For newly homeless Palestinians, tents stir memories of 1948

[ProgressiveMuslim]

By Agence France Presse (AFP)

Monday, February 09, 2009

JABALIYA, Gaza Strip: Majid Asamna lived in a refugee tent in Gaza after fleeing what became Israel in 1948 - now a new war has left him homeless again, along with tens of thousands of other Palestinians. The homes of some 30,000 Palestinians were destroyed during last month's devastating 22-day Israeli onslaught, which killed more than 1,330 people, including over 400 children, and carved a vast swath of destruction across the besieged territory.

In recent days Gaza's Hamas-run government has partnered with international aid groups and local charities to erect hundreds of tents in the most devastated areas, a sight that stirs deep memories for Gaza's 1948 refugees.

"I thought if I left I might never return, just like in 1948. And when I did come back, after the war, everything was destroyed," Asamna, 65, says as he surveys the sprawling ruins of six family houses crushed by Israeli troops. "I'll never go back to Ashkelon, and my children may never come back to this place. When they come in and kill people like this they make it impossible for anyone to live here."

Israel claimed the offensive was aimed at halting Palestinian rocket fire on towns and farms near the Gaza border - including Ashkelon - which have killed 21 civilians inside Israel since 2000. Thousands of Palestinians have been killed by Israeli military actions in the same time.

But for Palestinians the war was the latest chapter in a tragedy that began 60 years ago, one in which bleak rows of tents are a recurring motif.

More than two-thirds of Gaza's 1.5 million residents are UN-registered refugees descended from the hundreds of thousands of Palestinians who were expelled from what is now Israel in the 1948 war.

Israeli military records, along with the personal writings of early Zionist leaders, have documented a deliberate and planned Zionist terror campaign that ethnically cleansed more than 700,000 Palestinians during the creation of Israel overtop Palestinian land. Palestinians refer to the ethnic cleansing as the Nakba, or catastrophe.

The fate of the refugees and their descendants - now numbering 4.6 million - is a core issue in the Middle East conflict although their right to return is enshrined in international law.

During last month's war Asamna remained in his home after troops backed by tanks and helicopters roared into his neighborhood, huddling inside with his 60 children and grandchildren for 11 days.

Then, after running out of food and water, they raised a white flag and marched out one by one, walking 4 kilometers to a relative's house in a neighboring town, he says. "They were still shooting. They shot at us while we were walking away."

When they returned after the war their farmstead had been flattened. Two six-door Mercedes taxis - on which they made most of their living - were crushed and half-buried in orchards plowed over by bulldozers.

Just up the dirt road from Asamna's ruined homestead local volunteers have in recent days erected dozens of white canvas tents surrounded by a short sand berm.


They call it Camp Dignity.

more...
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_id=2&article_id=99221

[aquart]

1. It's a special gift, to be a refugee for over sixty years.

Few have managed to accomplish it.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

2. I am completely in disagreement with the constant attempts to make it seem as if Israel is

a predator while the Palestinians are gentle innocent babes in the woods that did not engage all Arab countries to attack Israel in 48, and were/are never involved in terrorist activities inside Israel and outside of it.

Cubans have a very good saying for, what Palestinians are doing. They call it, "tira la piedra y esconde la mano." (Throw the rock then hide your hand behind your back). Sorry, but that's what it is. Do harm, then feign total and absolute SURPRISE, AMAZEMENT, SHOCK and BEWILDERMENT when the target strikes back. The image the Palestinians are successfully putting across with the aid of France, is that of poor, helpless victims.

The true story is actually very dirty. And no, the story is not, "Israel is the predator and the poor, helpless Palestinians are the long, suffering, innocent children." That's hardly the story. It's very lengthy, complicated and I'll gladly sit with anyone and discuss the dirty details, on BOTH SIDES, not exempting the origin, development, and tactics of the Palestinians. They make ETA from the Basque Country look like angels.

[GoesTo11]

3. Thanks for the Cuban lesson

Very helpful image.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

4. Anytime - I'm tired of the bs some people try to pull over on me that Palestinians are the innocents

Some people must think everyone is incredibly stupid.

[iconicgnom]

29. Oh dear lord, if you exist, preserve me from these people.

A colder heart I couldn't have imagined.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

5. Ever heard your avatar speak on the subject?

You clearly admire her. You should give a listen.

Rocks are quite the metaphor.

