Israeli regime "cruel beyond human understanding"

[originalgagster]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1066604,00.html

The article in the link above was written by Jocelyn Hurndall, the mother of a 22 year old photographer who lies in a UK hospital in a persistent vegitative state after being shot in the head by an Israeli soldier while rescuing Arab children from Israeli sniper fire. Of course it must have been a tragic accident, because as we all know the foot soldiers of the benign Israeli occupation would never deliberately target civilians, now would they?

"Jocelyn Hurndall
Monday October 20, 2003
The Guardian

Last Thursday, I delivered a letter to Mr Blair expressing my despair at the Israeli government's lack of response to our call for a full inquiry into the death of my son, Tom. While working as a photojournalist, Tom was shot in the head by an Israeli commander in Rafah, Gaza. He had been walking down a calm civilian street where 20 children were playing when snipers began shooting at them. He was carrying the children to safety when he was shot, and was wearing a fluorescent human rights jacket. He posed no threat. His brain is severely damaged and he will not recover.

Following our traumatic seven-week stay in Israel as we watched our son on the verge of death, we submitted a report to Israel's judge advocate general through the British Foreign Office, and requested a fully transparent inquiry. We included 13 eyewitness statements and considerable photographic evidence of Tom just before and after he was shot.

It has now been six months since Tom was shot, and three-and-a-half months since his case was handed to the Israeli judge advocate general. As yet, we have heard nothing apart from a collection of unutterably bland excuses. "The complexity and subtleness of the examination process," we are told, "demand due consideration and considerable time"; and "There was another suicide bombing and so he [the judge advocate general] has a lot to deal with."

We note the sense of urgency with which Britain condemned and apologised for the British passport-holding suicide bombers; we note, too, the speed with which America dispatched FBI agents in response to the bombing a week ago which killed three US security personnel at the Erez checkpoint in the Gaza Strip. In Tom's case, as in Rachel Corrie's and others, there has been no urgency at all, and yet the need to ensure that evidence is carefully assessed and gathered is surely no less crucial.

Why should it be for grieving parents to have to arrange interviews with the 13 eyewitnesses to the shooting, or to gather photographic, ballistic, forensic and medical evidence?

The British government ought to have been proactive in collecting and protecting evidence. But while it dragged its feet, the Israeli army demolished the tower from which Tom was shot to move it a few metres down the bor der. This action alone will make it almost impossible to dispute the claim that the sniper who shot Tom had no clear line of vision. Six months on, eyewitnesses have dispersed, some have even found themselves inappropriately detained and then deported.

The tragedy that has befallen Tom and our family is a microcosm of the wide-scale terror felt by thousands of other families in the occupied territories.

I am in ineffable distress after the loss of a son. But I have a regular income, food, running water, electricity, an intact roof over my head, access to a hospital, the knowledge that gunfire is unlikely to endanger my other children on their journey to school and that my sleep is unlikely to be broken by gunfire or the sound of tanks. I have a decent life.

Last week the Israeli army's incursion into Rafah - the largest since the beginning of the intifada three years ago - left 120 houses demolished, 1,500 civilians homeless, eight dead and 60 injured. Afterwards, I received an email from Anees, one of Tom's friends in the city, telling me that his house has been demolished. He and the 26 members of his extended family are among those left homeless and very afraid that theIsraeli army may come back at any moment. It was this young man who, in a state of com plete anguish, lifted Tom from the ground after he was shot.

Why won't Tony Blair represent the interests of his citizens and put significant pressure on Ariel Sharon to conduct a full and transparent inquiry into Tom's death? Polite requests will not do. And why won't he challenge Mr Bush's support ofIsrael, a regime which is cruel beyond human understanding? I have seen it for myself: the demolition of houses, the destruction of olive groves, the process of depriving people of the ability to earn a living, the closure of checkpoints, the destruction of water supplies and electricity, lethally enforced curfews, humiliation, terror. In short, the dehumanisation of a people.

It should not be necessary to experience the terror of Palestinians in order to act. Britain finds it acceptable to indulge in a facade of diplomacy by ab staining from two critical UN security council votes: one condemning Israel's policy decision to assassinate or expel a state leader, Yasser Arafat; and the other seeking to bar Israel from extending a security fence deep into the West Bank. Both these issues have received worldwide condemnation - on what basis can Britain justify being unclear or undecided about its position on these questions?

I can't help recalling Mr Blair's resolve, when deciding to go to war with Iraq, that he did not wish to be accused of inaction or for this to be on his conscience at a later date. Where does his conscience lie now in relation to Britain's inaction over Palestine?"

[Tmy]

Jocelyn Hurndall is an ANTI-SEMITE!!!!!

[Chaos]

Originally posted by Tmy
Jocelyn Hurndall is an ANTI-SEMITE!!!!!

She is a mother mourning for her son. Even if she is not right what she claims, in the state of anguish that she is in, it should be excusable for her to rant against those who shot her son.

She has also raised a few point that should be investigated.

[JamesM]

The excess !s in Tmy's post lead to me think some sort of sarcasm may be being expressed...

[TillEulenspiegel]

So? One more example of the Israeli government/IDF acting extra judicially. I'll see your murders and raise you a Israeli "security " Card , which trumps all regulated, ordinary, acceptable and lawful behavior. (this card also allows blame to be placed on the victim and not the perpetrator.)

[Tmy]

Originally posted by TillEulenspiegel
So? One more example of the Israeli government/IDF acting extra judicially. I'll see your murders and raise you a Israeli "security " Card , which trumps all regulated, ordinary, acceptable and lawful behavior. (this card also allows blame to be placed on the victim and not the perpetrator.)

That bright orange vest made him an easy target! If he wasnt being a human shield for terrorists hed be alive today!!!

[originalgagster]

Originally posted by Tmy


That bright orange vest made him an easy target! If he wasnt being a human shield for terrorists hed be alive today!!!

Yes, that bright orange vest must have made him virtually indistinguishable from a camouflaged gunman! and that small child he was carrying was probably mistaken for an assault rifle!

[Quasi]

Both sides are wrong. I was going home and a bunch of palestinian supporters were at the subway stop asking for money. Forget that- the palestinian leaders would just spend it on themselves and for explosives to kill civilians. But of course, the Israelies are only a hair better- they prefer to relocate palestinians and build condos, and kill when the need arises. I do not see any need to be for or against any side. I oppose them both.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Tmy


That bright orange vest made him an easy target! If he wasnt being a human shield for terrorists hed be alive today!!!

The pattern of IDF behaviour in the occupied territories. Remove all witnesses to what is going on.

According to our esteemed defenders of Israel, it was his own fault for going to a war zone. In fact, he was stupid, and probably a leftie anyway.

[TillEulenspiegel]

Quasi:
Both sides are wrong. I was going home and a bunch of palestinian supporters were at the subway stop asking for money. Forget that- the palestinian leaders would just spend it on themselves and for explosives to kill civilians. But of course, the Israelies are only a hair better- they prefer to relocate palestinians and build condos, and kill when the need arises. I do not see any need to be for or against any side. I oppose them both.

Your attempt to appear evenhanded only makes a mockery of the truth.

"palestinian leaders would just spend it on themselves and for explosives to kill civilians. "

By that statement not only do you link any and all charities dedicated to helping civilians ( altho we know some charities are definably tied to funding terrorists), but also indites the Palestine leadership ( meaning the PLC AND Arafat) for terrorists atrocities by slander. The implicit notion is that anyone in a position of authority is responsible for the action of some looney toon kid who has been taught from infancy to hate Isrealis and guided by even loonier men to become a martyr is self serving at best and a propaganda devise designed to indite the whole of the Palestinian people at worst. Besides we all know that Arafat is living in the lap of luxury in his bombed out hovel.

Whereas:
"the Israelies are only a hair better- they prefer to relocate Palestinians and build condos, and kill when the need arises."

