'Palestinian Gandhi' Convicted for Protesting; U.S. Silent

[Ken Burch]

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/08/30-0

By Robert Nauman, published August 30, 2010
_______________
Last week, an Israeli military court convicted Abdallah Abu Rahmah, whom progressive Zionists have called a "Palestinian Gandhi," of "incitement" and "organizing and participating in illegal demonstrations" for organizing protests against the confiscation of Palestinian land by the "Apartheid Wall" in the village of Bilin in the West Bank, following an eight month trial, during which he was kept in prison.

The European Union issued a protest. But as far as I am aware, no U.S. official has said anything and no U.S. newspaper columnist has denounced this act of repression; indeed, the U.S. press hasn't even reported the news. To find out what happened, someone could search the wires where they'll find this AFP story, or go to the British or Israeli press.
_______________

So much for the right of the Israeli government to demand nonviolence from Palestinians.

[Better Today]

1. This says as much about USA's, as it does about Israel's, commitment to peaceful interaction.

[shira]

2. The real Ghandi didn't provoke violent confrontations with military forces...

....that led to scores of injuries as well as many thousands of dollars damage to - in Israel's case - the security barrier.

While not as violent as suicide bombings, it's provocation and incitement to violence nonetheless. Their goal isn't to move the fence a few meters or miles to the left or right, but to destroy it and render Israelis defenseless. Of course to many here, including Abu Rahmah, Israelis aren't worthy of empathy for the terror they've lived through and the threats they still face. They should not be allowed to defend themselves. Their human rights do not matter. If Israeli human rights mattered, then Israel's harshest critics would at least empathize and offer better and more realistic solutions to the threats Israelis face.

Of course, people who think Abu Rahma is a peaceful humanitarian are the same people who think the 9 killed on the Marmara were non-violent humanitarians.

:eyes:

[Name removed]

42. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

45. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Chulanowa]

48. Bwok bwok bwooook

Few things, Shira.

1) "Logical fallacy" is not a magical phrase that mysteriously invalidates someone's argument when you throw it out there. I'm sorry if I have misled you into thinking this, after I shredded what, a half-dozen of your posts into their composite fallacies. Thing is, I had to study and learn what these fallacies are and how they're used and why they don't work. it's a bit more involved than just crying "logical fallacy!" and hoping for the best.

2) I'm very familiar with your position, Shira. It's not my problem that your position is loathsome and repellent, and I understand why you are embarrassed to be called on it and have it associated with you. However, it IS your position, it's stances you have regularly and consistently taken in damn near every post you make, and no amount of saying "No it isn't!" is going to change this.

3) Fantasy and delusion would be coming from the guy in this discussion comparing protest to suicide bombing and claiming that villagers not wanting a wall across their fields is actually a devious plot to destroy poor helpless defenseless infant Israel. Not the guy informing that fellow what a dumbassed delusion that is.

And finally...

4) Some chick came up to me in F.Y.E. the other day and was trying really hard to get me to buy a copy of Billy Madison. She wasn't even an employee. It was kind of surreal. Not really relevant to the topic, but hey, your halfassed cribbing from the movie reminded me.

[Name removed]

51. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Chulanowa]

53. Don't have much of an argument, do you?

"LOL UR HIGH" doesn't actually work as well as you might think it does.

Granted, "Bwok bwok bwooook" isn't the pinnacle of wit either, but at least I back up my position :)

[shira]

54. I've changed my mind.... *EDITED*

If you feel you made one strong point in that post you'd like me to respond to, I'll oblige. Go ahead and choose something and I'll assume it's your bestest and strongest point.

Take it or leave it.

[shira]

65. Where'd you go? n/t

[Name removed]

77. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[shira]

83. I thought you would at least pick 1 argument from that crap you posted above...

...so I could demonstrate how bad it really is.

You wanted me to respond, here's your chance. Take it or leave it if you feel good about what you wrote.

Or do you now realize that post of yours from above really is garbage?

