Caught red-handed: Settlers steal Palestinians' donkey

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

http://972mag.com/caught-red-handed-settlers-steal-palestinians-donkey/68372/

We reached the place at about 11:30 a.m., and started taking testimonies. The story was simple, humdrum, and depressing. The farmers of Yasouf received a very limited permit to work their lands adjacent to the Tapuach settlement: it was limited to two days. When the farmers came early on the first morning, they found two settlement security vehicles blocking their way to the lands, as IDF soldiers watched on, doing nothing. An officer from the IDF’s Civil Administration intervened, and the settlers left.

About half an hour later, five men came out of the settlement’s north gate – it’s locked, so how they opened it is a mystery – and one of them was hooded. They started throwing stones at the farmers working their land, who retreated. Three of the attackers advanced while throwing stones at the farmers, and the two others grabbed their donkey, which carried some agricultural equipment, and pulled it through the gate in Tapuach.

As we were taking testimonies, I noticed some movement near the gate, which is some 200 meters from the place where we stood. I went there, and saw forces of the Police, the Border Police, the Civil Administration, as well as a settler looking very angry, who were holding a donkey. For once, the policing forces were doing their job, and returned the stolen donkey. A few minutes later, a stolen plowshare – which originally was on the donkey – was also found and returned, and it too passed through the gate from Tapuach to Yasouf. I heard the Civil Administration officer saying they found the donkey “inside the settlement.” The Palestinians said that other equipment carried by the donkey was still missing.

I was recently characterized by a rather misguided individual that according to me, "Israelis are bad, they lie, and so do their supporters."

Sadly, there is plenty of bad behavior to go around in the Israel/Palestinian conflict, and if both sides started acting a little more rationally then things might be better in the long run.

Some Israelis are bad as well as some Palestinians.

In the instance above sometimes the bad are caught, and instead of being whisked away to an IDF jail they just fade away back into their illegal settlement: ready to practice hate some other day when the cameras aren't rolling.

[Jefferson23]

1. Long documented history: Accountability for the violation of human rights in the Occupied Territorie

Published:
1 Jan 2011

Accountability for human rights violations is crucial to deterrence, in order to ensure that they are not repeated. Therefore, international law requires that states effectively investigate suspected breaches of human rights and prosecute those responsible. The law also requires that victims be compensated for the injuries they suffered through violation of their rights.

The major goal of international humanitarian law (IHL) is to reduce the number of civilians harmed in hostilities. Toward this end, IHL specifies clear rules on when, and against whom, force may be used. Under the “principle of distinction,” the sides engaged in hostilities must distinguish between combatants and civilians during combat. Attacks intentionally directed against civilians and civilian objects are prohibited. The “principle of proportionality” dictates that, in attacking a legitimate military object, the anticipated military advantage from the attack must be greater than the anticipated injury to civilians resulting from the attack. Accordingly, the state mounting the attack must take all possible precautions to reduce harm to civilians. Injury to civilians is never considered an integral part of hostilities and is always an undesirable outcome although it is legally permitted under certain circumstances.

As it is prohibited to aim attacks at civilians, states are obligated to investigate cases in which civilians are injured, including during the course of armed conflict. For instance, a series of conditions must exist for the killing of civilians in hostilities not to be considered a breach of law. Among other things, attacks must be aimed only at legitimate targets, the military must take all feasible precautions to reduce harm to civilians, and the anticipated military advantage from the attack must be greater than the anticipated injury to civilians. Determining that the death of a person did not result from a breach of law can be made only after these questions are examined in the framework of an investigation.

The military’s duty goes beyond investigating intentional harm to civilians. Military officials must also verify that soldiers and officers carry out military orders and Israeli law. These prohibit not only firing with intention to kill, but also causing death by negligence, violence, pillage, and many more acts.

Every state is responsible for illegal acts carried out by bodies or persons acting on its behalf, and is therefore obligated to remedy the consequences of these acts. Its primary obligation is to restore the original situation before the offense. However, after most serious human rights violations, the damage cannot be undone. In these cases, the state's main obligation is to compensate the victims for the injury caused to them, directly and indirectly, by infringement of their rights. The obligation to compensate is explicitly stated both in international humanitarian law and in international human rights law.

