Court ruling lets settlers shoot in air to repel Palestinians

[Violet_Crumble]

A recent Jerusalem Magistrate's Court verdict indicates that settlers may fire in the air to repel unarmed Palestinians, a ruling that a Palestinian rights advocate called a dangerous precedent.

Magistrate's Court Judge Hagit Kalmanovitch ruled last month that Abraham Hofi, of the settlement of Halamish, was not guilty of issuing threats or mishandling a weapon when he fired in the air from his father's balcony on May 6, 2005, after observing three Palestinians shepherding a herd some 100 meters from the settlement fence.

The Palestinians, two minors and an adult, testified that Hofi fired at them and that one bullet struck close to the herd. When the Palestinians remained in the area, Hofi and several other settlers went out to confront them.

Kalmanovitch said in her February ruling that she did not believe Hofi sought to harm the Palestinians, adding that Hofi's conduct shows he wasn't afraid for his life and didn't believe the Palestinians to be terrorists.

"Firing in the air, when done by a trained individual, is a proportionate and reasonable response, and we cannot rule that it was rash or negligent," the judge wrote. "How else could the accused respond in this situation? Did he need to call the security forces and wait for an unspecified time for them to show up, if at all?"

The indictment states that the two Palestinian minors were uprooting saplings planted in barrels at the site. The Palestinians said they owned the plot of land and the settlers had been trying to take it over, while Hofi presented the court with documents that said he was licensed by Israeli authorities to work the land.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1158634.html

[Loudmxr]

1. Does the ruling also allow the Palestinians to fall dead if the settlers miss the air?

[aquart]

2. So you would prefer that the settlers take aim?

So would they. This is a compromise.

Or didn't you notice that these people HATE each other?

[Crunchy Frog]

29. They hate each other, so that makes it all okay.

At least when Israelis are the ones doing it.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

3. We are witnessing the creation of apartheid law. Why doesn't Israel just follow

existing international law? The illegal settlements have no business there in the first place.

Mark this: when your grandchildren ask us: how did this system come into being? ... you'll be able to answer them: illegal behavior was deemed legal by Israeli apartheid courts so that the special interest of illegal jewish settlers could be preserved. We did nothign about it because...

it was easier to subjugate Palestinians than insist Israel do the correct thing
we were afraid of being called anti-semites
we didn't give a crap
it "protected" Palestinians
we didnt' believe Palestinians were human beings like we were

... you can fill in the blank yourselves.

[oberliner]

6. I guess you are not anticipating the BDS movement to have much of an impact

Our grandchildren will be asking about this?

[ProgressiveMuslim]

12. So typical of you to take a cheap shot at BDS while saying nothing about apartheid.

What are you going to tell *your* granchildren?

[oberliner]

14. I have hope that you seem to be lacking

I hope to take my grandchildren on a trip to visit Israel and to the neighboring Palestinian state.

Hopefully they will be shocked to learn that there was a time that Israelis and Palestinians did not live side by side at peace with one another.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

16. I do hope that as a Jew, you don't exercise that immoral right until my family can go as well.

[oberliner]

19. As a Jew? Immoral right? What the hell are you talking about?

I'm saying that it is my hope that in future generations will live to see two states living side by side at peace with one another.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

20. I'm saying that the reality is you can take your grandkids tomorrow if you like, while

Palestinians who were born there, like my husband are banned.

I would love to see progressive Jews renounce their right to make aliyah, or even visit, as long as such heinous policies are in place.

[oberliner]

22. You seem to have grown more extreme on this board over the years

Now you are saying that American Jews should not permit themselves to visit Israel?

[Violet_Crumble]

23. That's because you've grown more extreme, not her...

And that's NOT what she said at all, so please stop trying to put words in people's mouths...

[oberliner]

24. None of my positions on any topic related to the conflict have changed at all since I joined DU

I do not think the poster in question can say the same, but I will leave it for them to comment if they so choose.

[Violet_Crumble]

25. That makes you a very unique person..

I don't know anyone who if they were honest would say not one of their positions has changed, so I can totally understand how you could say yr positions haven't changed at all! ;)

btw, what you do where you go after posters like PM and imply they've said things they haven't is very nasty....

[oberliner]

26. You imply I've said things I haven't all the time!

Like that I've defended a position that I never defended!