Israel has stolen land, colonized it illegally with hundreds of thousands of settlers, murdered men, women and children, jailed tens of thousands, destroyed homes, destroyed property including olive trees that are older than Jesus. They have locked people in their homes and communities. They have destroyed economies. They have bombed civilians and destroyed whole towns.

Yes indeed. Palestinians have thrown rocks and worse in response. I don't deny that. Sometimes they don't even hide their hands behind their backs. My own husband threw rocks at the IDF when he was a college student. He was shot with live ammunition in response. His best friend died in his arms, bleeding out at a checkpoint on the way to the hospital. Yes indeed, they do throw rocks.

Palestinians attempts to fight back do not erase the core injustice which is ongoing as we speak.

Wake up out of your propaganda slumber, Sarah.

Don't take my word for it. Listen to the voice of a woman you admire and respect. Wake up. Google Arundhati Roy Palestine. I challenge you to do so.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

6. Yes. I disagree with her totally on that subject, where I agree with her on others nt

[shaayecanaan]

25. Have you considered why she disagrees with you?

Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that Tibetans, Native Americans and so forth are considered victims, notwithstanding that they threw rocks as well.

You don't have to be morally superior to be a victim. You just have to be weaker.

[Shaktimaan]

8. But do you disagree with her point?

You paint a picture of hundreds of thousands of colonists descending upon a peaceful and defenseless population, then massacring, pillaging, expelling and continuously subjugating them while never meeting any more resistance than thrown rocks... which are just metaphors, really, for the rage they feel over the injustices suffered at the hands of their brutal and merciless alien oppressors.

But we both know that this fable is not exactly the whole truth, don't we?

The Palestinians are guilty of the same crimes that you accuse Israel of. They sold land only to steal it back, massacred refugees fleeing genocide, destroyed homes and places of worship, vandalized ancient religious sites. They have bombed civilians and targeted children.

Yes, Israel has jailed people. The Palestinians have too. In fact, they have abducted journalists and kept them hidden from the outside world. They have abducted soldiers and then lynched them, mutilated them. They have arrested other Palestinians and thrown them from rooftops and shot off their kneecaps.

The Palestinians have never shirked from using live ammunition themselves. They just refrain from using it against armed soldiers in the open, preferring to target civilian buses or children's houses on a kibbutz... but against the soldiers they usually just stick to rocks. An acquaintance of mine was shot with live ammunition while walking around the Empire State Building observation deck a few years ago. He wasn't throwing rocks. He wasn't doing anything. (He did not die, thankfully.)

My ex-girlfriend's brother was in bed when a Qassam hit his roof. He wasn't oppressing Palestinians. He wasn't throwing rocks either. He was sleeping. (He wasn't hurt, thankfully.)

Palestinian attempts to fight back have thus far sown nothing but increased sorrow, pain and grief. They have insisted on fighting back from day one, often to the exclusion of alternative paths. Actually, fighting "back" seems incorrect. It was just "fighting." There was no "back" yet when the Palestinians actually began fighting, was there?

The point is, if you are going to insist on fighting then it seems disingenuous to cry foul when you are hurt. It is not as though the Palestinians have ever fought particularly honorably or fair. They have consistently targeted the weakest, most vulnerable members of Israeli society. Your fighters use your own women and children as cover and then cry for justice when they are killed.

Wake up. Look at reality. Yes, the Israelis are oppressive and violent. But the Palestinians have consistently chosen violence for themselves. Consider, for once, the alternatives. I challenge you to do so.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

9. How can you say with a straight face that Palestinians and Israelis are guilty of the "same crimes?"

That is insane Shakti. If you truly believe that, then there is really no conversation to be had with you.

You simply can't equate a 40+ year violent military occupation with attempts to end it. It's not the same. Violence employed in the implementation of the occupation is not the same as violence employed with the goal of ending it.

Everyday I promote the use of worldwise boycotts (economic, cultural and academic), sanctions and divestment as the the most moral and effective nonviolent means to force israel to a just settlement.

Sarah unintentionally had it correct: rocks as resistance are indeed the metaphor.