Since 2000, with the outbreak of the second intifada, Israel has increasingly avoided accountability for serious violations of human rights of West Bank and Gaza residents for which it is responsible. One example is the policy enforced in the West Bank until April 2011: as a rule, not to open criminal investigations in cases in which soldiers killed Palestinians who were not taking part in the hostilities. Another is the enactment of legislation that denies Palestinians harmed by illegal acts of Israeli security forces almost any possibility to file compensation suits in Israeli courts.

http://www.btselem.org/accountability

[Shaktimaan]

5. Relevance?

This wasn't a military attack and no one was killed or even injured. How does this link apply?

[Jefferson23]

6. It does not need to be a military attack to be relevant.

From the OP: The problem with taking testimonies of what happens in the West Bank is that the questioning often takes place with a considerable delay after the events, and the police do not like investigating incidents. The ability to capture events in real time is limited; the attacks come suddenly, and most Palestinians – particularly the farmers – do not habitually carry a camera on them.

My post gives background on accountability, the lack of.

[Shaktimaan]

8. Does it?

It references militAry attacks.
And here no one was injured or killed.

Your link says nothing about immediate police intervention. Or instantaneous investigations. Just that investigations occur in the even soldiers target and hurt/kill civilians. That didn't happen here.

The link is about military actions. The settlers aren't active soldiers. This doesn't reference them. They wouldn't be involved in military attacks at any point anyway.

[Jefferson23]

9. First post, first line, mine: Long documented history:

Accountability, the lack of. My post gives background on that history. It is widespread
throughout the occupation.

You don't agree with the relevance, I can live with that.

[Shaktimaan]

11. But.

Your post speaks to human rights violations. The op isn't a hr violation. Nor does yr post give evidence of this history. Regardless, how does it fit with the op? The op isn't a part of any history of hr violations bc it doesn't fit the qualities of one.

[Jefferson23]

16. But, to use your prompt; it is about lack of accountability through each aspect

of the occupation.

You don't think it's relevant, I do. I like background on the occupation..the scope of it
is important.

[shira]

46. So when Palestinian kids next throw rocks....

...in their "non-violent" protests against the Jews.....and the event is posted here in an OP....it wouldn't be a stretch at all to bring a little context in by relating it to past Palestinian war crimes and human rights violations, correct?

[Jefferson23]

48. Sure, why not..problem is you have not one human rights group that provides you

support for your unverified videos from PalWatch, MEMERI and all the horseshit websites you depend on.


Good luck.

[shira]

49. LOL. You think all those videos are bullshit?

The real question is how come so many human rights and peace groups ignore and deny them....

[Jefferson23]

50. Because they're bullshit, that's why. You have yet to produce anything from your sick websites

that condemns Israeli abuses .

The human rights groups I list document abuses on both sides.

[shira]

51. How are videos bullshit? You don't believe your lying eyes or what?

And you keep comparing media watchdog sites to human rights organizations. Why would you expect media watchdogs to act like human rights organizations?

=========

What do you think of this? Is it bullshit too?
http://www.miftah.org/Display.cfm?DocId=25950&CategoryID=2

[Jefferson23]

52. The irony: Why would you expect media watchdogs to act like human rights organizations?

Survey says: Because most people want verified information, the human rights groups examine both sides.

Have your link checked out by a human rights group..see what they have to say.

[shira]

53. I'm asking you what you think of Miftah's response...

Or do you have to ask permission or wait until some progressive group you endorse says something about it first?

[Jefferson23]

65. Ignore what I posted earlier.

Because most people want verified information, the human rights groups examine both sides.

You can't say why you post from groups that do not recognize Israeli abuses.


Your MIFTAH concern..so why don't you believe them, shira? It proves what about the occupation
that Israel perpetuates to take more land that does not belong to them.

[holdencaufield]

2. Stealing a donkey is a fraternity stunt ...

... or, if the cops have no sense of humour, Grand-Theft Donkey.

The donkey, and his accessories, were returned by the police -- apparently very quickly -- and just because there were no charges mentioned in the rather one-sided report doesn't mean charges weren't filed.

This might make a good segment on "Reno 911" but is hardly an international incident worthy of pout-rage.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

3. "a fraternity stunt"

I've heard that language used before with asshole republicans caught doing something that they shouldn't have been doing in their past...or present, and it is always the apologists that are there first to blow smoke up the collective ass of the crowd: calling it a fraternity stunt.