Meaning that the poor IDF being pushed to far finally have to resort to a gentle remonstrance of relocating ( either bulldozing houses or apartment buildings as a form of collective punishment, which is illeagal under the Geneva accords and the UN charter or just taking potshots from an Abrams tank ) and relocating thier occupants to the gully down the street. The final terminal punishment (death ) is only metered out when the "need " arises..the need...man talk about a variable yardstick.

I suggest that if you really want to be evenhanded, look at the record of the past 10 years, in publications that are not beholding to either point of view. I dare say your opinion will be modified.

[TillEulenspiegel]

Just watched the news. Seems 10 more Palestinians were killed by the IDF going after terriorists. Two were evidently attached to some "terrorist" group the other, 8 were civilians including children . Being correct in my judgment to condem Isreal's brutality as a function of a recognized government policey gives me no solice .............I honestly wish I were wrong, honestly. Making debating points that rest on the heads of 8 innocent human beings is anathema to all I believe. I also feel guilt as MY ( and every American's ) tax dollers bought the weapons that commited this crime.

[shuize]

Based on recent polls we've seen batted around on this forum only eight of those ten were legitimate targets.

8 (total number of civilians) X .75 (percentage of palistinians who support terrorist attacks on isreali civilians) = 6

6 + 2 (remaining number identified as having some sort of terrorist connection)

8 it is.

Now let the wailing and gnashing of teeth for the two innocent civilians begin.

(Innocent is italicized because if you're using palistinian math everyone is a legitimate target regardless of their status)

[ssibal]

Originally posted by originalgagster
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1066604,00.html

The article in the link above was written by Jocelyn Hurndall, the mother of a 22 year old photographer who lies in a UK hospital in a persistent vegitative state after being shot in the head by an Israeli soldier while rescuing Arab children from Israeli sniper fire. Of course it must have been a tragic accident, because as we all know the foot soldiers of the benign Israeli occupation would never deliberately target civilians, now would they?

Sorry to rain in on the Israel bashing parade but where is the evidence that the Israeli soldier was deliberately targeting civilians?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by shuize
Based on recent polls we've seen batted around on this forum only eight of those ten were legitimate targets.

8 (total number of civilians) X .75 (percentage of palistinians who support terrorist attacks on isreali civilians) = 6

6 + 2 (remaining number identified as having some sort of terrorist connection)

8 it is.

Now let the wailing and gnashing of teeth for the two innocent civilians begin.

(Innocent is italicized because if you're using palistinian math everyone is a legitimate target regardless of their status)

If you think that Palestinian civilians have only just started being killed, you have rocks in your head. Millions of children living and growing to be adults their whole lives under military occupation, (Sharon has acknowledged it is a military occupation), counts as a war crime to me.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by ssibal


Sorry to rain in on the Israel bashing parade but where is the evidence that the Israeli soldier was deliberately targeting civilians?

Snipers hitting a guy wearing a day-glo safety vest?

[ssibal]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


Snipers hitting a guy wearing a day-glo safety vest?

How do you know it was a sniper and not a regular soldier?

*EDIT* And if they indeed were snipers they were not very good since by the mother's own accounts they had already fired a few shots without hiting anything. So, it would not be so far-fetched for them to accidentaly hit him.

[shuize]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


If you think that Palestinian civilians have only just started being killed, you have rocks in your head. Millions of children living and growing to be adults their whole lives under military occupation, (Sharon has acknowledged it is a military occupation), counts as a war crime to me.

Given that between half and three-quarters of all palistinian civilians think it's just fine to blow up isreali civilians in suicide attacks, I think they doth protest too much when the isreali military hits back.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by shuize


Given that between half and three-quarters of all palistinian civilians think it's just fine to blow up isreali civilians in suicide attacks, I think they doth protest too much when the isreali military hits back.

Who is hitting back at who?

[peptoabysmal]

From this article:

Rafah in miniature (http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/comment/0,10551,1066624,00.html)

It seems that Jocelyn is almost as concerned for her son as she is for the Palestinians. I wonder if she is laboring under the guilt of having helped put her son in harm's way?

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by originalgagster
...He was carrying the children to safety when he was shot, and was wearing a fluorescent human rights jacket...

I'd like to know what a "flourescent human rights jacket" is. Is that some international thing that a US citizen like myself would be unaware of?

The article implies that because he was wearing this thing he should not have been confused with a Palestinian-Arab terrorist. As though it were some sort of badge that says, "I'm neutral, don't shoot me."

Is that really what it is? Or is it just a fluorescent jacket?

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by TillEulenspiegel
Just watched the news. Seems 10 more Palestinians were killed by the IDF going after terriorists. Two were evidently attached to some "terrorist" group the other, 8 were civilians including children . Being correct in my judgment to condem Isreal's brutality as a function of a recognized government policey gives me no solice .............I honestly wish I were wrong, honestly. Making debating points that rest on the heads of 8 innocent human beings is anathema to all I believe. I also feel guilt as MY ( and every American's ) tax dollers bought the weapons that commited this crime.

It seems your ethics did not survive this opportunity to break them.

[Cain]

http://www.tomhurndall.co.uk/gallery/lowres/tom-rafah-new-high-4.jpg

Based on recent polls we've seen batted around on this forum only eight of those ten were legitimate targets.

8 (total number of civilians) X .75 (percentage of palistinians who support terrorist attacks on isreali civilians) = 6

6 + 2 (remaining number identified as having some sort of terrorist connection)

8 it is.

Now let the wailing and gnashing of teeth for the two innocent civilians begin.

(Innocent is italicized because if you're using palistinian math everyone is a legitimate target regardless of their status)

A monstrous "moral" calculation. Treating human beings like ratios of red and white marbles plucked from a jar; ignoring an entire history of brutal occupation.

[Mycroft]

Interesting picture Cain. Are those the fluorescent jackets that were spoken of? They certainly look like they would stand out, but I'm still curious as to who recognizes them as representing international noncombatants. They appear to be appropriate for construction work.
Originally posted by Cain
A monstrous "moral" calculation. Treating human beings like ratios of red and white marbles plucked from a jar; ignoring an entire history of brutal occupation.
Interesting. I wouldn’t expect a moral argument from you.

http://www.tomhurndall.co.uk/gallery/lowres/picture111-low-res.jpg

Tom Hurndall

http://www.tomhurndall.co.uk/gallery/lowres/picture088-low-res.jpg

Picture by Tom Hurndall

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Mycroft
Interesting picture Cain. Are those the fluorescent jackets that were spoken of? They certainly look like they would stand out, but I'm still curious as to who recognizes them as representing international noncombatants. They appear to be appropriate for construction work.


That's right, he was stupid.

Also, make sure you don't sit doing any ebroidery.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JewishPeaceNews/message/2060
http://www.wworld.org/programs/middleEast.asp?ID=327
http://www.israelblog.org/Articles/In_favor_of_Gandhis_legacy.html



Shadan Abu-Hajla was 50 years old when she died on Friday from an Israeli soldier's bullet as she sat embroidering in Rafadiyeh park in Nablus. Her husband, an elderly, well-known doctor, was wounded in the head, and their son got a bullet in the neck. Abu Hajla was the neighborhood coordinator of a Nablus women's organization which, since the intifada, has been providing aid to the needy and preaching non-violent civil disobedience as a form of resistance to the occupation.

Anan Kadri, a nurse, is one of the group's leaders and paid a condolence call on the Abu Hajla family yesterday. She said that even after the terrible murder she and her friends would keep marching toward Israeli tanks, armed only with fresh flowers. No act of Israeli violence will change their minds, which have not been changed by the events of the last two years, that the struggle against the occupation does not justify violence against Israeli civilians.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


That's right, he was stupid.

Also, make sure you don't sit doing any ebroidery.



I'm not commenting on his stupidity, I want verification that these jackets actually mean something.

Yes, it's sad when people die in war. Especially when they are good people who seek non-violent solutions to problems.