[Chulanowa]

85. I'd love to

Unfortunately the post seems to be missing, so I can't go back and pick one.

:shrug:

[shira]

90. You don't remember a single valid point you made in that post? n/t

[Chulanowa]

93. Not word for word

And frankly reading your smarmy racist shit makes me throw up in my mouth a little. Here's a couple of salient points though.

1) The ludicrous comparison of protest to suicide bombings
2) The notion that removing the fence is some deep, covert Plot To Destroy Israel™, that the fence at Be'lin is ABSOLUTELY INTEGRAL to Israel's survival
3) The irony of you of all people asking for empathy to be given to Israel and claiming that no one thinks Israel has human rights. Coming from you. Really.
4) The silly nonsense that India's independence movement was always peaceful. I believe I called it "the leftist neutering of colored revolutionaries," didn't I? More of a complaint I have towards my fellow liberals than anything else, I suppose.

[shira]

94. I asked for one example...

"And frankly reading your smarmy racist shit makes me throw up in my mouth a little.

Coming from someone who refuses to see Israelis as human beings, that's quite an ironic statement coming from you. It's not that someone like yourself should have empathy for Israel or feel like Israel has human rights - it's that Israelis, the people victimized there, also deserve empathy and they - like Palestinians - also have human rights.

==================================

You mentioned the WALL being unmoveable, but the barrier is less than 5% slab and concrete and it's not that it's essential to Israel's survival but it sure as hell has saved a lot of Israeli lives since it was put up.

Your #1 and #4 are strawmen.

[aquart]

3. Gandhi spent 7 years in jail.

This lily can't do two for his cause?

[Ken Burch]

4. The point is, if you're calling for people to be nonviolent in their resistance

you can't defend the use of repressive measures against said nonviolent resistance. Your position would be like a person who said that black people in Birmingham should've been glad to have Bull Connor use water cannons and police dogs on them, or that Dr. King deserved his jail sentences.

You CAN'T demand nonviolence from Palestinians and then oppress Palestinians who choose nonviolence. You can only demand nonviolence if you're going to simultaneously send the message that nonviolence will be immediately rewarded.

Otherwise, you're acting like the British Army at the time of the Amritsar Massacre, or the British Army on Bloody Sunday in Derry.
Or any Southern state towards the Freedom Riders.

[shira]

6. Actions at the fence/barrier each friday are not non-violent...

....no more than the 9 killed on the Marmara were non-violent protesters.

[Tripmann]

7. There were 500 people on that ship and dozens on the deck

How do you know the 9 killed were violent towards the soldiers? Was the teenage kid with the bullet in the back of his head and face violent? How do you know when the 'victims' of the alleged violence confiscated all the footage and abducted people in international waters, holding them until the news machine had done its job.

Nobody round here buys it shira.

You were spewing this dirt before the bodies of those aid workers were even cold, linking to web pages less than a week old connecting the ISS to hamas. Pure propaganda filth, but allowed around here for some reason

[shira]

9. BBC video: Panorama - What happened on the flotilla to Gaza

Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXrzF0IOQYE

Part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nfo91FQVr7M&feature=related

[Tripmann]

10. So you know for certain the 9 people killed attacked the soldiers?

[shira]

11. What do you have to say about the BBC video? n/t

[Tripmann]

12. Your statement was...

"Actions at the fence/barrier each friday are not non-violent,....no more than the 9 killed on the Marmara were non-violent protesters."

I'm asking how you know that the 9 killed were violent protestors?

[shira]

13. Stop playing games. Look at the video for the answer. n/t

[Tripmann]

14. I asked BEFORE you posted the red herring video. Can't wait for your answer......

[shira]

15. You're still playing games...

I should have written that videos show many activists on the top level of the Marmara attacking the IDF were the furthest thing from being non-violent peaceful humanitarian protesters.