This wasn't a stunt. It was harassment and theft to prevent Palestinian farmers from working in their fields for the only two fucking days that they were allowed to be there. While they were there they met with this aggression from the, might I remind you, illegal settlers.

If you had any sense of common decency you wouldn't waste DUers time by calling theft a fraternity stunt. But then again, I can only gather by your knee-jerk reaction to the article that perhaps you know all about fraternity pranks and the fuckers that get away with them?


I've never belonged to a fraternity in the entire time I attended college, but I do know the type: fucking assholes that can get away with pretty much everything that they can while shitting on others. All the while their buddies cover and lie for them.

So perhaps you hit the nail on the head with what the settlers really are at their core.

[holdencaufield]

4. You are unfamiliar with ...Bill the Goat

Mascot of the United States Naval Academy

"The first recorded kidnapping of Bill in modern times was accomplished one week before the Army-Navy football game in the fall of 1953. A group of cadets from the United States Military Academy (USMA) at West Point snuck onto the Annapolis grounds with the help of a West Point exchange student who was living at the Naval Academy. After locating the goat behind the stadium, the cadets stashed it in the backseat of a convertible; however, their cover was blown when they stopped at a gas station and the goat's horns shredded the convertible top. The cadets successfully made it back to the USMA and presented the goat to the entire Corps at a raucous dinnertime pep rally; however, many Navy midshipmen refused to go to classes until Bill was returned. After the goat's return was ordered by officials from West Point (as well as President Dwight D. Eisenhower himself, a USMA graduate), the Army cadets staged a mass protest which was posted on the front page of several New York papers as "Goat Rebellion at West Point." The Army football team went on to defeat Navy 20-7.

The Air Force joined in soon after, via a raid by three United States Air Force Academy (USAFA) cadets a month prior to the first Air Force/Navy football game in 1960. Bill was flown to the AFA in the bomb bay of an Air Force B-26, where he resided on a farm until Naval Intelligence tracked him to Colorado. The superintendent of the USAFA learned of the mission through intimidation of the Cadet Wing, and forced the return of Bill to Annapolis. The event was reported by several national media outlets, including Life, at the time.

During the height of a heated in-state rivalry with Maryland, the goat was stolen by Maryland students. This happened shortly before the controversial 1964 match, where actions on the field caused the suspension of the series for 40 years.

On November 5, 1995, a month before the Army-Navy football game, a group of seniors from the USMA staged a pre-dawn raid on the Naval Academy Dairy Farm in Gambrills, Maryland and kidnapped Bill the Goat XXVI, XXVIII and XXIX. The Pentagon was notified, and the three goats were returned under a policy forged by flag officers of the Army and Navy that stipulates that the "kidnapping of cadets, midshipmen or mascots will not be tolerated". However, the truce was broken in 2002, when Army cadets kidnapped the Navy mascot from the Dairy Farm during a Veterans Day weekend, wearing Grateful Dead T-shirts as a disguise. After residing in a Pennsylvania farm, the Angora goat was returned.

On November 17, 2007 cadets from the USMA raided the Naval Academy Dairy Farm and kidnapped Bill XXXII, Bill XXXIII and Bill XXXIV prior to an upcoming Army–Navy football game. The operation was named "Operation Good Shepherd" according to a Naval Academy spokesman. The goatnappers created a video showing the planning and actually goatnapping, and then posted it on YouTube.

On November 24, 2012, a passerby spotted an Angora goat tied up near the Pentagon in a median at an intersection on Army Navy Drive in Arlington County, Virginia. Representatives of the Animal Welfare League of Arlington[12] rescued the ruminant and took it to the League's animal shelter. Calls were then placed to law enforcement officials in Anne Arundel County, Maryland, who notified the caprine's presumptive owners that their property had been found and needed a ride back home. The manager of Maryland Sunrise Farm (the successor to the Naval Academy Dairy Farm), where Bill XXXVIII and Bill XXXIV usually resided, then claimed and retrieved the beast, which was in good condition, but did not know which Bill was absent from the farm. A Navy spokeswoman said, “At this time, we are unaware of who may have taken the goat, but it could be related to the Army-Navy game Dec. 8.” A spokesman for the USMA stated that he had "no official knowledge" of any theft of a goat. No charges were filed because it was unclear as to who had tied and abandoned the animal in the median."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_the_Goat

Do you consider the good men and women of our Armed Forces Academies to be (and I'm quoting your words here ) "fucking assholes that can get away with pretty much everything that they can while shitting on others"