Emphasizing the seemingly intrinsic and obvious connection between the tough measures the IDF is taking in the territories and the institutionalization of the internal criticism of the suicide bombings is not merely patting oneself on the back. The message between the lines is that now is not the time to stop. Let the IDF win a little bit more, and more Palestinians will lay down their weapons. Let Ya'alon "exterminate the terrorist nests in Gaza" and you'll see how they will also understand that violence doesn't pay.

It's encouraging. Let's hope this non-violence takes off.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


That's right, he was stupid.

Also, make sure you don't sit doing any ebroidery.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JewishPeaceNews/message/2060
http://www.wworld.org/programs/middleEast.asp?ID=327
http://www.israelblog.org/Articles/In_favor_of_Gandhis_legacy.html



Yes very sad, just like same stories of some Palestinian blowing up 3 generations in a market.

No matter how many posts like this I see, I don't see how Israel is worse than Palestine. Thus I don't see how you can criticize one without equally criticizing the other. What I think people should be doing is praising a side that is moving further to peace.

[originalgagster]

Originally posted by ssibal


Sorry to rain in on the Israel bashing parade but where is the evidence that the Israeli soldier was deliberately targeting civilians?

I didn't state explicitly that he was. It looks probable, on the best analysis of the evidence that he was shooting at unarmed civilians, but given that the Israeli regime seem commited to covering up the killing we can't be absolutely positive.


Originally posted by shuize Given that between half and three-quarters of all palistinian civilians think it's just fine to blow up isreali civilians in suicide attacks, I think they doth protest too much when the isreali military hits back.

Even if your claim that 50%-75% of Palestinians support suicide bombings is true (do you have a reference?) this still doesn't excuse military action against civilian areas.

By all means hit back against those who are actively involved in violence, but it isn't in order to attack civilian populations - regardless of what opinions they may hold.


Originally posted by Mycroft Are those the fluorescent jackets that were spoken of? They certainly look like they would stand out, but I'm still curious as to who recognizes them as representing international noncombatants. They appear to be appropriate for construction work.

Setting aside that it is somewhat improbable that a gunman would be walking around in full view of an Israeli sniper tower wearing an orange fluorescent jacket, what difference would it make if he had been mistaken for a construction worker? Surely it would have been just as wrong to shoot an unarmed man in the head.

Orange flourescent jackets are worn by all members of the international solidarity movement (http://www.palsolidarity.org/), including the american woman who was run over by an Israeli bulldozer earlier this year, and an American man who was shot in the face from an Israeli APC. The Israeli troops must be used to the sight of the jackets by now, they provide them with excellent target practice.

edit: typo.

[Tmy]

Originally posted by shuize
Based on recent polls we've seen batted around on this forum only eight of those ten were legitimate targets.

8 (total number of civilians) X .75 (percentage of palistinians who support terrorist attacks on isreali civilians) = 6

6 + 2 (remaining number identified as having some sort of terrorist connection)

8 it is.

Now let the wailing and gnashing of teeth for the two innocent civilians begin.

(Innocent is italicized because if you're using palistinian math everyone is a legitimate target regardless of their status)

This is silly. Im sure you can say that 75% of Isrealies support Sharon, so therefore its ok if bus blows up cause 75% of the jews inside are not innocent.

Do ya'll think that the Isreali army purposly or at least recklessly kill Pali bystanders to send a message. There military is so great that youd think their strikes could be more precise. OR do they want to hurt innocents as an eye for an eye thing with the bombers.

[TillEulenspiegel]

Originally posted by ssibal


"Sorry to rain in on the Israel bashing parade but where is the evidence that the Israeli soldier was deliberately targeting civilians? "

I would state that there are only a few possibilities for 1) ricochet, 2) misstargeting 3) deliberate aim.

1) ricochet, For this to occur requires extraordinarly bad luck and a tangential wound and also that there was targeting in Toms general vicinity. The standard issue rifles used by the IDF is the M-16 and elite (sniper forces) use the CAR-15, both use the same types of ammo.The 5.56 ammo tends to disintegrate or tumble upon hitting a solid surface, so for it to hit a wall, bounce and kill Mr. Hurndall is problematic to say the least and must carry the weight of general ( or bad ) targeting of Mr.Hurndall. The fact that he was shot in the back of the head while running in an open space in the street towards two children.The gunman was 300 yds. away . The wound , which went through his head requires a completely linear trajectory, which is inconsistent with this possibility.

2) Misstargeting, This scenario requires that a expert trained marksman ( how do I know this?. The solder responsable for the death was a commander in charge of a sniper unit, a position that requires marksman skills at a high level ) to see a moving target 300 yds. away take aim for a head shot ( the preferred shot for an assassin) and A. have the wrong target ( impossible as there was no one else in even a close proximity) or B. not see the flouresent jacket after Tom had already run to rescue one child from the same place ( fog of war? eh...I really doubt it ) .

3) The most likely

We Americans had our day with Lt W..Calley We did the right thing.
You won't find any such act of conscience from the ADL/JDL types here tho.



PS TMY Word is that the IDF , especially the lifer types who are hard core, tend to see the human rights, humaniterian people as being as bad if not worse then the Palistinians kinda like the Jews down south in the 60's in America. The other poor bastards (conscripts , which in Israel means everyone for 2 years of thier life) when they see whats going on lose heart rather quickly.....wouldn't You?


PPS
I have removed an extrainious and erroneous quote here

[Skeptic]

I am in ineffable distress after the loss of a son. But I have a regular income, food, running water, electricity, an intact roof over my head, access to a hospital, the knowledge that gunfire is unlikely to endanger my other children on their journey to school and that my sleep is unlikely to be broken by gunfire or the sound of tanks. I have a decent life.

The palestinians were offered JUST THAT in 2000 by Barak, after a ten-year (more or less) negotiation period where they were offered in increments more and more, with the understanding, on israel's side, that the eventual goal is a peaceful palestinian state.

The result? A "Death to the Jews!" war of terror and genocide from the palestinians, seeing israeli willingness for peace as proof that "the zionist midget is on its last legs" and it is time for the long-awaited second holocaust.

That, and the 800+ jewish civilians butchered in this war, might have SOMETHING to do with why the israeli tanks are "incrusing" into Rafah and why the residents there suffer from the "sounds of gunfire".

This is not "cruelty beyound human understanding". It's not even "cruelty"--the writer gives no proof whatsoever that her son was deliberately targeted, and not killed by corssfire or a stray bullet. The anti-israeli press, for rather obvious reasons, tends to promote every palestinian casualty to martydom or claim a "massacre"--but that doesn't mean it is so.

(Remember Muhammad Al-Dura, the 12-year old "cruelly targeted by israeli soldiers"? As it turns out, he was not targeted, but--with his father--merely were at the wrong place--in the crossfire between israelis and palestinians in a firefight that, of course, the palestinians started. If anything, there is more evidence to suggest he was killed by a palestinian bullet.)

What this is, essentially, is a war for survival with an enemy which repeatedly claimed its goal is to wipe out the jews. If you REALLY want to see "cruelty beyound human understanding", you need to look at what happens to the "heathens" when the muslims win, as in Sudan, Afghanistan, or Iran.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by TillEulenspiegel
!0-02-01 Sharon:

"every time we do something you tell me America will do this and will do that . . . I want to tell you something very clear: Don't worry about American pressure on Israel. We, the Jewish people, control America, and the Americans know it."

You do realize that when you post garbage like this, your credibility vanishes, right?

[JamesM]

The origin of the Sharon quote, according to Camera (http://world.std.com/~camera/docs/alert/geyer.html):
The hoax originated from an October 3, 2001 press release from the pro-Hamas group, the Islamic Association for Palestine. It said, “An acrimonious argument erupted during the Israeli cabinet weekly session last week between Ariel Sharon and his foreign Minister Shimon Peres during which Sharon reportedly yelled at Peres, saying “don’t worry about American pressure, we control America.’” Notably, in the same press release, a direct quotation changed from “we control America” to “we the Jewish people control America.”

