they know exactly what they still have to do."

Another article:

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world/DailyNews/mideast001130.html

BTW, Gush Shalom isn't exactly an unbiased source. Kinda like if I posted information supplied by the American Communist Party, or the KKK. They're pretty far out there.

 

Great job Treeman.. that is the first time I have seen boy state that he was wrong. The Barak/Arafat deal was a great proposal for both sides. I don't think Arafat had the choice to assign it. He most likely would have been assassinated by one extremist group or another.

These are dark, dark days and I hope that the violence will stop. However, if it takes wiping out Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah, Al-Aqsa brigades, etc. like the U.S. took out Al-Quaeda then so be it.

Good luck treeman with Basic Training. Pain is only in the mind.

 

So let me get this straight. Palestinians are bad. Foreigners are bad. Only we Americans and those damn Israelis are good?

You are leaving today rite? Cant wait till you are gone. Have fun killin some Palestinians since you hate em so much.

You might say that you do not hate Muslims, but as a Muslim myself I fine your one sided GARBAGE very offensive.

 

no one says that "Palestines are bad and we (Israelis) are good"
but imagine foreigners and a Afghanies cameraman entering Ben Laden office as part of pro-Afghanistian solidarity demonstration and then deliberately provoking the American soldiers
also imagine that on the same day a suicide bomber kills 16 people in a restaurant including a father with his 2 kids.

I wonder what the Ameircan soldiers whould have done.

we fight soldiers !
not civilians ,if a civilian Palestine want to stay alive he should just get the hell out of there.....this is fight zone.
I don't want it to sound like our Israel soldiers are all 100% humanie ,cause they aren't ,we destroy house ,buildings ,business places ,we are not murdering civilians !!!.

any American should put himself in our situation ,imagine a daily terror attacks ,imagine u afraid to go to resturants ,cinema ,public places...
no country can stand still
againt ,I belong to the extreme left wing ,I think we should just get the hell out of all the occupied territories ,for us and not for the Palestines ,but right now we have no choice but taking over the entire west bank and Gazza.

Dan Lederman

 

(before anyone asks, I am not going to the hotel until later this afternoon)

Rocket03:

The Palestinians have shown themselves to be extremely duplicitous and untrustworthy (many of them, anyway), and there is something terribly wrong with a society that glorifies and celebrates sending its youth to commit suicide and intentionally murder civilians. Not to actually fight, but to intentionally commit suicide. That said, I actually sympathize for those Palestinians who actually just want to get along with their lives - they are caught in the middle, and deserve better.

I have never said that foreigners are bad, only that they are biased and IMO misguided (you're probably refering to my arguments on unilateralism here?). When the Eiffel Tower or Big Ben gets blown up, then they might understand where we're coming from.

"Damn" Israelis? Even in your sarcasm you can't hide your dislike of the Jews.

Well, I don't plan on killing any Palestinians, unless there are Palestinians in the Iraqi army or the Iranian Revolutionary Guards. If they are there, then they are in the wrong place and on the wrong side. And I don't hate anyone over there. I'm simply not going to wait for anyone to kill us first. More of us, that is.

I can honestly say that I won't miss you either. Honestly. I think everything that you have posted on this subject is garbage, too, by some strange coincidence - we finally have something in common...

Yes, taking personal responsibility for one's own actions is such a horrible concept. Being honest is not necessary when deceit is so much easier and better to chew on. The muslim world doesn't need to look inwards, as it has done nothing wrong. Everything that has gone wrong is someone else's fault.

People like you will never learn. I shouldn't even waste the bandwidth trying to point out where you are wrong. But I must say this: if the muslim world doesn't start at least considering the possibility that it is not a perfect religion and start engaging in some introspection, then it is in for some rough times ahead.

 

Israelis Kill Italian Catholic Priest

from the Times of India

Priest shot dead, nuns wounded in Bethlehem


AFP [ TUESDAY, APRIL 02, 2002 6:15:22 PM ]

ETHLEHEM: Israeli forces fired on two churches here Tuesday, killing an Italian priest and wounding at least seven nuns as tanks and troops invaded the biblical town, hospital officials said.

Peter Qumry, director of the King Hussein hospital here, said the Israelis fired on the Santa Maria church run by a Catholic Salesian order and a neighboring Maronite church after they refused to open their doors.

The Catholic priest and six of the nuns were wounded in Santa Maria, which hospital officials said was left partly in flames. A seventh nun was hit in the Maronite church, he said.

The identities and conditions of the nuns were not immediately known.

Vatican officials identified the priest as Father Jacques Amateis, 62, a long-time resident of Jerusalem and noted expert on Arabic literature.