You can choose to attempt to turn what is essentially a petty theft into a war-crime but something was taken, it was returned and everyone walks away. If someone wasn't wearing a shirt, this is a bad episode of "Cops"

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

7. I'm not unfamiliar with apologists that like to blow smoke up the collective ass of DU.

Do you consider the good men and women of our Armed Forces Academies to be (and I'm quoting your words here ) "fucking assholes that can get away with pretty much everything that they can while shitting on others"

I do consider what the illegal settlers did to be an act of theft and intimidation. In addition I do consider your apathetic attempts to distract from the theft and intimidation by illegal settlers to be worthy of the local high-school cheer team.

You can choose to attempt to turn what is essentially a petty theft into a war-crime but something was taken, it was returned and everyone walks away. If someone wasn't wearing a shirt, this is a bad episode of "Cops"

You can choose to turn what is essentially a crime caught in the act as a mere fraternity prank, which says a great deal about your character or lack thereof, but that dog won't hunt. The stolen property was returned because there were reporters there that challenged the whole incident. Did you bother to read the article?

About half an hour later, five men came out of the settlement’s north gate – it’s locked, so how they opened it is a mystery – and one of them was hooded. They started throwing stones at the farmers working their land, who retreated. Three of the attackers advanced while throwing stones at the farmers, and the two others grabbed their donkey, which carried some agricultural equipment, and pulled it through the gate in Tapuach.

Yeah, a fraternity prank. Nice cover for open hostility.

I find it ironic that the character that you use for a title would rather open a vein than cover for a frat brother, but that's just me.

[holdencaufield]

10. "How could I not hate you ... you stole my goat!"

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

12. That's nice, holden, show DU what you are really made of.

I for one applaud your consistent deflection of theft by Israelis.

[delrem]

13. you do a great job of representing Israel, holdencaufield. nt

[holdencaufield]

14. And you do a great job of mis-representing them ...

... so, cheers

[delrem]

18. But I've never pretended to represent Israeli, Zionist interests. nt

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

15. Palestinian kids, throwing rocks, will see more jail time

than the settler(s) that willfully stole a farmers property.

[pelsar]

20. holdencaufield i know its tempting.....

in general i dont believe in the ends justifies the means...something which is prevalent here. Where every israeli infraction or imagined infraction is made to show just how evil the israelis are...with the end goal of helping to establishing some kind of Palestinian country (its irrelevant what kind).

However, i dont believe those of us who do believe in western values, who do believe that the means infact must justify the ends, have to sink so low.

The settlers stole the goat as well as other equipment, they've ruined Palestinian cars, tire, homes, etc. Those settlers who are doing this stuff, there is no excuse for them and it would be nice if they were really punished, unfortunately given that "powers that be" it wont happen.

we dont have to make any excuses for them, nor pretend its not what it is, and you certainly dont have to play the "pro palestinian" game of "moral equivalency." Its a immoral game played, where again anything goes to justify their end goal.

zionism, israel was built on classical western moral values, and it must remain there....no matter what crap is thrown at us.

[delrem]

21. means ... ends

"i dont believe in the ends justifies the means"
"those of us who do believe in western values, who do believe that the means in fact must justify the ends,"

You are wrong. "Western values", if such values are post-enlightenment values, are neither "ends justify the means" or "means justify the ends", whatever "means justify the ends" might mean.

"Western values" follow after several thousands of years of scholarly debate which reduce to two conjoined lines of thought, utilitarianism as in "what is good is what brings the greatest happiness to the greatest number", and pure reason as in "all persons ought to be considered equal before the law". Values based in pure reason are considered sacrosanct (extremely hard to budge), values based in utilitarianism are considered more open to continuous debate.

[pelsar]

22. when then lets remove "classic" from my post

I plead ignorence....and bow to clearly what is your greater knowledge on the subject..

because i disagree with this:

what is good is what brings the greatest happiness to the greatest number
____

quantity has zero to do with what is right/good and moral...and happiness is totally irrelevant, being a subjective fleeting value

______
then I shall call it: pelsars version of western thought and value system: lecture/seminar at 16:30, rm 3002, book signing immediately after

[delrem]

24. you didn't even understand my post by half. nt

[pelsar]

27. correct....

i didnt understand it nor did i read it very carefully..... I admit to having a subjective disdain for philosophical writings that i view as not being grounded., especially when they use "really big words."