IAP writes, “According [to] the Israeli Hebrew radio, Col [sic] Yisrael Wednesday, Peres warned Sharon that refusing to heed incessant American requests for a cease-fire with the Palestinians would endanger Israeli interests and turn the US against us. At this point, a furious Sharon reportedly turned toward Peres, saying “...I want to tell you something clear, don’t worry about American pressure on Israel, we the Jewish people control America, and the Americans know it.’”

According to the IAP press release, the statement was reported on Kol Yisrael. However, CAMERA’s calls to Kol Yisrael confirmed that no such broadcast exists.

[TillEulenspiegel]

You are absoloutly correct . The story is what appeares to be a complete fabrication witch is self-referential and curcular. The reason I tooke it verbatium is because secondary (trusted ) sources quoted it and reported the origional story was reported ( not ) on Kol Yisrael . Guess we have to be extra careful these days. The rest of my post stands , there are no quotes only independantly verifiable facts.
As for the Quote, I was wrong
Mea Culpa
Mea Maxima Culpa

[JamesM]

Originally posted by TillEulenspiegel
As for the Quote, I was wrong
Mea Culpa
Mea Maxima Culpa
That's fair enough. You certainly won't be hearing any more from me about it.

... see how easy it is, Cain?

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by TillEulenspiegel
You are absoloutly correct . The story is what appeares to be a complete fabrication witch is self-referential and curcular. The reason I tooke it verbatium is because secondary (trusted ) sources quoted it and reported the origional story was reported ( not ) on Kol Yisrael . Guess we have to be extra careful these days. The rest of my post stands , there are no quotes only independantly verifiable facts.
As for the Quote, I was wrong
Mea Culpa
Mea Maxima Culpa

Fair enough, I will erase my previous post.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by TillEulenspiegel
You are absoloutly correct . The story is what appeares to be a complete fabrication witch is self-referential and curcular. The reason I tooke it verbatium is because secondary (trusted ) sources quoted it and reported the origional story was reported ( not ) on Kol Yisrael . Guess we have to be extra careful these days. The rest of my post stands , there are no quotes only independantly verifiable facts.
As for the Quote, I was wrong
Mea Culpa
Mea Maxima Culpa

I'm somewhat less inclined to remove my previous post, as Skeptic has. I'm troubled that sources you consider to be trustworthy passed it on to you, and that you seem to have believed it. The first time I saw that quote, (which wasn't when you posted it) I immediately suspected that it was a fabrication. How could it not be?

Quite frankly, it doesn't pass the smell test. I merely imagine the outrage that would be present if Sharon had actually said this, and I come to the conclusion that the claim is false. No discussion of Israel's relationship with the US would be able to be found anywhere without a reference to this quote, were it real.

What troubles me most is that I can't see how one can believe that this quote is real, unless one also believes it to be true.

So TillEulenspiegel: You accept that the quote is falsified. What do you think about the false quote's veracity? Do Arial Sharon and the Jews control America to such an extent that he could get away with saying so, without it being widely reported here in the States? Do the Jews control the World to such an extent that the BBC, Le Monde, et. al. could also be intimidated into silence about this outburst for 2 years?

MattJ

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by aerocontrols

What troubles me most is that I can't see how one can believe that this quote is real, unless one also believes it to be true.


Damn good point. Something about the use of the quote was really bugging me too, but I hadn't nailed it down until you phrased it so sucinctly.

[JamesM]

Originally posted by aerocontrols
What troubles me most is that I can't see how one can believe that this quote is real, unless one also believes it to be true.
To play devil's advocate for a moment, I can see that one could accept the veracity of the quote, without accepting the model of reality being asserted by the quote.

The impression I got from TE's use of the quote, was not that it was evidence of pro-Israeli control of the media, but evidence of unpleasant rhetoric being used by both sides in the conflict.

Do Arial Sharon and the Jews control America to such an extent that he could get away with saying so, without it being widely reported here in the States? Do the Jews control the World to such an extent that the BBC, Le Monde, et. al. could also be intimidated into silence about this outburst for 2 years?
To continue to play devil's advocate, I could venture a couple of possibilities: the fact that it was presumably not originally reported in English, could have led to it being overlooked. Alternatively, it could have been reported, but people had forgotten about it, due to 9/11 or Afghanistan or whatever. And there are lots of more extreme things being said in the Middle East, which only memri is reporting, for example.

I must admit that this quote didn't immediately jump out to me as an obvious falsification, and I'm sure I can be accused of being more sensitive to these sorts of things than others here. So I certainly bow to your heightened sense of sniff, aerocontrols.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by originalgagster

Setting aside that it is somewhat improbable that a gunman would be walking around in full view of an Israeli sniper tower wearing an orange fluorescent jacket, what difference would it make if he had been mistaken for a construction worker? Surely it would have been just as wrong to shoot an unarmed man in the head.

I agree, I think it is improbable that a gunman would be walking around wearing an orange fluorescent jacket. I also think it’s improbable that a high ranking highly trained soldier would just shoot someone at random, which is exactly what this article implies happened.

He was carrying the children to safety when he was shot, and was wearing a fluorescent human rights jacket.

This implies two things:

1) There is something special about this jacket, that it is a recognized code that would tell a soldier (or a Palestinian-Arab militant) that the person who wears the jacket in an international non-combatant and not a legitimate target should hostilities break out.

2) It implies that he was involved in some sort of human rights work. I don’t know what that suggests to you, but in my mind that suggests someone who is non-partisan, non-political. An international observer, or maybe a relief worker interested in getting medical care to the sick and injured or food to the hungry.

Now since I have doubts that Israeli soldiers really behave as serial killers (the Palestinian-Arab death toll would be exponentially higher if this were true) and because I am made just a little uncomfortable that a grieving mother takes time out from her plea for help to push a political cause, I think the facts of the issue deserve a little closer scrutiny.


Originally posted by originalgagster
Orange flourescent jackets are worn by all members of the international solidarity movement, including the american woman who was run over by an Israeli bulldozer earlier this year, and an American man who was shot in the face from an Israeli APC. The Israeli troops must be used to the sight of the jackets by now, they provide them with excellent target practice.



Okay, so ISM people wear these fluorescent orange jackets. Who recognizes this code? Is it something they made up? Or is this a real international signal? Is there some international human rights agreement where countries agree to recognize this code? Is this something that a normal soldier would be trained to recognize?

So here in this link you provide (thank you, by the way) we see that the ISM is a very political organization. They are not there to provide humanitarian relief, no medicine or food, but to take sides in a war. While this certainly doesn’t justify this photographer getting shot, it does tell us that there is more to the story than this article lets on. Enough to make me wonder what else don’t we know about these events?

[Cain]

Originally posted by JamesM

That's fair enough. You certainly won't be hearing any more from me about it.

... see how easy it is, Cain?

Hilarious. James, I am not one to make a habit of appealing to authority but... the authenticity of my posts, their origin and intent... it's usually pretty clear to me, you know, being the author and all. Weird, huh? :rolleyes:

[JamesM]

Originally posted by Cain
the authenticity of my posts, their origin and intent... it's usually pretty clear to me, you know, being the author and all.
I'd like to think your intent was not anti-semitic. Nonetheless, that's not how it came across. Some indication of your recognition of that fact would be appreciated, by acknowledging some of your statements were in error, rather than blanket denials and name-calling.

[ssibal]

Originally posted by TillEulenspiegel
2) Misstargeting, This scenario requires that a expert trained marksman ( how do I know this?. The solder responsable for the death was a commander in charge of a sniper unit, a position that requires marksman skills at a high level ) to see a moving target 300 yds. away take aim for a head shot ( the preferred shot for an assassin) and A. have the wrong target ( impossible as there was no one else in even a close proximity) or B. not see the flouresent jacket after Tom had already run to rescue one child from the same place ( fog of war? eh...I really doubt it ) .