While I can't say all 9 killed were violent thugs, it's reasonable to believe almost all were, given what the BBC video shows - not that you give a rip about the actual facts. You want so badly to believe the IDF murdered 9 innocents. I can't help but wonder why....

:eyes:

[Tripmann]

16. So the 9 people killed you claim had been violent may not have been?

[shira]

18. Seriously - if you saw the BBC video - which I doubt - how can you claim the IDF...

....just decided to murder 9 innocents for no reason whatsoever?

Their soldiers got the shit kicked out of them, stabbed, and shot.......and they decided to shoot back at people who had no part in the violence? :shrug:

Seriously?

If so, WHY?

[Tripmann]

23. So the american teenager who was killed by the IDF you claimed was violent may not have been?

[shira]

24. It's highly likely he was violent, based on his last diary entry...

"It is the last hours to martyrdom, insha'Allah. I am wondering if there is a more beautiful thing. The more beautiful thing is only my mother, but I'm not sure. The comparison is very difficult. Martyrdom or my mother? Now, the hall is largely empty. So far people were not serious, but they have become serious recently."

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

Of course, facts don't matter to you...

[Tripmann]

25. Facts? LOL! You're the one defaming a dead american kid without knowing the facts.

[shira]

26. If you were interested in facts, why not watch the BBC video and learn what happened? n/t

[Tripmann]

27. But, as you admit, you don't know what happened, yet you defame a dead child

[shira]

28. But you're assuming the evil IDF killed an innocent kid for no reason whatsoever.

And it appears you could care less what happened on the Marmara.

Otherwise, you'd have looked at the BBC video by now.

=======

Also, you're the one who posted a little while back that this kid was shot 4 times in the head - and then you refused to divulge the source of this misinformation. So it's odd that you accuse me of not knowing what happened when you were the one posting completely fabricated bullshit on this very topic.

You so want to believe the very worst about the IDF.

Why? :shrug:

[Tripmann]

29. I'm not assuming anything, I don't have the facts. NEITHER DO YOU yet you state he was violent.

[shira]

30. You falsely reported this kid was shot 4 times in the head. You ARE assuming the very worst...

And seriously, what do you know about 'violence'? The people in the videos on top the Marmara attacking the IDF rappelling down from helicopters are non-violent, innocent and peaceful protesters in your opinion. Against anyone else they're violent. Against the IDF, not so much.

:eyes:

[Tripmann]

31. I corrected that error soon as i realised making it.You,however,have repeatedly defamed a dead kid

[shira]

32. What does his diary entry tell you? n/t

[Tripmann]

33. Doesn't tell me attacked the IDF voilently. Why defame a dead child?

[shira]

34. So what DOES it tell you? I didn't ask what it does NOT tell you. n/t

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[shira]

36. You're playing games so this is a giant waste of time. Have a nice day! n/t

[Tripmann]

37. Are you going to withdraw your defamatory remark about the dead american child?

[Dick Dastardly]

38. Calling a 19 year old man and activist with the IHH terror support group a child

is pretty blatant deception.

Obviously there is no depth limit for you.

[Tripmann]

39. I do consider teenagers to be children,yes.As would YOU if it was your 19 year old shot in the head.

And there is no evidence he attacked the soldiers at all.

Are you adding your name to the defamation of the dead american child dick?

Why don't you reveal to us all what he did that necessitated a bullet in the back of the head (other than loitering while looking turkish).


The liberals with children would love to know........

[shira]

40. Dick, you're wasting your time. He believes the IDF deliberately murdered 9 innocents for no reason

...on the Marmara and there's no proof any of them did anything, not just the 19 year old who he couldn't give a rip about. Nothing can or will convince him otherwise.

The folks on all the videos atop the Marmara attacking the IDF are non-violent, peaceful, kind, and angelic humanitarians in his opinion. From the nice folk on the boat singing death-to-jews songs on the way to the incident to those telling Jews to go back to Auschwitz. Those who would dare question the character of these kind people are the lowest form of humanity.