If i read it carefully, slowly i would understand it, at the same time i have neither the knowledge of hostorical philosophical western thought, nor the patience to get into it...

hence i fully admit, that you have the greater knowledge here and really have nothing to add in terms of any kind of argument/discussion, since it will only lead to me making a greater fool out of myself....

[delrem]

36. And yet you purport to speak generally for "western values".

Do you really think that "western values" are so shallow that the best minds who frame them don't make distinctions accorded with "really big words"? Here's a really big word: 'deontological ethics', which means an exposition focused on duties and rights; as opposed to 'a utilitarian or consequentialist ethics' which means an exposition focused on the judging (trying to put an ethical standard to) the product of individual actions in specific situations.

These are two very different parts or aspects to the topic 'ethics', the first lending to generalities like "in the USA the ideal to be strived for is that all persons are deemed to be equal before the law." This generality doesn't *exist* (it is deontological), it is an ideal to be strived for and when embraced by decisions/judgments of courts of law, they are recognized as setting a *progressive* (with respect to the ideal) precedent. In contrast utilitarian or consequentialist ethics focuses on actual action. For example, your ethical conundrum of the IDF flier forced to make a decision is an example of a problem of the kind utilitarian or consequentialist ethics is supposed to deal with. Crudely: suppose you're buckled in a chair in a room with 3 strangers buckled in chairs in front of you, and you have a console in front of you with two buttons. You are told that you must push a button within one minute,and if you push the button on the left the two people on the left will instantly die, if you push the button on the right the one person on the right will die, but if you push no button or both buttons then all will die. What do you do? It's a stupid and unrealistic mental experiment, the only purpose being to illustrate "utilitarian ethics" as such. The situation isn't covered by discussion of rights and duties. It isn't covered by pleasant sayings like "do unto others...".

Back to your IDF flier, with crew. They are on their own, making split second ethical decisions - immediately consequential or utilitarian decisions. Personally, I'm not into second-guessing army grunts, whether on ground, air, or sea - and esp. so in invented scenarios. Consider Mi Lai. I'll condemn those in command, on the ground, who issued orders. But will I condemn some recruit on the side, who didn't shoot but watched and did nothing to stop it? I dunno, I honestly don't know. Likewise the IDF crew. They're going to definitely kill these kids playing if they fire? Figuring the odds, I'd hold fire for a better shot.

Then when it was over and I'd done my rotten time in the IDF and fulfilled my duty, I'd work for the cause of equality of persons in both Israel and the occupied territories, doing whatever I could. Because when all people are treated equally before the law, and in the eyes of the state, and all cultures are respected and allowed their full voice, war is less likely. Peace and prosperity is more likely.

[pelsar]

37. western values are not shallow...but....

but you dont have to have a deep understanding of various intricacies to see how the proponents get lost in it, when it comes to reality

for instance:

Because when all people are treated equally before the law, and in the eyes of the state, and all cultures are respected and allowed their full voice, war is less likely. Peace and prosperity is more likely.

this is conditional is it not:.........that all cultures accept that western thought and philosophy, that it is the superior culture and thought over those other cultures

for instance, lets look at the taliban...what are you doing to do with their culture? Hamas, MB, this whole western though and philosophy, no matter how intricate and nice and philosophical using really nice big words about "respecting other cultures....requires you to destroy the very foundation of the talibans belief...

is that your definition of "respect" and allowing their full voice?

[delrem]

40. No, equality before the law and respect for persons and differences of culture isn't conditional.

As I said, it's an ideal to be striven for.

You point out the instance of an intolerant political movement, the Taliban, and equate that intolerance with a culture, and by this example contradict my generality that "when all cultures are respected war is less likely". Perhaps - esp. if you close your mind *right there* and decide that war is the only option. Or perhaps it depends on how deep you want to dig. Note that the same kind of intolerance can be said to belong to e.g. the Roman Catholic Church (history of the inquisition, the absolutely intolerant church backed monarchies of Europe,....). One could argue that like the Taliban, members of the RCC should have been hunted down to the last person and totally exterminated, since the intolerance of the inquisition was manifest. Anything but creating an "enlightened" milieu wherein the RCC, along with every other kind of religious or irreligious community, may prosper. Even if that means, like the Amish, closing themselves off. Someone else can argue that the RCC, which to this day tries to force its particular morality on the wider population which includes people who are decidedly *not* Catholics, should be forced to accept the fact that with respect those particulars where its rulings and judgments come in conflict with the more general dictum of equality for all persons regardless of race/religion/sex/etc, adherence must be strictly voluntary. So someone else might argue that the ideal of "equality before the law" and other ideals of the enlightenment are *moderating principles*. According as that argument, an example taken from a region where such moderating principles have had no or little chance to as yet take root (as in Afghanistan, after such incredibly long periods of war) can't reasonably be used to deny the efficacy of those principles, were they given some breathing room.