We all play our rhetorical games - I don't think it's that nasty - I think it's just part of the nature of this board.

In this case, I don't think I've inferred anything that wasn't meant to be implied, but I am confident that the poster would let me know if they were upset or offended or hurt in any way by any perceived unfair characterization of their remarks.

I expect you will argue that you have not implied that I've said things I haven't but you are stubborn like that on here - that's what makes it so interesting to interact with you.

[Violet_Crumble]

27. Stop trying to divert attention away from what you do...

Seriously, I find it kind of sad that for a long while I had a fair bit of respect for you even though I didn't agree with yr views, and over the past few months all that respect is gone.

PM doesn't have to answer to you, Oberliner. You really should stop trying to make out she said something she didn't, as that came across as a very intentional attempt on yr part....

[oberliner]

44. Whose attention was diverted?

I encourage all readers of this message to stay focused and not be diverted!

[Violet_Crumble]

45. Yr attempting to divert attention away from what you did. Didn't say you'd succeeded...

[ProgressiveMuslim]

32. I actually moved my family to live in Ramallah - that's how much I believed in 2 peaceful states.

So have my views changed over the past 20 years? Of course they have! And I'm also an open book here in this forum, say what I believe and whom I support unequivocally.

In 1987, I believed Israel need to either quit the occupation or annex the territories and give the human beings full citizenship.
After Arafat's concessions of '88, I believed in 2 States as the best way... and held that belief such that I relocated my entire family to live and build the new Palestine. My husband was a university professor of a critically need development area. I was a teacher of English in East Jerusalem.

My actual experience on the ground taught me that neither side was too interested in building the rule of law and that in fact the nation of Israel was doing everything in its power to ensure that Palestinians who could build a durable society could not stay there.

As a Gazan, my husband was never legally allowed to be in Ramallah for the 2 years we lived there. CAN YOU IMAGINE THAT??? Born in Gaza, school in Bir Zeit for 7 years (university closures)... US Citizen, university professor. UNABLE TO LIVE IN RAMALLAH.

We left.

Over the past 13 years I've watched things go from bad to worse.

Have my views changed? Duh. Of course they have. I watched over 1000 Gazans get slaughtered a year ago,including 300 CHILDREN. The world sat by with its collective thumb up its ass. I watched the nation of Israelis SUPPORT THE SLAUGHTER.

Have my views changed? You bet your ass.

BDS is the only way. And one very effective means of highlighting Israel's unconscionable rules about who is allowed in and who is not would be for progressive Jews to say: we recognize our right to move to Israel at any time is unjust and unfair, given that that same nation denies the right of movement in or out to people who are from there (i'm not even talking about refugees!). For progressive Jews to withhold their support as well as their travel dollars would be a strong statement.

My views have changed. I have come to understand that Palestinians will only be afforded their human rights when it is too painful for Israel NOT to compromise. Today, the status quo isn't painful at all. My people are locked up like animals in a pen while Jewish Israelis go about their lives heading out for coffee and the disco.

You are damn right my views have changed. Only an idiot can look at events of the past 20 years and not change the way they view this conflict.

Like I said, I'm an open book.

Don't you DARE try to paint me as some radical here. I'm the only person who posts here who put her money where her mouth is, so deep was my commitment to a peaceful coexistence between 2 states.

You, on the other hand, can't even state what you believe without hiding behind diplomatic language of a peace initiative. Ultimately, I figure you're ashamed of your beliefs, or you are playing some game here with other posters. It's the all the same at the end of the day.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

34. Looks like Meron Benvenisti changed his view as well:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x307235

[oberliner]

37. In response to your comments

I never accused you of being a radical, I simply stated that you seem to have grown more extreme on this board. It appears from your comments that you are confirming this observation. Is that not the case?

As for my positions, I don't mean to be "hiding" behind diplomatic language - I just think the Geneva Initiative states my position better than I possibly could as it was written by people who have a much deeper understanding and personal connection to the situation than I do.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

38. My position cannot be characterized as "extreme." That would the AIPAC position, which supports

ongoing illegal settlements.

How sad that you regard providing human rights and dignity for ALL PEOPLE from the river to the sea as "extreme."

You say you want two states, yet you don't support BDS... you can't bring yourself to criticize AIPAC's extreme position, which provides a blank check for Israel's most extreme RW leader...

What strategies to you endorse that will actually get us to the Geneva Initiative?