[Shaktimaan]

10. It is interesting to see how you interpret this.

I mention the violence perpetrated by Palestinians in response to your statement listing Israel's crimes and you are unable to see it as a cycle of violent events whereby each side takes turns pressing their distinct advantages. (Yes, the Palestinians certainly do have advantages too.) Instead you immediately categorize all of the Israeli violence strictly as attempts to perpetuate oppression while all of the Palestinian violence (even more interestingly) become honorable attempts at ending the occupation. Did you realize that you did that? Hamas blowing up a civilian bus to try and strangle the Oslo Accords in its cradle is really a clear example of their trying to end the occupation. And Israel shelling a Qassam launcher location is not an act of self-defense to prevent rockets from hitting civilians but an attempt at perpetuating the occupation.

And then there's this... It's not the same. Violence employed in the implementation of the occupation is not the same as violence employed with the goal of ending it. Wow, huh? In other words... "Violence used in the pursuit of my objectives is not the same thing as violence used in the pursuit of YOUR objectives." The ends not only justify the means, they completely exculpate them as well. When Hamas purposefully blows up some Israeli children it is an act of self-defense yet when the IDF assassinates the bomb-maker it is oppressing a defenseless people, and NOT AT ALL defending its citizens. Well, let's just say that I strongly disagree with your ideology as I understand it here.

I could ask you about the violence that preceded the occupation but I'd imagine that there was an equally grave injustice that demanded the Palestinians persisted in fighting by any means necessary then too... probably the nakba, right? And before the nakba occurred there was the partition proposal, and before that there was the unchecked immigration, all of them unfair things that the Palestinians should NOT HAVE to compromise on at all, because the Zionists never had a right to any of the land that they're trying to negotiate with in the first place!

Am I warm?

[Vegasaurus]

11. I'd say you are hot!

Especially since this conflict is not now, and has NEVER been about "occupation" (at least not the 40+ year one that PM always mentions).

It is about ANY JEWS IN the Middle East.

Or the "occupation of ALL of greater Palestine".

Any Jews.

On Any Arab Land.

That is the "occupation" they are talking about.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

13. Yes, that's the root cause of it. But that doesn't mean as much as it might.

The root of the problem is the existence of Israel.

All Israeli land *is*, or at any rate was, rightfully Palestinian land; stolen from them in the 40s and 50s.

The creation of the state of Israel was a massive crime and a humanitarian catastrophe.

Initially, the Palestinians were entirely within their rights to attempt to destroy Israel and reclaim their homes, and the world would be a better place if they had succeeded in the early days, before doing so would have involved a humanitarian catastrophe and the hatred was so entrenched that Jews would be completely unable to live in a Palestinian state.

However that is not longer the case. People aquire rights to a land through length of occupation: if I steal your land you have a right to reclaim it; if my father stole your father's land then the issue is more murky; if my great-great-grandfather stole your great-great-grandfather's land then you have no right to it at all; enough Israelis have been there long enough that they now have a right to keep the land inside the Green Line (although the Palestinians also have a non-trivial right to that land, and their continuing desire to destroy Israel is understandable, even though at this stage no longer justifiable).

But to end the conflict, addressing its root cause would not be necessary. Enough Palestinians would be willing to settle for the return of the more-recently-stolen land outside the Green Line (which Israel has no right to whatsoever) to make peace viable if Israel were interested in it.

But, sadly, most Israelis would rather have settlements than peace, and refuse to see that they can't have both, and that if they gave up the former they could have the latter.

[Vegasaurus]

14. But "outside the green liine"

you also have at least a second generation, and in some cases already a third of Israelis.

It's "more recently stolen land" (from your vernacular) but not that much more recently.

The most recent settlements, yes, but many are very well established and over 30 years old.

It won't change Hamas or Hezbollah or Iran's view that the "Zionist entity" needs to be obliterated, no matter what Israel does.

And that's Israel inside and outside of the Green line.

They have said it often enough that we can believe them.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

15. I don't think you are right to be sure it won't change anything.

When you see no hope of anything, you might as well try for everything.

Destroying Israel completely is, frankly, no more unlikely than getting back the land outside the Green Line.

If the Arabs had a realistic chance of achieving something, they might well be willing to compromise.

Since there appears to be no chance of them achieving any form of viable state, they have nothing to lose by making their stated goal "the destruction of Israel", but one can't assume from that that if they had some hope then at least most of them wouldn't be willing to compromise.

[Vegasaurus]

17. but the Palestinians have not proven themselves to be very trustworthy

(neither have the Israelis)

Every possible bit of extra freedom of movement, etc., has been taken as a chance to increase terrorism.