He came from Italy in his late teens and spent time in Lebanon where he was injured during clashes, according to Father Antonio, head of the Salesian school in Beit Jamal, west of Jerusalem.

Hospital officials said his body languished in the church after he was shot because ambulances were prevented by Israeli forces from reaching the scene.

Bethlehem Mayor Hanna Nasser said they had asked the Vatican to put pressure on the Israelis for permission to recover the body.

The shootings occurred as the Israelis consolidated their hold on the birthplace of Jesus Christ.

Israeli tanks, troops and bulldozers swept into Bethlehem before dawn Tuesday as part of their drive on the West Bank, where they have laid siege to the headquarters of Palestinian chief Yasser Arafat since Friday.

The Jewish state's forces have taken over the towns of Bethlehem, Beit Jala, Tulkarem and Qalqilya and were going house to house looking for suspected militants and weapons.


Oh well, as Treeman and Dakota would say, "What proof do we have that these nuns and priest were not helping the terrorists





Israelis Kill Italian Priest.

 

DanL,

Did Israelis really think that Sharon would take them down the road to peace?

Electing him assured a growing conflict. You talk about taking over' the West Bank and Gaza, but what will that accomplish? Bad P.R. and no security. Israel will never find or control all of the suicide bombers.

Don't misunderstand me, I am certainly not enamored with Arafat, but electing Sharon was a major mistake.

 

Dadakota, glynch, treeman, boy.

Can you guys recommend any non-bias books that really explains
the history of what’s going on over there ?

btw , DaDakota, my wife say’s it’s a go with the Cancun fishing trip…
I just have to stay away from the Red Snapper & Blow fish.

 

Glynch,

I don't condone any of the violence. I find it adhorent, but I also don't know the circumstances of these reports.

War is hell, and this is war.

DaDakota

 

glynch:

There is certainly no way to justify killing a priest, but just to put the incident into context (which is important, and unmentioned in the TOI article)... Bethlehem is a known staging ground for militants because of traditional reluctance on the part of the Israelis to enter the town in pursuit.

Usually how it works is this way: A militant group attacks someone. They run to Bethelehem. The IDF pursues them to Bethlehem, but stops before entering the city (they traditionally avoid the possibility of damaging holy sites, although there was one incident where fighting occurred in Manger Square a few years back). Instead they set up roadblocks on the outskirts. The militants then take up positions in the city's hills and launch sniper attacks on the roadblocks. The Israelis do nothing.

Sounds like this time the Israelis decided not to just sit there and do nothing. Going house to house (the only way to actually catch anyone)... The priest probably allowed someone in that he shouldn't have, as they must give sanctuary to anyone who asks. Don't know, as the press rarely reports on the provocation in incidents like these. Another regrettable incident, but this is war. No one ever said it would be pretty.

And it was all perfectly avoidable, keep in mind.

Cohen:

Had Israel not launched this operation, Sharon would have been replaced by Netanyahu, who probably would have ethnically cleansed the territories. Sharon's numbers have been falling of late - not because he was being too forceful, but because he was being too timid. The Israelis are tired of this.

Samurai Jack:

This guy has a good bibliography:

http://www.danielpipes.org/

 

One comment about the past peace proposal: the map that was to be implemented would have severaly undermined Palestinian sovereignty. And while Treeman is likely right, in that htey're not going to get a better deal anytime soon... I think it's inevitable in the distant offing. Accepting that proposal would likely have barred future progress.

So much for MLK... or Gandhi.

Seems like they're in a no-win situation... when they're violent, you want them to protest peacefully. When they're peaceful, they need to obey the law.

Basically, this stance is that of someone who's OK with the status quo. There's nothing wrong with being satisfied - Americans have every reason to be content right now. We're affluent, democratic, and generally peaceful.

But your perspective gives no hope for improving conditions for those in bad situations. When one's life-conditions are intolerable, it's very difficult to reconcile oneself to permanent misery. One wants to proactively improve one's state. And there are two ways to this:

1. Making the situation intolerable for the other side, via the use of coercive force (often violence, but not always)

or

2. Making one's case of being wronged so public and evident to the world that the offending laws are changed.

One of those two options will always be persued, when conditions become bad enough. I prefer option two... because laws aren't always right. And it's worse to violate laws of conscience than laws of government.

 

This is a nice little tidbit:

Arafat’s Book-Keeping Department Yields
Bill Linking Him to Suicides

2 April: This piece of correspondence was discovered by Israeli troops who went through the files in Yasser Arafat’s personal accounting department in Ramallah. It is an itemized bill signed by the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades – Palestine, and dated September 16, 2001, exactly five days after the September 11 suicide attacks in the United States.