I also disagree with terminology like "western values" as descriptive of such principles as incorporated in the UN universal declaration of human rights, etc. That's a chauvinistic choice of language which, not only being inappropriate, could easily prove counterproductive as it contains an intrinsic "us (westerns) vs them (others)" dynamic. Like mathematics and logic, general principles of ethics have been developed by all cultures, all peoples, and owe both their existence and recognition to all of humanity, generally.

[pelsar]

41. wow... a real pretzal

general principles of ethics have been developed by all cultures, all peoples, and owe both their existence and recognition to all of humanity, generally.

i'm confused....are you saying that the Taliban are or are not part of this humanity? because it seems to me your ethics probably doesnt include hanging homosexuals or stoning women for adultery....

and if it doesn't how exactly is it universal? (either the taliban are part of this universal ethics or they are not, in which case they are not universal)
___

[delrem]

42. The RCC burned people to death for saying that the earth revolved around the sun. nt

[pelsar]

43. and witches were burned at the stake....

Hindu wives still burn themselves alive when their husbands die

so please explain to me how these universal values are universal, yet there are cultures that reject them?

its a pretty simple question....and what do you propose to do about these cultures which not only do they reject your version of universal values, they in fact believe that they have the right set of universal values and it is you who are wrong.....

and this "respect of yours" can iranians who live in Jackson city, retain a bit of their culture that includes hanging homosexuals or do you believe that it is they have to change and you must disrespect their beliefs (which god willing will one day become universal)
______
i'm guessing but in the world you live in, nobody even questions the fact that the "universal rights" may in fact not even be universal, so your probably at a loss as to how to answer, and in fact probably dont even have one.

but you can try..think of it as an exercise in having an open mind, by having your most cherished ideas questioned.

[delrem]

44. As you explained, post #27, you don't read carefully - because you have disdain.

You have proven it.
There's nothing I can do to change that.

[pelsar]

47. i have a disdain for 'high minded philosophers....

that refuse to look at reality......and refuse to explain simple concepts when they are questioned.

Your not the first one to claim "universal rights are universal" and then dismiss the beliefs of others that also claim universal rights that are different from yours but at the same time express belief that they must be respected...

yet have no idea how that would actually work.....and dont like to have your beliefs to be questioned.
_________________

what you can do, is drum up some "internet courage" and explain how your version of universal rights will respect the talibans culture, that of present day iran without altering it.

or you can make some ridiculous claim and not answer and pretend you did....

[delrem]

54. You don't read the posts that you respond to. nt

[pelsar]

55. i dont always understand "progressive" language

its couched in PC verbology and vague concepts that have little to do with reality on the ground, so i have to ask several times and tighten the posting.

but many times i get a "i already answered that" or what you wrote" that i dont understand" which is true a lot, since vague and large concepts are language that infact i dont understand.

or course on the other hand, you also have little understanding of application of those concepts of yours and stay far away from any real application.

[delrem]

56. As I said, you don't bother to read the posts that you respond to.

you keep proving it.

[shira]

57. When you ask us questions, we try to be very clear....

...and we also try very hard to understand your views.

Of course, for some reason you try very hard to conceal your views - perhaps afraid or embarrassed at how you'll be perceived.

So you stay on the attack, not wanting your true views criticized - which is why you hide them - and you continue to smear your opponents in what looks like some online game. I mean, come on and admit it, it's obvious....

It's pretty much the same for all you like-minded pro-Palestinians here at DU. Even Norm Finkelstein calls BS on all the lies and deceit from the BDS crowd (cult) of which you appear to be part of. I can't stand that SOB but I appreciate his honesty and respect him more for it.

[delrem]

58. or perhaps pelsar just doesn't have the wit to understand the us bill of rights. nt

[shira]

59. Why not try and be perfectly clear in 1-3 simple sentences?

Why do you fear a genuine conversation here?