The problem with this is the following; the Israelis supposedly began firing unexpectedly. In none of the accounts do you hear of anyone else having been shot during this incident. Are we supposed to believe that the Israelis fired several shots at a group of unaware civilians and could not hit anything yet they were able to perfectly hit a running target? If this had been a deliberate attack at the civilians and activists I think more than one person would have been shot.

[Mike B.]

Originally posted by JamesM

I'd like to think your intent was not anti-semitic. Nonetheless, that's not how it came across. Some indication of your recognition of that fact would be appreciated, by acknowledging some of your statements were in error, rather than blanket denials and name-calling.

Wow, could it be?

Yet one more person is added to the ever growing army of people that think Cain is an unmitagated ********.

Just keep 'em coming...

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by JamesM
The origin of the Sharon quote, according to Camera (http://world.std.com/~camera/docs/alert/geyer.html):


Unfortunately, I find Camera as unreliable and biased as the sites that carry this anecdote. I would not believe it because Camera told me so, but because I have never seen a reputable source carry it and there is no way of verifying it from other sources.

[JamesM]

Originally posted by a_unique_person

Unfortunately, I find Camera as unreliable and biased as the sites that carry this anecdote.
I don't blame you for that, and I don't normally go running to Camera for facts. Unfortunately, I couldn't find any other site that had information on the source of the quote. I would certainly appreciate any other sources for the origin of the quote.

[Cain]

Originally posted by JamesM

I'd like to think your intent was not anti-semitic. Nonetheless, that's not how it came across. Some indication of your recognition of that fact would be appreciated, by acknowledging some of your statements were in error, rather than blanket denials and name-calling.

Ah, yes, the whole "I'd like to think it wasn't intentional" deceit. I am unsure what response other than "blanket denials" are appropriate for unsupported allegations of a pernicious nature. I knew this nonsense would reassert itself again -- further reason for believing the blatant, nasty smear tactic -- but had no idea it would infect another thread so soon. For the nth time, as I've made clear in no uncertain terms, not an ounce of animus was intended in these comments, and the only person who could divine such malicious motives from transparent remarks and unambiguous elaboration suffers from, to borrow an earlier phrase, "lurid obsessions". But then we went over this word by word, didn't we? You demonstrated an utterly pathetic, uncompromisng inability to read for comprehension. Any "name-calling" that followed is perfectly justified. An idiot is an idiot is an idiot. It just so happens that you are an idiot. Now please, if you only wait several more weeks to bring this boat-load of horse-sh*t back up again, you'll qualify for the "You're a Godd**n F**cking Moron" award and probably win (assuming there's a rule against consecutive victories).

:rolleyes:

*sigh*

[JamesM]

You're right, Cain, there's a whole other thread devoted to this, we'll reconvene there. My apologies for helping this spread unnecessarily onto another thread.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Cain


You demonstrated an utterly pathetic, uncompromisng inability to read for comprehension. Any "name-calling" that followed is perfectly justified. An idiot is an idiot is an idiot. It just so happens that you are an idiot. Now please, if you only wait several more weeks to bring this boat-load of horse-sh*t back up again, you'll qualify for the "You're a Godd**n F**cking Moron" award and probably win (assuming there's a rule against consecutive victories).

:rolleyes:

*sigh*

Cain,

I can understand you gettin heated up about this issue. I can't understand you taking it out on Cleopatra and James, James in particular. They appear to me to be two independent thinkers who have their loyalties, but are open to debate and contribute as well. Skeptic shows all the qualities, as far as I am concerned, that you are accusing them of.

I cannot recall James ever being abusive, and he as questioned people who have accused me of being anti-semitic when he has not seen evidence of me being so.

By attacking these two people so aggressively, you risk alienating two valuable members of this forum. I have been aggressive myself at times, but do not see that it really contributes much, or fosters a development in levels of debate.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
[By attacking these two people so aggressively, you risk alienating two valuable members of this forum. [/B]

Allow me to disagree.

Cain has not power to alienate me or anybody. He is not the first antisemite I meet in my life and unfortunately he is not the last.

[originalgagster]

Originally posted by Mycroft


. I also think it’s improbable that a high ranking highly trained soldier would just shoot someone at random, which is exactly what this article implies happened.

I'm not sure the article does imply that. It could equally imply that the soldier shot someone he believed was helping the "enemy". The Israeli army and settlers in the occupied territories have a history of showing violence to ISM members. Is it really so improbable that the soldier shot him dead in cold blood, safe in the knowledge that his superiors would work hard to cover the killing up?


Originally posted by Mycroft
Okay, so ISM people wear these fluorescent orange jackets. Who recognizes this code? Is it something they made up? Or is this a real international signal?

As far as i know the ISM are not internationally recognised. I'm not sure of the relevance of this point though. The Israeli soldier would have known Hurndall was unarmed, his jacket would have marked him out as a non-combatant. There was no gunfight taking place, so the idea he got caught in hostilities is unsupportable.


Originally posted by Mycroft
So here in this link you provide (thank you, by the way) we see that the ISM is a very political organization. They are not there to provide humanitarian relief, no medicine or food, but to take sides in a war.

Although it is true the ISM are a political, Palestinian based organization, i think it is just plain wrong to contend they are taking sides in a war. The only functions they perform are the accompaniment of Arab civilians, and the interposing of themselves to prevent war crimes, such as the destruction of homes.

Originally posted by Mycroft
While this certainly doesn’t justify this photographer getting shot, it does tell us that there is more to the story than this article lets on. Enough to make me wonder what else don’t we know about these events?

There is no problem with eye witnesses. Plenty of them. They all give a consistent account of the shooting. All known facts are widely published, look them up. Any facts that aren't known are not available because the Israeli regime has not co-operated with the investigation in any meaningful way.

[renata]

I think it is quite obvious and understandable the mother grieves for her son. Of course someone could post dozens of personal stories of innocent victims who were blown to bits eating in a cafe, or riding a bus, and we could exchange them all day long, but would that deepen our understanding of the conflict?


Originally posted by originalgagster
[B]

Although it is true the ISM are a political, Palestinian based organization, i think it is just plain wrong to contend they are taking sides in a war. The only functions they perform are the accompaniment of Arab civilians, and the interposing of themselves to prevent war crimes, such as the destruction of homes.


Wanted to address that

Now according to this, ISM harbored an Islamic Jihad member being sought by IDF.

http://www.jta.org/page_view_story.asp?intarticleid=12653&intcategoryid=1

While the IDF has expressed sorrow at the chain of injuries, it claims ISM activists increasingly cross the line of neutrality. One example occurred on March 27, when IDF forces launched a manhunt for a top Islamic Jihad terrorist in Jenin.

Intelligence information led the IDF to believe that Shadi Sukia was being hidden in a Jenin compound that holds a bank, a Red Cross office and the ISM office.

After combing the entire building and finding nothing, the soldiers asked two ISM activists if they could search their offices.

ISM coordinator Susan Barcley refused. The soldiers insisted, forcing their way in.

The intelligence information proved correct: Sukia had taken shelter with the ISM. Both he and Barcley were arrested.

Wallace claims that Barcley found Sukia wet and shivering outside the ISM office, “and asked the boy to come in.”

According to the IDF, Sukia is no boy.

“He is a grown man, one of the highest ranking members of the Islamic Jihad in Jenin, responsible for recruiting several suicide bombers, planning bombings himself, laying mines and sniping,” an IDF official said.

“All told they gave him a change of clothes and a blanket and a hot cup of tea,” said Wallace, adding that the ISM activists had no way of knowing the young man’s political affiliations or criminal history when they cared for him.

Nonsense, the IDF responded.

“Many of the ISM activists are nothing short of provocateurs,” the IDF source said. “They try to incite the Palestinians. They’re almost spoiling for a fight.”