The document is a routine request for Arafat to approve the daily outlay for the arming of suicides with explosives and ammo, their memorial ceremonies and funeral posters.

It is part of the body of evidence Israeli troops gleaned at Arafat’s headquarters in Ramallah and demonstrates that Arafat supervised every last detail of the Palestinian suicide offensive.

Translation into English:

1. Cost of posters for Martyrs of the al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades: Azam Mazhar, Osama Juabra, Shadi Afouri, Yasser Badawi, Ahad Fares (inserted by hand: NIS2,000).
2. Cost of printed notices, invitations and mourners’ tents (inserted by hand: NIS1,250.
3. Cost of attaching personal photos of these martyrs to wooden panels, plus those of Tabeth Tabeth and Mahmoud al Jamil (inserted by hand: NIS1,000).
4. Cost of memorial ceremonies for martyrs. Memorial ceremonies held for Martyr Azam, Martyr Osama (inserted by hand: NIS6,000)
5. Cost of electrical goods and miscellaneous chemical substances (for manufacturing explosives and bombs – the largest item. (One prepared explosive device – NIS700 at least) We need 5-9 devices per week for the squads in the different regions (inserted by hand: NIS x 4 = NIS20,000 per month)
6. Cost of bullets (cost of Kalashnikov ammo is NIS –8 per bullet; M-16 bullets cost NIS2-2.5 each) We need bullets supplied on a daily basis.
7. Note: Available are 3,000 Kalashnikov bullets @ NIS2 each. We need a sum of money at once to buy them (inserted by hand: NIS22,500 for Kalashnikov bullets – NIS60,000 for M-16 bullets)
In conclusion, glory and pride to those who support our brave resistance against the occupation. Revolution until victory.

http://www.debka.com/

Where in the hell are they getting all of these M-16s from?

 

haven,

I sort of agree with that, but the people that you are talking about were reporters, not the protesters themselves.

If you stand in front of a gun, you may get shot.

DaDakota

 

Like hell they didn't. How many Muslims did Sharon kill at ul Aqsa that day? His mere presence there justifies the murder of civilians? This sort of moral equivalence is disguisting.

 

Samurai Jack, Daniel Pipes is an extrmist on this issue. Nothing wrong with reading him, though. Just try balancing it with nimn.org, Jews who don't support Sharon and his policies.

For an opinion of Daniel Pipes from the American Arabs perspective before 9/11/ :

Throughout his career, Pipes has exhibited a troubling bigotry toward
Muslims. As early as 1983, a Washington Post book review noted that Pipes
displays "a disturbing hostility to contemporary Muslims...he professes
respect for Muslims but is frequently contemptuous of them." Pipes, said the
reviewer, "is swayed by the writings of anti-Muslim writers...[the book] is
marred by exaggerations, inconsistencies, and evidence of hostility to the
subject." (The Washington Post, 12/11/83)



In The Weekly Standard (1/22/96), Pipes offered a glowing review of the
infamous anti-Muslim book "Why I Am Not a Muslim." The National Catholic
Reporter (11/17/95) called that book "the literary equivalent of hate
radio...literary warfare against Islam," useful only to those "interested in
returning to the polemical past to do battle with Islamic believers." Pipes
called the book "quite brilliant" and "startlingly novel." "This religion
would seem to have nothing functional to offer," remarked Pipes.

Pipes also displays a racist's distaste for Muslim immigrants who "wish to
import the customs of the Middle East and South Asia." For Pipes, this sort
of raw bigotry is nothing new.

In 1990, he said: "Western European societies are unprepared for the massive
immigration of brown-skinned peoples cooking strange foods and maintaining
different standards of hygiene...All immigrants bring exotic customs and
attitudes, but Muslim customs are more troublesome than most." (National
Review, 11/19/90)

In a review of a book that called for dialogue with the Muslim world, Pipes
objected to the fact that the author: "...fails to...consider the
implications of growing Muslim populations in the West. [The book], in other
words, provides little guidance to the Islamic threat." (Wall Street
Journal. 10/30/92)

This is the same "expert" who claims Muslims should have no real religious
attachments to the city of Jerusalem and who recently argued that American
Muslim posed a threat to the Jewish community. ("If I forget thee: does
Jerusalem really matter to Islam?" The New Republic, 4/28/1997, and
"America's Muslims against America's Jews," Commentary, 5/01/1999)

Noted scholar and author Edward Said, whose works include "Covering Islam"
and "Orientalism," wrote that Pipes is one of a group of anti-Muslim pundits
who seek to "make sure that the '[Islamic] threat' is kept before our eyes,
the better to excoriate Islam for terror, despotism and violence, while
assuring themselves profitable consultancies, frequent TV appearances and
book contracts." (The Nation, 8/12/1996)