[delrem]

60. Let me guess. Like pelsar you've failed to actually read my posts in this thread. nt

[shira]

61. We must be very slow....so please help us understand.

Why wouldn't you want to be understood very clearly, if not for fear that you're embarrassed by your views?

[delrem]

62. yes, you're very "slow", shira.

you right-wingers do tag-team trolling, I see.

[shira]

63. But you're the one w/ right-wing views.

That's why you want to evade criticism for the views you're trying so desperately to conceal.

[delrem]

64. heh. thanks for the easter laughs, shira.

[King_David]

70. She's right, about the right wing view nt

[Violet_Crumble]

71. No, she wasn't. She was blindly trying to deflect from being told her views are RW...

Happy tag-teaming!

[holdencaufield]

23. You didn't read the OP thoroughly ...

... this isn't a news report based on facts, it's the biased and one-sided account of an alleged dispute between settlers and Palestinians. The "reporter" took accounts only from Palestinians and didn't bother to interview the settlers or the police to find out if in fact something precipitated the event -- or what actually happened. He only says he "overheard" a civil administrator say "the donkey was returned".

None of that is surprising. The constant barrage of one-sided or purely fictional accounts of "settler harassment" are de riqueur on sites like 972 and Electronic Intifada and are regurgitated here on a daily basis. There is nothing new about that.

The thing special about this thread is that just 30 minutes later, you've got another post equating what would be considered a misdemeanor neighbour dispute in any other part of the world (Western democracies or otherwise) with human rights violations part of a government policy, equating it with "death by negligence, violence, pillage, and many more acts". That is the kind of hyperbole that passes for discussion in this forum.

[pelsar]

28. whether or not the OP is factually correct...

Last edited Sat Mar 30, 2013, 01:31 PM - Edit history (1)

in this particular case, make no mistake that it does happen, in so many variations where the settlers provoke the Palestinians or simply vandalize their equipment.....

as far as the hyperbole, well that is a constant as are the attempts at "moral equivalence." an other thread attempting to compare israeli freedom of the press with the what goes for "freedom of the press" in the westbank is simply another example of the same farce.

but again its not about being 'fair" is not about being accurate, its about using whatever means possible to bring about a desired result...and if means making israel or israelis in to some kind of anti democratic, anti human rights, theocratic racist regime.....well thats ok too.

but it doesn't mean we have to join them in their hyperbole or false attempts at "moral equivalence"

[azurnoir]

31. well fact is some here here in this group and in the US calle explanation or questions

moral equivalency, when in reality it is just questions but I know we're supposed top fall in line like good soldiers or something but really most ProPalestinians her do not use moral equivalency for the very simple reason that it is really not necessary

[pelsar]

38. take a look at the freedom of speech thread.....

the whole discussion is absurd.

israel has far greater freedom of speech than does the PA or hamas. Its not even an issue to argue about. The PA is not a democracy, does not claim to be and therefore doesn't need to claim they have freedom of speech.

as far as i'm concerned, if one, wants to be honest about it and not have some kind of agenda to claim "look israel is not perfect, they also dont have 100% freedom of speech in the press" therefore they are as "bad" as the PA, then you wouldn't get a post after post of nonsense in an attempt of "moral equivalency"

israel is a democracy with one set of values, the PA is not a democracy with a different set of values.....and they are not comparable. For some the PA's version of justice and values are correct and israels western values are simply wrong, but there is nothing to compare.

[shaayecanaan]

35. There is of course the issue

that an Army that spends its time mediating donkey disputes instead of being an Army, is liable to suffer another arse-whipping at the hands of Hezbollah should it ever get involved in a ground war with them again.

No doubt Nasrallah hopes and prays for the same thing that holdencaulfield does. May the IDF traffick in donkeys forever.

[azurnoir]

19. thanks so you consider the settlers just pranksters having good ole fashioned fun

like they used to in the good ole days in the US before 1964

[Scootaloo]

17. It's also theft. Which is a criminal act. n/t

[jessie04]

25. No question the Palestinians have had a raw deal....

But to decry grand larceny and not to even mention war crimes against innocent Israelis ,is really disingenuous.

And I understand the Palestinian plight. Their leaders have abused their own people , have caused more deaths to the Palestinian people than Israel has, and have been used as human pawns by other countries( see Syria and Egypt just for a start.) they deserve a break.