And according to this, 2 suicide bombers used ISM as cover days prior to the attack- whether or not they knew anything about their plans.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,947846,00.html

The Britons who mounted the suicide attacks in Israel attempted to join the peace movement as cover for their activities, the Guardian has learnt.
As Israeli police mounted a manhunt for the alleged failed British suicide bomber Omar Khan Sharif, fearing he would attempt another attack, human rights sources told the Guardian that Sharif and his accomplice Asif Mohammed Hanif, arrived at the offices of the International Solidarity Movement in Rafah and made contact with its members just days before the bombing.

....
One activist, who asked not to be named, recognised the pair when they were shown on Israeli TV. He spoke to them last Friday at the spot where American human shield Rachel Corrie was killed by an Israeli bulldozer. He said: "They did not seem tense or edgy. You didn't get the impression they were planning to carry out a suicide bombing within a few days.

There is also an allegation that when IDF searched ISM's it found a pistol and a cache of Kalashnikov rifles. However, the link to support that is broken, so I am unable to verify that.



Its mission statement calls for
http://www.njsolidarity.org/home.html
We are opposed to the existence of the apartheid colonial settler state of Israel, as it is based on the racist ideology of Zionism and is an expression of colonialism and imperialism, and we stand for the total liberation of all of historic Palestine.

When people allude to "total" liberation of "all" of "historic Palestine", what do you think they mean?

Tom Hurndell died a very tragic death. He was a human shield in Iraq, and then he was he came to occupied terrories. It is possible that a soldier took a shot at him- maybe to scare the protestors who obviously side with the Palestinians. I think it is unlikely, but I do think it is possible. I am not a big believer in eyewitness accounts, ever since Jenin 700 massacre. Whatever you might say about him- I disagree with his politics, his views, but he thought he was making some sort of a difference, and he put his body and life on the line, twice. Of course, as we have seen, his death did not accomplish anything, by both sides.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by renata
Whatever you might say about him- I disagree with his politics, his views, but he thought he was making some sort of a difference, and he put his body and life on the line, twice. Of course, as we have seen, his death did not accomplish anything, by both sides.

Renata I'm with you 100% until you get to the point where you say his death didn't accomplish anything. In truth, his death was a propaganda windfall for the Palestinian-Arabs.

[Cleon]

Originally posted by renata

Wanted to address that

Now according to this, ISM harbored an Islamic Jihad member being sought by IDF.

http://www.jta.org/page_view_story.asp?intarticleid=12653&intcategoryid=1


That site makes a lot of claims. For example, it claims that Rachel Corrie was defending "a terrorist's" home from being demolished. There is no evidence that the person in question--a pharmacist--was in fact a terrorist. If you google "Shadi Sukia," the only sites you get reference the JTA report. No even remotely objective news sources--not even Ha'aretz or the Jerusalem Post (let's face it, the JP would love to put down ISM).

Interestingly, even the Israeli government has stepped back from calling the ISM "terrorist" or saying they aid terrorists. They've said so in the past, but backed off from it. The party line today is apparently that they're simply "misguided."


And according to this, 2 suicide bombers used ISM as cover days prior to the attack- whether or not they knew anything about their plans.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,947846,00.html


And what you neglect to point out from that article is ISM's response when they found out:


The London office of the ISM was horrified by the contact with its sister office. John Heaney, a spokesman for the ISM, said: "I know for a fact they did not come through us in London.

"This is totally against what we believe in both as individuals and as a group. I've never met any kind of extremists out there among the peace protesters either with our group or any of the others we work with. My belief is that the whole movement is against violence."


In fact, if you read the article, you see that their contact with the ISM is rather brief and it was the ISM itself which made the contact with the bombers public.


Its mission statement calls for
http://www.njsolidarity.org/home.html


When people allude to "total" liberation of "all" of "historic Palestine", what do you think they mean?


Well, first of all, you got the wrong site. New Jersey Solidarity is a different organization than the ISM (whose site is
http://www.palsolidarity.org. The ISM's focus is purely on the occupation of the WB and Gaza. (Incidentally, lately many ISM leaders have been distancing themselves from NJS for being too pro-violence.)

[renata]

Originally posted by Cleon
[B]

That site makes a lot of claims. For example, it claims that Rachel Corrie was defending "a terrorist's" home from being demolished. There is no evidence that the person in question--a pharmacist--was in fact a terrorist. If you google "Shadi Sukia," the only sites you get reference the JTA report. No even remotely objective news sources--not even Ha'aretz or the Jerusalem Post (let's face it, the JP would love to put down ISM).

Interestingly, even the Israeli government has stepped back from calling the ISM "terrorist" or saying they aid terrorists. They've said so in the past, but backed off from it. The party line today is apparently that they're simply "misguided."

Actually, I have found in original search (and now lost, dammit!) several sites that the Israeli government suggests that ISM sympathizes with the Palestinian organizations. I have never meant to suggest they are terrorist- more like idealists, used. like human shield in Iraq. Indeed the victim was a human shield in Iraq himself prior to coming to occupied territories. I do think they aid terrorists- not consistently, or even in a party line, but I think it is a consequence of some of their actions. Similarly, Iraqi human shields never meant to really support Saddam, but it was a foreseeable consequence of their actions, and it appears ISM does a little more.


And what you neglect to point out from that article is ISM's response when they found out:

Yes, the London office



In fact, if you read the article, you see that their contact with the ISM is rather brief and it was the ISM itself which made the contact with the bombers public.

Yes, the activist who tipped off the police did not want to be named. I never implied that they participated in the bombing, but at the very least, they are used, as a cover for suicide bombers. The contact may have been brief, but this is I think shows how the organizations is regarded in the territories, as does the other incident of hiding an Islamic Jihad member.




Well, first of all, you got the wrong site. New Jersey Solidarity is a different organization than the ISM (whose site is
http://www.palsolidarity.org. The ISM's focus is purely on the occupation of the WB and Gaza. (Incidentally, lately many ISM leaders have been distancing themselves from NJS for being too pro-violence.)

My apologies, I withdraw that part of my post. I linked to it from another site, that indicated it was ISM, and I assumed this was merely a branch of ISM. If this is indeed a separate organization, then I am entirely incorrect. Thanks for correcting my mistake.

[TillEulenspiegel]

Originally posted by aerocontrols


I'm somewhat less inclined to remove my previous post, as Skeptic has. I'm troubled that sources you consider to be trustworthy passed it on to you, and that you seem to have believed it. The first time I saw that quote, (which wasn't when you posted it) I immediately suspected that it was a fabrication. How could it not be?

Quite frankly, it doesn't pass the smell test. I merely imagine the outrage that would be present if Sharon had actually said this, and I come to the conclusion that the claim is false. No discussion of Israel's relationship with the US would be able to be found anywhere without a reference to this quote, were it real.

What troubles me most is that I can't see how one can believe that this quote is real, unless one also believes it to be true.

So TillEulenspiegel: You accept that the quote is falsified. What do you think about the false quote's veracity? Do Arial Sharon and the Jews control America to such an extent that he could get away with saying so, without it being widely reported here in the States? Do the Jews control the World to such an extent that the BBC, Le Monde, et. al. could also be intimidated into silence about this outburst for 2 years?

MattJ

The question of my posting the quote is motivated by my anger that a head of state of an ally would say such. It has to do with my estimation of Sharon as the vicious thug he is and nothing to do with world Jewery. It completely conforms with Sharon's exhibited characterr and his nature . Thats why I was suckered the false "story" is so real and planted on the net so cleverly as to appeared real.

I have admitted fault, said the quote was erroneous
I will not address this question again and the fact that I made a mistake on a end of post quote, which had no bearing on the posts focus or factual information carries with itself no inherent caveats as far as my opinions or thier supporting data.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by TillEulenspiegel


The question of my posting the quote is motivated by my anger that a head of state of an ally would say such. It has to do with my estimation of Sharon as the vicious thug he is and nothing to do with world Jewery. It completely conforms with Sharon's exhibited characterr and his nature . Thats why I was suckered the false "story" is so real and planted on the net so cleverly as to appeared real.