Remember that the wall and checkpoints weren;t always there.

In fact, there wasn't always an occupation (at least an Israeli one; the Palestinians have always lived under someone's occupation, but this is the only one that bothers them, because it is Jews).

The militant leadership does not show an ability to compromise

I agree that they need some hope, but Gaza was the best hope anyone could have had.

Had they used the greenhouses, so generously given to them (instead of trashing them) and developed an economy other than terrorism, they could be a thriving country by now.

Gaza was hope.

They blew it with Gaza 100%.

No one is giving up the WB that easily, seeing how Gaza turned into Terror Central.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

23. Maybe they could learn how to be good little victims. Perhaps they should study history.

Then again, has being a good little victim ever achieved any political goal? Not for the victimized, I don'think.

Bottom line: no matter what the Palestinians do or don't do, colonization goes on.

[Shaktimaan]

24. Oh really?

Bottom line: no matter what the Palestinians do or don't do, colonization goes on.

Let me ask you something... how do you know? You're assuming that it doesn't matter what the Palestinians do because either way Israel's priority is expanding settlements. But how could you know that for sure? The two state solution is less than 20 years old as a modern proposal with political backing. So far in that time, the Palestinians have only done ONE thing, engage in terrorism. They have yet to discover what kind of result refraining from terrorism would bring.

During the past 20 years Israel has, in fact, sometimes frozen settlement expansion. Israel did withdraw from the Gaza strip and close some settlements in the WB. Israel did grant the Palestinians more autonomy than they have ever had during the past several centuries, redeploying troops, dismantling checkpoints and so on. Israel supported Palestinian steps towards self-determination such as facilitating their very first elections ever. Israel's history is hardly one of constantly increasing disenfranchisement of Palestine.

There is a constant throughout all of this though, it just isn't colonization. No matter what the Israelis did, whether they froze settlement expansion or increased it, whether they dismantled checkpoints or rebuilt them, whether they opened every crossing or began building security barriers, the Palestinian contribution has consistently been terror.

Maybe they could learn how to be good little victims. Perhaps they should study history.

Perhaps they should study Palestinian history and ask themselves if their sole strategy has thus far helped them at all. Then they could study Israeli history and learn how Israel became so successful despite all of the obstacles it faced.

Then again, has being a good little victim ever achieved any political goal? Not for the victimized, I don'think.

I think it is high time to reclaim some real estate between "like sheep to the slaughter" and "kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out." The fact of the matter is that the Palestinians have not been particularly successful at all in achieving their political goals. And the ones that they have achieved relied greatly on Western and Israeli good will. Good will that has, at this point, been almost entirely soured by Hamas. I doubt if much more will be forthcoming from now on, at least until something significant changes first regarding both terrorism and Hamas.

Right now the Palestinians are like a child who kills both his parents and then pleads for leniency because he's an orphan. They will need a better long term strategy if they are going to have any shot at having their own successful state one day.

[Idealism]

27. They were left hydroponic farms too, but their water is controlled still

Hard to develop without adequate water, no?

The checkpoints and the Wall in the West Bank were a direct result from the Second Intifada. Since then, there has been almost zero violence originating out of the West Bank- even though construction on the Apartheid Wall and checkpoints has continued unabated.

[Shaktimaan]

33. Gaza's water is "controlled?"

The Gaza aquifer (or coastal, whatever it's called) is shared by both Israel and Gaza. Gaza digs their own wells, Israel can't control them. (The lack of cooperation is probably the main reason that the water's salinity is increasing, but that's not going to be an easy political fix.) But Gaza's got its own desalinization plants also. Israel does pipe in extra water from Ashkelon. Is that what you mean by "controls"?

The checkpoints and the Wall in the West Bank were a direct result from the Second Intifada. Since then, there has been almost zero violence originating out of the West Bank- even though construction on the Apartheid Wall and checkpoints has continued unabated.

Well, the implications of what you wrote here depend on something... why hasn't there been any violence from the West Bank towards Israel recently? The stats I've seen would seem to indicate that it was actually the barrier and (to a lesser extent) the checkpoints that caused the decrease. And I have no evidence for this, but I think it's a reasonable assumption that there is a greatly reduced amount of attempts as well because the probability of success has shrunk so dramatically.