Pipes also seeks to silence those who oppose his one-sided view of Islam. In
1996, he attacked the Council on Foreign Relations for publishing a
newsletter that he accused of "giving voice to Muslim fundamentalists."
("Fundamentalist Flap Roiling Council on Foreign Relations," Forward,
5/10/1996)

American Muslims recall Mr. Pipes finger-pointing following the bombing of
the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City. As The Village Voice noted:
"Leaping directly into hysteria was the right-wing Daniel Pipes...who told
USA Today...'People need to understand that this is just the beginning. The
fundamentalists are on the upsurge, and they make it very clear that they
are targeting us. They are absolutely obsessed with us.'" (5/2/95)

It would seem Mr. Pipes is the one with the obsession.

Given this history of hostility toward Muslims in general and to the
American Muslim community in particular, it is not surprising that Pipes
paints a black and white image of good Muslim "integrationists" who love mom
and apple pie versus bad Muslim "chauvinists" who "aspire to make the United
States a Muslim country."

Pipes obviously hopes to convince people of other faiths that the bad
American Muslims are in the majority since he claims they "run most of the
Muslim institutions in the United States." (These are presumably the same
Islamic institutions currently engaged in a nationwide voter registration
drive.) He warns of "bitter" results and "dire implications" if this state
of affairs is allowed to continue.

To support his inaccurate assessment of the Muslim community, Pipes presses
the usual anti-Muslim hot buttons. He claims American Muslims would turn
this country into another Iran or Sudan and twists the words of a respected
scholar like the late Ismail Al-Faruqi who is not around to defend himself.
(Al-Faruqi authored "Trialogue of Abrahamic Faiths.")

In his attempt to show Muslims as hostile to this society, Pipes digs up the
minor controversy caused by a Muslim basketball player who would not stand
for the national anthem.

It would be interesting to hear Pipes' reaction to a quote by the great
Jackie Robinson. In his autobiography, Robinson spoke of his first World
Series appearance, on Sept. 30, 1947: "There I was, the black grandson of a
slave, the son of a black sharecropper, part of a historic occasion, a
symbolic hero to my people...As I write this 25 years later, I cannot stand
and sing the anthem. I cannot salute the flag; I know that I am a black man
in a white world."

I dare Pipes to call Robinson a chauvinist.

But this double standard is typical of Muslim bashers. Pipes would probably
support a Christian or Jewish leader who suggested religious faith would
benefit our society or who called the United States "God's country." Change
"God" to "Allah" and this admirable sentiment is portrayed as a threat to
the "West's norms." Throw in an "Allahu Akbar" and you have a sure-fire
xenophobic hit.

The kind of agenda-driven polemic offered by Pipes does a disservice to
readers and only serves to fan the flames of ignorance and prejudice. But
perhaps that was his intent.

http://www.musalman.com/islamnews/cair_pipe_terrorist.html

 

I know I'm on his ignore list, but this little nugget from treeman is particularly galling:

So he's (seriously!) saying that *Europe*, of all places, is irrelevant because it has *no idea* what it's like to be attacked and bombed. Jeeeeeeeesus. Did he *miss* most of the past century? You know, the Blitz? The complete razing of most of France, twice? The firebombing of Dresden? The IR-bloody-A? All that malarkey?

Yeah, Europe has no understanding of this issue.

 

How else do you propose they fight. We help Israel financially and militarily. Do you really expect Palestinians to go up against Israeli fighter jets and tanks with a Ak-47? I dont want innocent people dying either, but Palestinians are fighting the only way they can.

If I am not mistaken the entire Europe was basically "blown" up just 50 years ago. I am not even going to argue with you if you think only Americans and those ****ing Israelis are the only non-bias countries of the world. Many countries (India, Russia, China) are facing separatists movements. You dont see them going into their country and dragging out every male. Israelis are basically committing genocide and Bush is just standing by like a jackass.

I dont equate Israelis with Jews . Just like I dont eqaute India with Hindus , or Americans with Christians . I have quite a few Jewish friends for your kind information. I dont base my friendship with a person based on their religion.

And when the hell have I claimed Muslims are perfect? I shouldnt waste my time with you either. In a different thread you argued with someone (haven?) about opening your eyes. About "unlearning" what you had learned. That one does not know everything. But you sure act like you know everything. You better not waste your time pointing where I am "wrong". I didnt realize I was not allowed to have an opinion.

And thanks for lumping together 1-2 BILLION Muslims. All Billion of us think Islam is perfect. All Billion of us hate Jews and and want to blow up Israel and US.