I have admitted fault, said the quote was erroneous
I will not address this question again and the fact that I made a mistake on a end of post quote, which had no bearing on the posts focus or factual information carries with itself no inherent caveats as far as my opinions or thier supporting data.

You see TillEulenspiegel the opinion you have about Sharon's character ( you said character and not policy) is formed by lies like this one, I mean you cannot possibly know his character, all you know ( and not very well you must admit) about him is his policy.

I hope that this example will make you re-examine your opinion about Sharon's character or even better you will stop assuming things for a country based on other assumptions about its PM's character.

Also, there is another issue. You will never find similar lies/hoaxes for Yasser Arafat, don't you find this strange?

[TillEulenspiegel]

quote:

Originally posted by TillEulenspiegel


The question of my posting the quote is motivated by my anger that a head of state of an ally would say such. It has to do with my estimation of Sharon as the vicious thug he is and nothing to do with world Jewery. It completely conforms with Sharon's exhibited character and his nature . That's why I was suckered the false "story" is so real and planted on the net so cleverly as to appeared real.

I have admitted fault, said the quote was erroneous
I will not address this question again and the fact that I made a mistake on a end of post quote, which had no bearing on the posts focus or factual information carries with itself no inherent caveats as far as my opinions or thier supporting data.



You see TillEulenspiegel the opinion you have about Sharon's character ( you said character and not policy) is formed by lies like this one, I mean you cannot possibly know his character, all you know ( and not very well you must admit) about him is his policy.

I hope that this example will make you re-examine your opinion about Sharon's character or even better you will stop assuming things for a country based on other assumptions about its PM's character.

Also, there is another issue. You will never find similar lies/hoaxes for Yasser Arafat, don't you find this strange?

You see your bias? You automatically assume that the estimation I hold of Mr. Sharon is formulated by absorbing lies ver-baitum , which were probably supplied by your local racist Arab group.The fact is that until a few years ago I was a rabid supporter of Israel until the point when that state started emulating the behavior of the very people they historically revile. This acceptance on my part to believe the false quote is a testament to my belief that Sharon is a thug...he was...he is... and he will remain so.The fact that I have formulated an opinion based on this evil man's history did exist long before I was sideswiped by the crafted hoax and the only thing that has changed is that I recognize that I must vet all sources to thier authorship. Sharone's character is most relevent to his policies and in fact they are inseperable, kind of like the idiot we have in the white house.

As far as Arafat, is see Israels declaration almost every day accusing the impotent old feind of being the most importent demi-god of terrorism who ever walked the planet ....Uh of course he really can't walk any where as he is holed up in a shattered brick hovel and Sharon in one breath dis-misses him as non-relevent while in the next condemns him as the most dangerous man on the planet. Ya I've heard lies

edited to add:

I'm sorry I didn't address your middle paragraph

Cleo : "I hope that this example will make you re-examine your opinion about Sharon's character or even better you will stop assuming things for a country based on other assumptions about its PM's character."

This is actually the monster that tore away from supporting Israel completely. Israel enjoies a parliamentary democracy which as such enjoys a codicil of a "Vote of no Confidence", which means not only do the citizens have a right to elect a PM , but at thier leasure they can remove him fairly easily, without the kind of strictures we Americans face. That means to me that the majority of citizens of that country supports the policies of failure from Netanyahu to Barak and finally to the current PM. The policies became increasingly anti-thetical to the notion of the camp David and Oslo accords and peace in general. So what AM I supposed to think? That Sharon or the people of Israel are accomidationists?

[aerocontrols]

Cleopatra:

Your appearance here reminds me that you once quoted Sharon as saying:

Arab countries might have the Oil but we have the matches.

Which, while not as extreme as the 'control america' quote, is fairly inflammatory.

Did you ever find out where/when/if that statement was made?

MattJ

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Cleopatra


You see TillEulenspiegel the opinion you have about Sharon's character ( you said character and not policy) is formed by lies like this one, I mean you cannot possibly know his character, all you know ( and not very well you must admit) about him is his policy.

I hope that this example will make you re-examine your opinion about Sharon's character or even better you will stop assuming things for a country based on other assumptions about its PM's character.

Also, there is another issue. You will never find similar lies/hoaxes for Yasser Arafat, don't you find this strange?

I think that Sharons actions sum him up quite clearly.

[Chaos]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


I think that Sharons actions sum him up quite clearly.

I agree. The "we control America" quote would have fit nicely with Sharon´s actions so far - and those are easily verifyable, e.g. the "security" fence, the order to assassinate (what is the term the Israeli government uses for that?), the plan to "remove" Arafat, etc.
Doing all these things that clearly will NOT bring peace, while Bush says he is working working towards peace, and while the majority of world opinion is against it, would imply that Sharon at least thinks he controls the USA - and it shows that pro-Israeli sentiment can at least neutralize any concern about the action of the Israeli government.

[Skeptic]

Unfortunately, I find Camera as unreliable and biased as the sites that carry this anecdote

Of course you find Camera "unreliable" and "biased". It gives the lie to your "the palestinians are poor innocent victims" schtick.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by aerocontrols
Cleopatra:

Your appearance here reminds me that you once quoted Sharon as saying:



Which, while not as extreme as the 'control america' quote, is fairly inflammatory.

Did you ever find out where/when/if that statement was made?

MattJ


aerocontrols

I saw your question when you posted it but I forgot to answer it, I apologize.

No, I haven't looked but I am not ready to take it back either because I saw the quote in an international site against the nuclear weapons and not in a marginal arabic site.

I will have to look for it and I will come back either to bring proof or to withdraw my comment.

Let's hope that you won't have to remind it to me again.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by TillEulenspiegel


You see your bias? You automatically assume that the estimation I hold of Mr. Sharon is formulated by absorbing lies ver-baitum , which were probably supplied by your local racist Arab group.

I am sorry if I made you feel like that but I have this idea that you don't get your information from reliable sources. I mean you weren't aware of the reports of Amnesty International.

AI is severe towards Israel but in their reports you will never see comments and assumptions based on Ariel Sharon's character .


The fact is that until a few years ago I was a rabid supporter of Israel until the point when that state started emulating the behavior of the very people they historically revile.

Sorry, I cannot resist but this reminds me of the comments of the new-born Christians....

"I was believing in Satan but I saw the light of truth"

Leave this line to Unique if you wish, he appears really charming everytime he posts it . I love it when he says that :)


As far as Arafat, is see Israels declaration almost every day accusing the impotent old feind of being the most importent demi-god of terrorism who ever walked the planet ....Uh of course he really can't walk any where as he is holed up in a shattered brick hovel and Sharon in one breath dis-misses him as non-relevent while in the next condemns him as the most dangerous man on the planet. Ya I've heard lies

Are you serious now? Are you suggesting that Yasser Arafat is not a terrorist? But you don't answer my question. Have you spotted Israeli hoaxes against Yasser Arafat of this kind?

This is actually the monster that tore away from supporting Israel completely. Israel enjoies a parliamentary democracy which as such enjoys a codicil of a "Vote of no Confidence", which means not only do the citizens have a right to elect a PM , but at thier leasure they can remove him fairly easily, without the kind of strictures we Americans face. That means to me that the majority of citizens of that country supports the policies of failure from Netanyahu to Barak and finally to the current PM. The policies became increasingly anti-thetical to the notion of the camp David and Oslo accords and peace in general. So what AM I supposed to think? That Sharon or the people of Israel are accomidationists?


I see. Well since you follow things from such a close distance I hope that know who made Ehud Barak and pacifists look like idiots.

Who made Sharon look as the only reliable solution?

Also, what do you want us to do? I vote against Sharon this is all I can do... oh no wait!!!

I can wear a jacket with explosives and go murder half of the members of the Knesset, how could I have forgot about that?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Cleopatra


I am sorry if I made you feel like that but I have this idea that you don't get your information from reliable sources. I mean you weren't aware of the reports of Amnesty International.