I also have another thought, but I haven't looked for any evidence to support it either. The conflict between Hamas and Fatah obviously did a lot to split the two groups between the WB and Gaza with far less crossover than before. Let's face it, the fence in Gaza didn't stop Hamas or IJ from attacking via rockets. We're not seeing that at all from the WB though. So I'm assuming that one of the key reasons attacks are down is because there just isn't the same kind of Hamas density in the WB as there used to be, and the ones who are there are lying relatively low.

That said, there actually still is violence that emanates from the WB. It just doesn't make it past the barrier. There's no way that Israel is going to stop building the barrier at this point... it's fully funded, Israeli constituents like it and it's proven itself extremely effective. That sucker isn't going to come down until a permanent peace resolution is agreed to.

Look at it from an Israeli politician's point of view. If he advocates ceasing construction or disassembling parts of it and someone gets killed by a terrorist, then his career dies too. The only people who really hate the barrier are the Palestinians, and they aren't his constituents. There is just no way that a politician would put any of his citizens at (potentially serious) risk in order to raise the quality of life of non-citizens. Especially when those non-citizens are his nation's longest-running enemy.

However, that doesn't mean that other aspects of life in the west bank aren't slowly improving, like the economy. And realistically, the main benefits to come from not attacking Israel is that security measures like the barrier don't get installed to begin with. It took a long time before Israel actually began making that thing. It's going to take a relative sea change to convince them that it would be best to start tearing it down. And right now the situation between Fatah and Hamas isn't exactly confidence inspiring.

[pelsar]

36. to be educated....even if you dont like it.....

the attempts to smuggle in bombs to israel continues.....they just arent successful any more...

some may not like the idea behind the wall...but it does work to save lives, which brings up the more fascinating question as to why saving lives is secondary to nationalistic tendencies.....

and of course geology and the study of aquifers my make you feel foolish with your claims...but then again why let some facts ruin a good opinion.

[Idealism]

41. Study the two aquifers under the West Bank and Israeli joint jurisdiction

and perhaps you will find out something new. Both aquifers are controlled by IDF-manned checkpoints. Israel irrigates the illegal settlements, while the Palestinian land next to it is bone dry. Even 60 minutes talked of this injustice, yet you don't believe it or you choose to ignore it- why?

There hasn't been an attempted suicide bombing in a few years that I am aware of, do you have any articles that say otherwise? Always good to keep updated with these things.

The "wall" is bullshit, like I said. There is zero violence from the West Bank thanks to Martial Law and the PA's security forces cracking down on dissent. Why do you think Palestinians rejected Fatah in the last election for being Israeli "collaborators?"

[ProgressiveMuslim]

46. The pro-Zionists never let a few facts get in the way of deeply embedded propaganda.

My favorite water image was the image of the Gaza settlers with crystal blue swimming pools while their neighbors in Khan YOunis drank brackish salt water.

[pelsar]

48. zero violence?....huh..Marital law?

do you just make up these things or are you reading "hamas daily"

I guess you dont like the PA working with Israel for peace..... because working with israel to reduce the violence and not have a westbank version of gaza is now considered "collaboration".

am i to assume the gaza method is your preferred method....i.e daily attempts at trying to kill israelis?


and of course we have to, once again, show you how info is wrong......guess your not "aware" of the attempts to get around the wall.....so much for bullshit

_______________
IDF soldiers manning the Hawara checkpoint near the West Bank city of Nablus apprehended on Sunday an 18-year-old Palestinian who was carrying six pipe bombs, a bullet cartridge and a bag full of what appeared to be gunpowder.


In recent years the army has foiled numerous attempts to smuggle explosives and weapons through Hawara, which is located south of Nablus. Three weeks ago a 20-year-old Palestinian carrying three explosive devices was shot dead by soldiers at the checkpoint.

http://www.ynet.co.il/english/articles/0,7340,L-3553205,00.html

[Idealism]

49. When 1500 Military Orders dictate your life, it is called Martial Law

Or did you not know that about the West Bank? Is Martial Law preferable to being bombed? I guess so, but does that make it RIGHT? No.

Defense for Children International has some nice documentation about your query.

http://www.dci-pal.org/english/publ/research/2008/PCPReport.pdf

Thanks for showing me that article; do you have any before that? The last one I found originating from the West Bank was from 2005, and it was caught at a checkpoint. So, when was the last time a suicide attack was successful from the West Bank?