[Tripmann]

41. Where did I say that?I don't have the evidence.Just like you didn't when you defamed that dead child

[Chulanowa]

43. Calling the IHH a "terror support group" is blatant deception

I would say there's no depth limit for you, but I already know better than to assume the local Israel supporters have anything like "standards."

[shira]

58. Germany has banned and declared illegal the IHH, so it's not just Israel. n/t

[Tripmann]

59. Germany banned them AFTER the flotilla attack. I take it you refuse to withdraw your defamation?

[Chulanowa]

75. And this means what, exactly?

Germany has banned the IHH. Okay. However Germany does not consider them a terrorist organization; rather they were closed down due to allegations of funding Hamas, allegations that are being fought in the German courts. Accusation is not guilt, and even Germany does not consider them a "terrorist organization." Nor for that matter does the United States, and you know how happy we are to label people as being "terrorists." The EU does not consider them terrorists (in fact the EU doesn't consider Hezbollah to be terrorists, either).

Your argument is spurious and incomplete, Shira. Israel still is alone in considering the IHH a terrorist group. They have Germany on board on considerign the group "questionable." 2 nations down, 193 to go?

[shira]

81. Do you have a problem with organizations that fund and support terrorists?

What do you call people who knowingly support terrorists and their activities against innocent civilians?

Are they criminals deserving of jail time?

[Chulanowa]

84. Actually, it seems we're both wrong

Germany does not consider the Turkish IHH a terrorist group or a sponsor of terrorism.

There is an "IHH" that is banned in Germany due to alleged ties with Hamas; that's the Internationale Humanitäre Hilfsorganisation, and not The Foundation for Human Rights and Freedoms and Humanitarian Relief.

Oops.

BRIAN: Are you the Judean People's Front?
REG: Fuck off!
BRIAN: What?
REG: Judean People's Front. We're the People's Front of Judea! Judean People's Front. Cawk.

[elias7]

61. Not a child, not defamed, you're deliberately exaggerating

and failing to consider both sides of the argument

[Tripmann]

62. This child was accused of being violent towards the people who shot him,without any evidence.

I gave the forum member an opportunity to provide evidence of same, which she admits she cannot do. Where I'm from thats defamation.

What do you call it where you come from, libel? Slander?

Consider also if there was a DU member on this board libeling a dead jewish-american child that had been shot in the back of the head, who would also not withdraw the statement after admitting they had no proof. There would be tombstones flying faster than you could say 'double standard'. And if somebody then posted, like you just did, that both sides of the argument need to be considered in relation to the defamed dead jewish-american child with the bullet in the back of his skull, you would be quite rightly slated.

Well where I'm from the death of a muslim child is as tragic as the death of a jewish child, so I'm not allowing this defamation of a teenage kid shot in the back of the head by a soldier to go unchecked.

The user in question still has the opportunity to withdraw her defamation against the dead AMERICAN child with the bullet in the back of his skull in question.

[shira]

63. I wrote that it's highly likely he was violent based on his last diary entry, which you ignore. n/t

[Tripmann]

68. BEFORE that you implied he was a violent protestor, but have no proof. You defamed a dead child.

[shira]

69. You defamed the IDF with charges they executed and murdered 9 innocents.

Also, you repeated false news reports that the 19 year old was shot 4 times in the head. You even refused - probably due to embarassment - to divulge the source of this misinformation.

So you defamed the IDF without any proof, didn't you?

========

It's also dishonest of you to ignore Dogan's last diary entry.

[Tripmann]

70. My position is they should release the confiscated footage as evidence.Yours is defame a dead child.

[oberliner]

64. Very odd how you repeatedly refer to an adult male as a child

I have seen no news source or report of any kind from any source on this or any other story involving a 19 year old refer to the person in question as a child.

From the UN:

Definition of a child

A child is recognized as a person under 18, unless national laws recognize the age of majority earlier.

http://www.crin.org/docs/resources/treaties/uncrc.asp

You've used the word "child" now about a dozen times in reference to this incident, making a point to use the word each time you post about it.