AI is severe towards Israel but in their reports you will never see comments and assumptions based on Ariel Sharon's character .



That is because they only ever try to make empirical, factual observations. My opinion of Sharon is an opinion, and subjective. An attack on a person, or a house being knocked down, as an objective fact.




Sorry, I cannot resist but this reminds me of the comments of the new-born Christians....

"I was believing in Satan but I saw the light of truth"

Leave this line to Unique if you wish, he appears really charming everytime he posts it . I love it when he says that :)



Hmmm, an ad hom, but no substance.



Are you serious now? Are you suggesting that Yasser Arafat is not a terrorist? But you don't answer my question. Have you spotted Israeli hoaxes against Yasser Arafat of this kind?



I see. Well since you follow things from such a close distance I hope that know who made Ehud Barak and pacifists look like idiots.



The people who made Barak and the pacifists look like idiots were the settlers and those who support them. There goal is driven by religious fanaticism, and has no recognition of the peace process.

That and Arafat's incompetence as an administrator, but not his abilities as a terrorist, IMHO.

Who made Sharon look as the only reliable solution?

Also, what do you want us to do? I vote against Sharon this is all I can do... oh no wait!!!

I can wear a jacket with explosives and go murder half of the members of the Knesset, how could I have forgot about that? [/B][/QUOTE]

Hmm, strawman.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by a_unique_person

That is because they only ever try to make empirical, factual observations. My opinion of Sharon is an opinion, and subjective. An attack on a person, or a house being knocked down, as an objective fact.

And what sort of fact is the assassination of civilians?

Hmmm, an ad hom, but no substance.

Come-on, relax! I was teasing you.

The people who made Barak and the pacifists look like idiots were the settlers and those who support them. There goal is driven by religious fanaticism, and has no recognition of the peace process.

That and Arafat's incompetence as an administrator, but not his abilities as a terrorist, IMHO.

No you are wrong. Those who made pacificts looks like idiots were the terrorists of Hamas.


Hmm, strawman.

Strawman? Why? I have seen many people here including you justifying terrorism.

P.S. You and demon should learn how to use the quote function.

[TillEulenspiegel]

Originally posted by Cleopatra


I am sorry if I made you feel like that but I have this idea that you don't get your information from reliable sources. I mean you weren't aware of the reports of Amnesty International.

AI is severe towards Israel but in their reports you will never see comments and assumptions based on Ariel Sharon's character .




Sorry, I cannot resist but this reminds me of the comments of the new-born Christians....

"I was believing in Satan but I saw the light of truth"

Leave this line to Unique if you wish, he appears really charming everytime he posts it . I love it when he says that :)



Are you serious now? Are you suggesting that Yasser Arafat is not a terrorist? But you don't answer my question. Have you spotted Israeli hoaxes against Yasser Arafat of this kind?



I see. Well since you follow things from such a close distance I hope that know who made Ehud Barak and pacifists look like idiots.

Who made Sharon look as the only reliable solution?

Also, what do you want us to do? I vote against Sharon this is all I can do... oh no wait!!!

I can wear a jacket with explosives and go murder half of the members of the Knesset, how could I have forgot about that?

No You SAID I was unaware of thr AI reports , as a member of AI I get automatic e-mails on updates and such and in fact I quoted the report ( maybe paraphrased) By saying that AI included condemnation against all sides.

That is a policy AI maintains for reasons of credability, state the facts, make a case, don't Ad-Hom. In fact they implore people to be extremely respectful when writing to say a Castro or Pinochet for a redress of a case or general grievances.

Well I don't know about Satan, I'm agnostic. My views have taken years to form and my stance in re Israel didn't flip flop in a day. I went from a kid cheering the underdog, the little nation that could, to watching impotently as the Frankinstien America help create blows up 3 apartment buildings at once and worse.Theres enough discussion here about innocents that I don't need to add more.

Arafat WAS a terrorist, so was Shamir,Began,Perez,Diane,Sharon they all changed from that to statesmen ( with one glaring exception ). Arafat probably is informed generally about hamas and jehad et.al. But do I think that he is planning those ops or has a hand in them?..no I don't think so. Again everytime the Israeli government excoriates Arafat and his PA it is a blanket condemnation it is a shadow puppet dance. Lone sniper attacks settlement ? Arafat did it. Sharons toilet blew up? Arafat!
My beliefs is the reality lies between the extremes of Hitler and Mother Teresa.

My understanding is that Baraks defeat was a combination of events. The fact that the right and religious wings in the knesset were exerting more and more pressure on Barak to pair away at the camp David 2 treaty, the Palestinians began to make more trouble and the minority government was losing popular support.Seems tho that the trip wire that set the stage for the next few years was our good old friend Sharon. He intentionally antagonized the entire Arab world by intruding ( with hundreds of armed soldiers and policemen ) into Haram al-Sharif , Islams 3rd holiest site sparking off riots that finally pushed the Israeli people to vote him in believing that any action to bring order was worth the price. As we see evidently Mr.Sharons policy doesn't work.

Your last comment is worthy of only lesser minds then Yours.

[demon]

Israel to deploy robot bulldozers.

The Israeli army is to deploy remote-controlled bulldozers to demolish Palestinian buildings.
Officials say the towering D-9 bulldozer has been modified to eliminate the risk to drivers.
The original US-made vehicle has been used to demolish hundreds of buildings linked to Palestinian militants in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.
Palestinians say the new version will mean more buildings will be destroyed - and more lives will be lost.
'Will save lives'

Standing as high as a small house, the armour-plated bulldozer has been used to knock down buildings, flatten olive groves and clear paths for advancing soldiers.
Protected by army back-up, the D-9 is controlled by a driver in a cab who has to operate on the frontlines in some of the most hostile areas.
The Israeli army said the modified versions will save lives.
"Today the bulldozer drivers are exposed to great danger when they knock down buildings that have militants hiding in them," Israel's Technion Institute of Technology, which developed the robot version, quoted an unnamed army officer as saying.
The D-9 gained notoriety when it demolished dozens of buildings in the Palestinian city of Jenin during one of the fiercest battles of the conflict, in April 2002.
An American pro-Palestinian activist, Rachel Corrie, was crushed to death by a bulldozer while trying to stop a house demolition in Gaza in March.

Palestinians have denounced the development, saying it will lead to greater loss of life.
"The whole idea is despicable," said chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat.
"If an unmanned bulldozer is used, human life is in much greater danger."
The human rights group Amnesty International has said house demolitions violate international law.
Israel says demolitions are necessary to prevent militants using buildings for cover and to deter attacks by Palestinian suicide bombers.
The new bulldozers are expected to go into service in the next few weeks.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3231665.stm
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

These Zionazis need some shrinks big time.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by demon
Israel to deploy robot bulldozers.

Gotta love that Israeli tech!

Did you know that Israel produces the greatest number of new patents per capita of all the nations in the world?:clap:

[demon]

"Gotta love that Israeli tech!"

Israel`s gift to "civilization", the robotic bulldozer?
Wonderful.

[Scott]

Regarding:

Arab countries might have the Oil but we have the matchesJohn Steinbach of the Center for Research on Globalization credits Mark Gaffeny's Dimona, the Third Temple: The Story Behind the Vanunu Revelation, 1989 with the exact quote.

I can find no specific cited instance to verify or completely debunk, just that Sharon was overheard saying this before he became PM, the vast majority on anti-Israel and anti-US sites. There are variations, including the one quoted by John Pilger in 2002 "They (the Arabs) have the numbers. We have the matches."

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by demon
"Gotta love that Israeli tech!"

Israel`s gift to "civilization", the robotic bulldozer?
Wonderful.

Not just robotic bulldozers, but many contributions to science. For example, did you know that Israeli scientists have developed the first passive vaccine against the West Nile virus? That disease has killed almost 300 people in the United States alone!