[oberliner]

43. AIPAC has also grown more extreme over the years

Human rights and dignity for all people is definitely not an extreme position and is something I completely support.

That you somehow believe that reality will occur via BDS is what I disagree with.

My strategies are to promote the Geneva Initiative as vigorously as possible and to support other like minded individuals.

We need to help create an environment where peaceful coexistence is not only possible but also desirable for all concerned parties.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

40. Where did "permit" come from?

I think that progressives of any stripe should try to avoid visiting Israel, but for those of us who are Jewish it's perhaps even more valuable to refrain from doing so.

Saying "people should voluntarily refrain from doing X" is very difference from saying "Doing X should not be permitted" - my classic example is voting Republican.

[oberliner]

42. "Renounce their right to visit"

Isn't "People should voluntarily refrain from doing X" is the same as "People should not permit themselves to do X"?

Your example appears to alter the meaning of what I wrote:

"People should not permit themselves to eat chocolate" is different from "Eating chocolate should not be permitted"

[elocs]

4. Bullets that go up have to come down on something, or someone.

This is a very basic and immutable law (unless the bullet hits a bird or a plane).

[azurnoir]

5. So do Palestinians det to fire in the air

when settlers uproot, burn, or chop down their orchards?

[oberliner]

7. Support for armed attacks against Israelis stands at 47%

[azurnoir]

8. Ah ya thats not what I asked n/t

[Violet_Crumble]

10. Do you support the decision to allow settlers to fire in the air to scare Palestinians?

It's just that yr input in this thread seems to indicate that you do support it, but I'd like to find out from you whether that's the case as I would have thought that anyone who considers themselves to be moderate when it comes to the conflict would be opposed to civilians being allowed to run around with guns, let alone be allowed to fire them in order to 'scare' other people...

[ProgressiveMuslim]

13. self-delete

[oberliner]

15. Seems like a recipe for disaster to me

Of course, the settlers shouldn't even be there in the first place, but that's another issue altogether.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

17. It's not another issue AT ALL! It's the main point, FCOL!!

Nice to hear you criticize the presence of settlers though!

[oberliner]

18. Two different issues - this ruling about shooting in the air vs. the settlements existing at all

My personal view, of course, is that none of these problems would exist if something along the lines of the Geneva Initiative was adopted.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

21. As long as people separate the overall issues like settlements from miniscule court rulings

it never will be.

[Crunchy Frog]

28. Palestinians are guilty of thinking about it

so it's okay for Israelis to actually do it.

[Scurrilous]

9. This will turn out well.

:crazy:

[Jefferson23]

11. When done by a trained individual? Lunatic ruling, and very sad.

[ConsAreLiars]

30. Let's see, IDF can shoot to kill, Palestinians can't own anything that shoots, and

settlers can shoot anywhere they please, except directly at Palestinians unless they are (self-defense) frightened.

Not a racist state???

Equal under the law???

Someone might want to point at a case where Palestinians were told they had those rights.

[oberliner]

31. What race is the IDF?

[ProgressiveMuslim]

33. Are you seriously defending this bullshit? You sure you want to inquire about the

racial/religious makeup of the IDF?

[oberliner]

35. Nobody is defending anything

There are a lot of things that do not involve racism that are very bad.

Interesting how you threw in "religious makeup" when the statement and question did not make any mention of religion but rather of race.

As to the IDF, have you ever heard of the Givati Brigade?

[ProgressiveMuslim]

36. I do hope you will respond to my post above, where I answer your criticism of

my becoming radicalized.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

39. Spare us

"Jews aren't a race, so Israel isn't racist" is a step down even from "Palestinians are semites, so anti-semitism doesn't mean racism against Jews".

[oberliner]

41. Words matter

Anti-semitism is a term that means discrimination or prejudice against Jewish people. It has nothing to do with Palestinians or other semites.

Racism is a term that means a belief that one particular race is inherently superior or inferior to another. That human traits are determined by racial characteristics.

There are certainly individual racists who live in Israel - in fact there is an unfortunately large amount of racism within the Israeli Jewish community.

[Violet_Crumble]

46. Why does it only matter to you when the poster is pro-Palestinian?

I've seen plenty of pro-Israeli posters use the term racist or racism and not once do you say anything to them about it. That only happens when the poster is pro-Palestinian...