If you do not ascribe to the definition of the word "child" cited above, then what definition of the term are you using?

Was Gilad Shalit a child when he was taken prisoner by Hamas? He was also 19 years old at the time.

[Tripmann]

67. I consider teenagers to be children. I also don't consider somebody to suddenly stop being a child

on his/her 18th birthday. And ANY time I hear of a tragic death of a teenager my immediate thought is 'FFS, he/she was only a child'.

Would you prefer I reserve the term 'child' for the children who haven't reached their 18th birthday that the IDF shoot in the head?

Oh, and yes, I would consider Gilad Shalit to be a child. He's a teenager with a gun, just like the american children sent to die in vietnam.

[oberliner]

71. I think children at some point become adults who must take responsibility for their actions

Both Furkan Dorgan and Gilad Shalit were adults who engaged in activities that they knew carried certain risks.

By no means does that justify what happened to either of them, but to call them children is, in my opinion, insulting, and also (according to the UN and most universally accepted standards) inaccurate.

I think it is reasonable to expect that the term child be reserved for incidents that actually involve children of which there have been frighteningly many.

During Operation Cast Lead alone, several hundred Palestinian children were killed, for instance.

[Tripmann]

72. I'm sure there were people during nam that claimed the children sent to die were 'technically adults

And don't talk to me about 'insulting'. Whats truly insulting is the insinuation that a dead kid not deemed of a responsible enough age to buy a beer in some places cannot be referred to as a child, and then his defamation be compounded by 'well TECHNICALLY he's an adult'. Especially as there is no proof that he was violent, and evidence that could prove it either way is being withheld by the people who pulled the trigger.

[oberliner]

73. Just sharing my opinion

You are certainly entitled to yours, of course.

Maybe insulting was too strong a word. For me personally, I would not call someone who was 19 a child. I think that would be an insult to them, or they might take it as an insult - that is what I meant.

I make no claim about whether or not he did anything violent. I have no idea what exactly happened on that boat. There are various videos and testimony available but there is clearly a lot that is not known or that is in dispute.

This young man's death is certainly tragic irrespective of whether or not he could accurately be identified as a child at the time of the incident.

[Tripmann]

76. Would you allow a dead 19 year old jewish-american child be defamed here?

How would you feel if a jewish-american child got shot point blank in the back of the head by a lebanese soldier, and I was on here inferring he violently attacked a professional killer who had to shoot him in the BACK of the head in self defense, but without any proof for my assertion whatsoever.

It would be sick, right?

How long would my defamation be let stand?

Who would back-up my filth by pointing out 'technically' the dead child I'm defaming is an adult?

Would I be around here for long?



Whats the difference?

Theres a dead american child who got a bullet in the back of the head who was being defamed on DUe before his body was even cold, and such is the tolerance for such filth around here that months later the same claims are allowed stand. Well, I've no problem calling the poster on her usage of democratic underground to defame a dead american kid.

[oberliner]

78. My assertion is that there is no such thing as a 19 year old child

And I would also point out that a 25 year old Jewish young woman who was also killed by a bullet to the back of the head (while sitting in her car) is being defamed as we speak in another thread on this very site.

Allow me to also add that I think you have every right to express your revulsion with respect to comments made about the late Furkan Dorgan. The only component of your comments that I had any issue with was your using the term child to describe an adult.

[Tripmann]

79. As a man of conscience I pray you never have to read a debate about whether or not your dead

19 year old child is 'technically an adult'. But I genuinely respect your comment relating to my revulsion. The future of the state of israel depends on reasonable men like yourself distancing themselves from the the inexcusable.

[oberliner]

80. Well I appreciate that

I think if you had avoided using the term "child" in the first place, the focus could have remained on the actual incident itself, where it belongs.