Obviously there will be SOME attempts- you are stealing peoples land more and more every day, and you expect ZERO consequences? You have a funny way of thinking.

[delad]

50. and this justifies occupation????

you've got to be fucking joking. how many have been killed by cars in Israel in the same period? How many have been killed by the russian mafia? etc.

Read what you wrote, " idf soldiers manning ...near the wb city of nablus...".
if people in the wb don't have a right to resist occupation then Israelis have no right to defend themselves

[Shaktimaan]

34. I don't understand.

How come the Palestinians have a right to re-settle the land within Israel, going so far as to initially have justification for trying to destroy Israel and take the land back, but Jews have no right at all to settle in any areas beyond the green line? Why is that labeled flat out as "more-recently-stolen land outside the Green Line (which Israel has no right to whatsoever)?" What's the difference?

Jordan expelled the Jews from that land and then 20 years later they returned and began re-settling it. Was 20 years enough time for the Palestinian Arabs to win 100% rights to the land in question, IYO? In some places there had been Jews living uninterrupted there for thousands of years before getting expelled. Do you feel that those Jews should really lose whatever historical equity they had built up over 3000 years after just 20 years of some squatter's rights thing?

If so, then why should the rules be any different for the Palestinians? You have a double standard, my friend.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

12. I utterly reject your attempt to create moral equivalence between perpetrators and victims.

I understand why you need to think that way, but it does not make it accurate or correct.

[Taitertots]

16. Keep pretending they are victims

It is the only way your platform works. Without that you would have to condemn their terrorism and the terrorist government they elected. While they are the innocent victims you can justify anything they do.

Throwing rocks at the IDF. They should shoot people who throw rocks at them. They are not an innocent victim if they are throwing rocks at the IDF. Who ever does that is just an idiot and the IDF is totally justified in killing them.

[Idealism]

21. Throwing rocks at a tank should be punishable by death by firing squad?

Are you kidding?

[ProgressiveMuslim]

22. Throwing stones at those who occupy you, no less. Go figure.

[Taitertots]

35. Throwing stones is supposed to help how?

As if throwing rocks at people is not an instigating action. You can't be an innocent victim while committing violent acts.

What military in the world wouldn't shoot people throwing rocks at them? It just sounds stupid and they are getting what they are asking for (martyrdom).

[ProgressiveMuslim]

45. Do you think the protestors in Tianenmen Square deserved to be mowed down?

Did Rachel Corrie "get what she was asking for" as well?

[ProgressiveMuslim]

47. Stop joking now. Someone might take your post seriously!

[Shaktimaan]

20. Oh, there is no moral equivalence here.

The difference between our viewpoints seems to lie in the metric we each use. Apparently, since you've labeled the Palestinians "victims" then it doesn't matter what crimes they perpetrate as the Israelis will always be the "perpetrators." Actions no longer dictate moral standing as there are different rules for different groups. Henceforth, Palestinian "victims" can perpetrate war crimes against Israeli "perpetrators" secure in the knowledge that they are not to blame.

[shaayecanaan]

26. Moral equivalence...

(noun) 1. The bizarre leftist notion that the death of an Arab and the death of a Jew are of similar ethical and political weight...

[Shaktimaan]

28. That one's a classic. Good to see the kids are still using it.

Whenever your argument falls flat or you get a little angry or heck, you just don't feel like learning enough about the subject being discussed to contribute in a meaningful way, then nothing else says "nothing" in quite the same obnoxious yet insecure way as a good old-fashioned ad hominem attack. And no ad hominem attack is more classic (or vile) than accusing someone you don't know of being a bigot. Good job! You must be a blast at parties.

Here's a little tip for the future though. If you're going to actually go so far as to accuse someone of bigotry then you really want to make 100% sure that the rest of your statement actually makes sense. That way you can be certain that the recipient will actually get upset (the whole point) instead of just feeling kinda sorry for you. You see, when people talk about "moral equivalence" they aren't usually referring to anyone's death. Dying rarely has any ethical bias to it. It is the act of "killing" that is usually accompanied by questions of moral equity.

Killing and dying are different.

[grassfed]

38. a helpful video

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=385&topic_id=270462&mesg_id=270462

[iconicgnom]

30. Thanks! I googled that, and I found a diamond. n/t

[TimesSquareCowboy]

18. Look who ends up with the land and resources - that's the predator.

and that's the cause of the continuing conflict.