[Scootaloo]

39. Well, no, it's not disingenuous at all. We're talking about a stolen donkey.

It's the point of the OP, and the subject to which Holden was responding, and then I to him.

What's disingenuous is your weird attempt to link war crimes and "Arab leaders" to this grand theft equine. They're just not at all relevant to the topic up for discussion.

[King_David]

26. C'mon by all the replies here its worse than killing a baby,

That thread garnered no comments from these dudes , ha ha .

http://www.democraticunderground.com/113437599

[shira]

29. Not a Mistake, Misunderstanding, or Well-Intended Criticism But a Deliberate Campaign to Bash Israel

Not a Mistake, Misunderstanding, or Well-Intended Criticism But a Deliberate Campaign to Bash Israel

The first, most important thing to understand about the Western and especially American debate on Israel is this:

Never before in history has there been such a concerted, systematic, and vicious campaign to discredit and demonize Israel, especially seeking to undermine its support in the Jewish community.

Without comprehending this fact, the massive attacks from academia, mass media, groups, and even in mainstream political and intellectual debate cannot be understood. We aren’t dealing with lots of mistakes but with the mass production of hate speech....

http://rubinreports.blogspot.co.il/2013/02/not-mistake-misunderstanding-or-well.html

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

34. "a Deliberate Campaign to Bash Israel" Wrong.

Instead of becoming hysterical why don't you address the OP?

Do you consider harassment of Palestinian farmers, by illegal Israeli settlers, as well as theft of their property bashing Israel?


Indeed. Tell us more.

[shira]

45. No, it's correct. See the very first post, #1.....

...which brings up human rights violations and war crimes.

A donkey was stolen but then returned, and the very first reaction to your OP is to bring up human rights violations and war crimes?

Un.real.

No, what's happening here and elsewhere is a very deliberate campaign to bash Israel. It's a form of hate speech unparalleled on such a wide scale. There is no other country in the world treated like this across the political spectrum.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

66. No Shira. You are pretending to be willfully ignorant of abuses yet expect to

have Israel treated as victim.

Amateur.

[shira]

67. How is stealing a donkey & returning it a war crime....

...or violation of human rights?

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

69. The donkey wasn't stolen and returned by the settlers.

The donkey was stolen, as well as other possessions of the farmer-yet to be returned, and returned by the police after the journalist writing the story went up to the settlement gate to check out what was going on. As for the other possessions that are still missing who knows which settler has them now.

What the gist of the article speaks to, and pretty much every other episode where illegal Israeli settlers beset Palestinians, is that there is a systematic series of abuse by settlers of Palestinians.

Whether it is tearing down or burning olive groves, killing or dispersing livestock, not letting lands be tilled or harvested when it is time to do so, arresting children and sentencing them to years for throwing rocks, torture, murder or the wholesale spraying "skunk" in Palestinian villages there is more than just the appearance of human rights abuses by Israeli settlers or IDF against Palestinians.

It is pretty damn blatant.

One would either have to be lying or be dumb as a rock to ignore or deny that Palestinians have seen a wide array of human rights abuses against them by both the IDF and illegal Israeli settlers.


The rock is in your corner, Shira.

[azurnoir]

30. perhaps it's because that has posted and reposted here multiple times

as if there is nothing else to talk about let's rehash though shall we the BBC said initially that a Palestinian baby that dies during an Israeli bombing attack against Gaza was killed by Israel, the nerve how could anyone ever think such a thing as I've recently been told that Israeli pilots stop and think before they drop their bombs they from the cockpit of an F-17 apparently make sure there are no civilians in the area or something

but back to the subject it was posted when it was first announce weeks ago it was posted during the investigation, it was posted twice on Wednesday sadly one of threads got locked I really wish that had not happened I felt it to a very valuable thread, for a number of reasons, it was on that thread where you said the video the same one in your OP of the death of a Palestinian baby was an oldie but goodie

however the thread you posted despite challenges from supporters of such things has gone largely ignored well I commented so that should be satisfying in some manner

[King_David]

32. Yea it's uncomfortable

For a lot of news outlets too, best ignored.

[azurnoir]

33. no not ucormfortable in any why would you think that? its just repetitious

but I guess some moments are to be treasured as oldies but goodies eh?

[bemildred]

68. Petty little assholes. nt