[Name removed]

89. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[shira]

91. Yeah, the reason to call him a child and pretend he was an innocent bystander...

....is to demonize Israel and cast its people in the darkest colors imaginable.

Just as making up stories that Dogan was shot 4 times in the head....

We're to believe that any other military in the same situation under the same kind of attack would have just 'taken it' and that the IDF only does what it does because they're bloodthirsty monsters.

[Tripmann]

95. I never claimed he was an innocent bystander,I don't have proof,like you didn't when you defamed him

Are you going to acknowledge your defamation of the dead american child and withdraw your statement? You've acknowledge you cannot prove it after all.

[shira]

96. There's no defamation going on...

You know, I can't prove that any of the 9 killed were thugs who attacked the IDF on the Marmara in those videos. But it's highly likely they were. Any person with any intelligence who has seen those videos cannot just come to the insane conclusion that while under attack, IDF soldiers decided to shoot up and kill innocents who had zero to do with the situation.

Dogan's diary entry shows it's highly likely he was involved in the violence against the IDF. Even his autopsy report shows signs of struggle, as opposed to the farce you posted here about 4 bullets to the head. He was actually shot in different parts of the body at close range, which is what should be expected given the situation. Of course you probably believe that given what you saw in those videos, the IDF had no right to defend and shoot back....

[Tripmann]

97. You infer,due to a diary entry,a dead child acted violently.You've no proof he did.Thats defamation

From your post:

"You know, I can't prove that any of the 9 killed were thugs who attacked the IDF on the Marmara in those videos."

Yet, despite admitting you cannot prove the dead child acted violently, you refuse to withdraw your inferral that he did. This kid ended up with a bullet in the back of his skull. Does common human decency not direct you to only accuse the child of acting violently once you have conclusive proof?

Another stain on the good name of DU.

[shira]

98. Your dishonesty and faux indignation are duly noted. n/t

[Name removed]

99. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Tripmann]

100. As is your failure to qualify your defamation of the dead american child.

[Cherchez la Femme]

102. You are a real piece of work

Welcome to ignore!

[Swede]

86. Thanks for the links,Shira.

[whosinpower]

17. That is true

And when Rahmah collected spent tear gas canisters and empty bullet casings to display in his garden - the IDF attempted to charge him with weapons possession.

That charge was thrown out.

The attempted charge of him throwing stones was also thrown out....no evidence.

The Supreme Court held the state in contempt of court - TWICE - for failing to move the barrier - as the court determined the barrier was illegal and had to be moved. The original finding was in 2007.....it STILL has not moved one centimeter....although the IDF say they are "working" on it.

So - he was convicted with incitement and organizing illegal demonstrations - the other charges did not stick.
Incitement is defined under Israeli military law as - "the attempt, verbally or otherwise, to influence public opinion in the Area in a way that may disturb the public peace or public order."
Illegal demonstrations are defined under Israeli military law as - A gathering of 11 or more people without permit from the military commander.

[shira]

20. Here's one of Israel's fiercest critics on the "non-violent" protests this man organizes each week..

"While the cause of the Bil'in residents is entirely worthy, the tactics employed during the protests are far more questionable. Every week without fail, rocks and other projectiles are hurled towards the soldiers by mask-clad youths, known as shabab, while not a finger is lifted by their fellow demonstrators to stop them. Despite billing the march as "nonviolent resistance", the organisers do nothing to ensure the event lives up to such criteria, and by taking no action hand to the army on a plate the perfect excuse to fight fire with fire."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jan/20/palestine-israel-protest-tourism

They're as non-violent as the the folks on video on top of the Mavi Marmara.

And their 'cause' isn't to move the fence a few meters away, but to get rid of it entirely and leave Israelis defenseless. If you don't believe that, google apartheid wall and either Bil'in and/or Bi'lin.

[Chulanowa]

44. So what do you have to say about the rest of Seth Freedman's writings?

It's all antisemitic Israel-hating drivel, aside from this piece that happens to back your argument, no doubt.