[Shaktimaan]

19. predator?

Every time Israel turns land over to the Palestinians it is rewarded with some new form of terrorism and a great big jump in violence. In the 90's when around 40% of the west bank was put under PA control it was suicide bombings. In '05 when Israel withdraw from Gaza it was Qassams.

What is Israel's incentive to turn more land over to them? What do they have to look forward to next? Highway mines perhaps? Maybe booby trapped kittens? Thousands of them being sent through little holes in the security fence.

[iconicgnom]

31. You are, I totally hate to say it, at one with what seems to be Israel's voice.

I hate to say it because it bodes no good.
What kind of idiot would describe what has been going on as being "everytime Israel turns land over to the Palestinians".
That kind of failure of common sense bodes no good.

[Idealism]

32. Do you think Operation Wrath of God played no role in Palestinian militant aggression?

Or should we ignore the topic of extra-judicial killings perpetrated by Israel since the 1970s...

[pelsar]

37. explore...as long as your exploration is balanced...

explore the killing of children at school in maalot, the bus from eilat where all were killed with a bullet to the back of their head (except for one baby), explore the kibbutz children homes attacked over the years....but instead of the 1970s go back earlier perhaps to 48 or even previous to that...

explore the katushas landing randomly in the 80's on israeli cities..seriously, i could go on and on and on and on

i guess it was the unarmed jewish farmers in the 20's that really pissed off the locals....

[Donald Ian Rankin]

39. Well, trying to steal people's homes does tend to piss them off.

There have undoubtedly been a great many Palestinian atrocities against Jewish and Israeli civilians, and also a fair few legitimate and justifiable attempts to keep or reclaim their homeland by military force

However, there have been *far* more atrocities by Israelis against Palestinians than vice versa, and only purely defensive use of force (which is to say, virtually none) by Israel against Palestinians will be legitimate until the settlements are destroyed - you can't claim self-defence if what you're defending isn't your own

[Shaktimaan]

42. Let me understand this...

and only purely defensive use of force (which is to say, virtually none) by Israel against Palestinians will be legitimate until the settlements are destroyed

So until Israel has met a certain standard of morality, (as defined by yourself) they do not have the right to defend themselves from terrorism? I must have missed something. When exactly was it decided that only some people have the right to defend themselves from war crimes?

There have undoubtedly been a great many Palestinian atrocities against Jewish and Israeli civilians, and also a fair few legitimate and justifiable attempts to keep or reclaim their homeland by military force

Why is it just the Palestinian's homeland? Isn't it also the Jew's homeland?

Why is it that the Palestinians have a right to reclaim land they were evicted from but when the Jews attempt to do the exact same thing you refer to it as "stealing?"

[Donald Ian Rankin]

43. Occupying someone else's country is not defence.

>So until Israel has met a certain standard of morality, (as defined by yourself) >they do not have the right to defend themselves from terrorism? I must have missed >something. When exactly was it decided that only some people have the right to >defend themselves from war crimes?

Most Israeli military action will not be "defence" until it has ended the occupation. If I break into your house and try to murder your children then even if you come home and attack me, while I ignore you and concentrate on them, I still won't be defending myself.

>Why is it just the Palestinian's homeland? Isn't it also the Jew's homeland?
>
>Why is it that the Palestinians have a right to reclaim land they were evicted >from but when the Jews attempt to do the exact same thing you refer to it >as "stealing?"

Because the Palestinians were there first. It's as simple as that. By now, there are enough second and third generation Israelis that they have some right to the land their parents stole, but at the foundation of Israel the land was Palestinian, and it was stolen by the Israelis.

[pelsar]

44. because 'they were there first"....wow thats some defense...

can you clarify the "they"....

i mean, does it include the arab immigrants from the 1920's.....are they included in the "they were there first"....or perhaps the jews were first when the romans kicked them out.....is there some kind of statue of limitations on being considered a "local"...is the quantity of the people involved part of it (jews were living in the area, they were just the minority.

and of course when you give me the amount of years, i assume we can apply it to the Palestinians and when that year comes up....they lose all legitimate rights...


correct?

[Idealism]

40. You didn't answer the question

Do you believe that targeted assassinations of Palestinian leaders was worth the trade off for militant retaliation through suicide bombers, and later, Qassam rockets attacks?

[Jefferson23]

7. And the disgrace broadens and continues.