Even so, I'd hardly call the fellow "One of Israel's fiercest critics." There's criticism there, sure, but it's about as "fierce" as butterscotch pudding.

[shira]

46. Wait - first of all, did Seth Freeman describe "non-violent" protest instigated by Abu Rahma? n/t

[Chulanowa]

47. Answer the fucking question

What do you think of Freedman's other articles, Shira?

[shira]

50. Again - after reading Seth Freedman, are the protests he described peaceful and non-violent? n/t

[Chulanowa]

52. Not going to answer my question, are you, Shira?

I guess you only pick the yummiest cherries :)

[shira]

55. Tell you what - I promise to answer you right after you answer me. Deal? n/t

[Chulanowa]

56. Asked mine first, I'm afraid

Proper etiquette and all.

ALso? You can actually answer the question in an informed manner. All I can do is guess about yours :)

So. What do you think of the rest of Freedman's writings? Do you accept them like you accept the one you're using, or are you just plucking the one you happen to like from the greater body of work?

[shira]

57. I think his articles are mostly crap and I could care less what his motivation is...

Your turn.

[Chulanowa]

74. So you consider your source to be unreliable crap

That's telling.

I've never been to Be'lin. I dunno if they chuck rocks; the videos I've seen involve no rocks (though I've seen gas canisters thrown back at the fence) but hey, I don't have a complete log of the protests over the years. I've seen rocks thrown at protests here on Vashon, so I wouldn't be surprised if they were thrown by people who are getting shot at on their own property.

Like I said, I have to guess. And if I have to guess to the veracity of an article that you're using even while you consider it to be spurious crap...

[shira]

82. Freedman is not the only person reporting violence at the fence demonstrations.

I just wanted you to admit - and yeah I know that's too much to expect - that such demonstrations at the fence are not non-violent.

[Chulanowa]

87. Having seen video of a Palestinian killed by taking a gas canister to the chest

I can agree, they're not non-violent.

However, I would maintain that the source of the violence is the goons with guns behind the fence that is on property they stole from the village under threat of force.

Cue justification of killing Palestinians at any time for any reasons, by the illustrious Shira.

[shira]

92. I didn't expect you to admit to violent protesters assaulting IDF officers.

You have your pretend narrative and you're sticking to it, facts be damned.

Israel always evil 24/7. No Israeli victims, only Palestinian victims. Israel never has justifcation for self-defense. Their citizens should just 'take it' for all Israel's sins.

Got it. Thanks.

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Ken Burch]

19. Uh....can you explain what that is?

n/t.

[azurnoir]

21. Why Ken I think it could be called a "plunger" - of sorts

albeit IMO it applies equally as well to another comment here

[Ken Burch]

22. Would it be an "internal hygiene" product?

n/t.

[Tripmann]

5. Can't have a radical thinker like that walking around, peace might break out!

[Chulanowa]

49. Just think of all the homeless hellfire missiles!

WON'T SOMEONE THINK OF THE MISSILES?!?!

[elias7]

60. If only he was a Ghandi

rather than a mischaracterized one...

[Ken Burch]

101. Oh puhleeze. the Israeli government will never ADMIT that Palestinians can be nonviolent

Just like Bull Connor wouldn't admit Dr. King and the Freedom Riders were, either.

Israel doesn't have to violently suppress ALL protests just to survive.

Palestinians are not Nazis, and have nothing in common with them.

[oberliner]

66. Which progressive Zionists have called him a Palestinian Gadhi?

The reference links only to an anonymous blogger.

[Chulanowa]

88. Anonymous bloggers are a valid source for one side, but not the other?

Just checking; don't see you calling out some of the pro-Israeli folks here who use blogs and hate sites as sources. Maybe you just coincidentally never notice.

And... what the fuck is a "Progressive Zionist"? Someone who thinks Apache gunships should run on biofuel?

[Cherchez la Femme]

103. Yes, yes -- blogger MUST be lying!

:eyes: