Israeli Forces Enter Arafat's HQ

Boston

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A34325-2002Mar29.html

Are they insane,

Gargoyle

This was bound to happen. 20 months ago, there was an offer on the table by which Arafat and the Palestinians were offered a continuous demilatarized state with east Jerusalem as its capital and right or return to controlled areas with over 90% of the occupied land. Arafat refused to even negotiate, choosing instead to turn directly to terror.

Hamas and Hizballah have basically declared that they would never support any peace agreement with Israel, stating they would only be satisfied with the complete elimination of Israel. As long as this is the case, and as long as Arafat chooses not to stop them or hasn't enough power to stop them, it is only logical to conclude that dealing with Arafat is futile and will never provide Israel with the security it desires.

After this last attack during Passover that killed 20+, Israel has finally come to realize the hopelessness of dealing with Arafat. It looks like Israel's decision is that they are prepared to take their chances with whoever or whatever fills the vacuum of Arafat.

So, no, they are not insane, they have simply made the most logical decision in their position.

Boston

what they atempted was totaly illegal, you can not murder the head of state, even if your at war with them.

i hear all this talk about protecting isreali people, yet i see very little protecting.

we must strike back or else they will attack us, get a grip they are atacking you because your striking back. the 20 dead isrealis are dead for no other reason then the isreali goverments refusal to allow arafat to go to a summit. was it really worth it.

and 20 more will die in revenge attacks after the latest isreali incursions

you talk about the peace deal, it would have made arafat a puppet leader, and given the palestinian people no control over their country

Typedef

Gargoyle.

You are completely wrong. The offer that was put before the Palestinians effectively annexed 20% of Palestine to Israel. Moreover if made 'Jew only' roads that traversed the proposed Palestinian state that would criss cross the state of Palestine. Plus it gave disproportionate water access rights to Jewish as opposed to Palestinians and the settlement ultimately was unacceptable and unpalleteable, but it was presented in an ultimatum way to the Palestinians.
It would seem you are attempting to imply that the Palestinians prefare the current state of affairs because for some reason they are intrinsically 'terrorist' which is simply not the case. The peace ultimatum was ultimately too little too late as was designed to entrench and annex yet more of Palestine to Israel to colonise.

Who honestly expected the Palestinians to annex 20% of Palestine to the Israeli's to colonise? Perhaps the people who decry Palestinians as terrorists.
You are attempting to imply that because the Palestinians did not accept the ultimatumm of Israel that would have annexed 20% of Palestine to Israel, that the Israeli's are justified in for exampe sending tanks into Yassir Arafat's Head Quaters without their usual morose 'provocation'. By such criteria you could argue that the IRA shoud bomb London because 150 years ago there was a famine in Ireland, move on and deal with the now, the incursion was unprovoked, the Israeli's are clearly at fault and should withdraw immediately from all terroritories to it's pre-1967 border as a bare criteria for the most pithe amounts of acceptability, to promote any other course of Israeli action is to ultimately support the 'still' illegal occupation of Palestine.

Typedef.

Gargoyle

Typedef, I'm not going to get into the intracacies of the Camp David agreement because its really beside the point. I don't care how terrible the offer was in your view, its not excuse for not taking the best opportunity in the history of the conflict to at least negotiate.

Originally posted by Typedef
Gargoyle.

It would seem you are attempting to imply that the Palestinians prefare the current state of affairs because for some reason they are intrinsically 'terrorist' which is simply not the case.

Typedef.

No, I am implying that as long as there are a substantial group of terrorists groups Arafat is either unwilling or unable to control, and those terrorists will not be satisfied unless Israel is eliminated, it is logical to conclude that dealing with Arafat is useless. I never said it was fair.

Boston

you condem arafat for not talkign to isreal in one sentance and dont praise isreal for not talking to arafat in another.

simple fact is, that no moderate will take over at arafat, in fact probably more hard line. it is not propaganda that is sending thousands of palestinians to there death, its isrealis

Typedef

Gargoyle: I never said it was fair.

So if it's not fair why defend it?

Gargoyle

Originally posted by Boston
you condem arafat for not talkign to isreal in one sentance and dont praise isreal for not talking to arafat in another.

I have not idea what your saying here, but I'm not condeming anyone. You asked, "Are the Israelis insane?" The answer is no.

If Arafat is unable to control the terrorists, is unfortunate. If Arafat is unwilling to control the terrorists, he's to blame. Either way, from the Israeli perspective, negotiating with him will not allow them to acheive any peace or security.

Originally posted by Boston

simple fact is, that no moderate will take over at arafat, in fact probably more hard line. it is not propaganda that is sending thousands of palestinians to there death, its isrealis

If the stated goal of Hamas and Hizballah is the elimination of Israel and you blame the Israelis for the bombings, you are essentially blaming the Israelis for existing, are you not?

Gargoyle

Originally posted by Typedef

So if it's not fair why defend it?

Ahh, I never said it was unfair either Its all a matter of perspective. If Arafat is unable to control the terrorists, then it is unfair. If he is encouraging it or even unwilling to try and prevent it, then is is fair. There is no way to really know. Either way though, from the Israeli perspective, he negotiations with him are not going to bear any fruit.

To answer your question though, the reason is because the initial question was "Are the Israeli's insane." The answer is, no; they are acting perfectly logically from their perspective.

Boston

what i said was, you condemed arafat for not talking to isreal 20motnhs ago. but now that isreal says theres no point in talking to arafat, you jump for joy.

you keep going back to hamas, most palestinians dont follow hamas, most(2 thirds) back arafat, so by ignoring arafat you ignor most of the palestinian people.

you are essentially blaming the Israelis for existing, are you not?

im sure i follow the poitn your tryign to make

Boston

Originally posted by Gargoyle


If he is encouraging it or even unwilling to try and prevent it, then is is fair.

they dont need arafat to encourage them, isreali invading palestinian cities is enough encouragement for most people.

The Cigarette Smoking Man

BREAKING NEWS from CNN.com Europe:

- Israelis and Palestinians involved in fierce room-to-room battle to control Yasser Arafat's HQ, Palestinians say.

http://europe.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/03/29/mideast/index.html

Gargoyle

Originally posted by Boston


they dont need arafat to encourage them, isreali invading palestinian cities is enough encouragement for most people.

Hamas and Hizballah's statements indicate that it matters not whether Israel is invading Palestinian cities or not. Their stated goal is the destruction of Israel.

Knowing this, from the Israeli perspective, it is better for to push out and create a buffer zone rather than pull back and allow attacks to be accompished more easily. Hamas and Hizbollah have with their statements created a situation where there is no reason for the Israelis to believe that pulling back will bring an end to violence.

Boston

if there was actual peace between isreal and palestine, one the majoriy of both sides could live with, without either having na advantage over the other, then hamas would be history.

hamas is only strongest when isreal is at its msot aggressive, they have seen a huge surge in support in recent months

Gargoyle

Originally posted by Boston
if there was actual peace between isreal and palestine, one the majoriy of both sides could live with, without either having na advantage over the other, then hamas would be history.

hamas is only strongest when isreal is at its msot aggressive, they have seen a huge surge in support in recent months

Based on their own statements, there is no reason to believe this, Boston. And, it only takes one terrorist to take out 20 or 30 people. I'm simply trying to illustrate that from the Israeli perspective, this move makes perfect sense.

Additionally, I have serious doubts as to whether there can ever actually be your precondition, real peace between Israel and Palestine. There's too much history, too much hatred, too much zealotry on both sides. They've come to a point where from each's perspective, the most logical move is to kill each other. That's where the equilibrium stands.

Anyway, it will be interesting to see what comes of this. It is definitely a change in the status quo and it will either make things better or worse. Lets all hope for better. I'm off. Happy Easter weekend.

Boston

you dont understand how these things work, without a support base of ordinary people, safe houses and the like, no resistance organization can operate. just look at th ira

Boston

This is insane, thousands have marched in gaza, "rivers of bllod will flow" in isreal, should arafat be harmed, if they kill him, theres no going back

DadaKopf

Actually, could anyone tell me this:

Is it against international law for any state to attack, invade or occupy another's consulate, even following a militarily aggressive act by that state?

It's just I remember all that humming and hawing with Milosevic's arrest.

Boston

yes it is, totaly.

i mean how do they expect to get away with it.

Clintons Cat

They've come to a point where from each's perspective, the most logical move is to kill each other. That's where the equilibrium stands

e·qui·lib·ri·um Pronunciation Key (kw-lbr-m, kw-)
n. pl. e·qui·lib·ri·ums or e·qui·lib·ri·a (-r-)
A condition in which all acting influences are canceled by others, resulting in a stable, balanced, or unchanging system.

It is not an equilibrium.One side is armed with attack helicoptors,jets,tanks, and supplied with arms (courtesy of the us) to the tune of three billion dollers per annum,and the other is at the risk of over romanticising the palestinians armed with klashnikovs,explosives and stone throwers.
Every year that passes the israraeli army increases in size,power and technical sophistication,so much so that the whole economy would probally collapse if america withdrew its support.
The isrealis are not faced with the traditional problems of fighting a guerilla war,ie ecconomic attrition quite simply whilst america replenishes their arms the israelis have no need to negotiate with the palestinians or the arab world at large.
Sharon believes quite rightly he can win a war against the palestinians and unfortunately most israeli public opinion backs him.

pugwall

I think they will get away with it (unfortunately!), and they do too. America will continue to back them publicly although they will put alot of pressure on them privately to make some move towards a peace deal. Israel will argue that they have as much as a right to go after Yasser (and maybe kill him) as the US do in going after Mulla Omar. I have to agree with Typedef on this one. I am totally opposed to Israels illigal position.

Boston

yea but which war, this and the next one and the next one and the next one, he will never really beat them

Clintons Cat

yea but which war, this and the next one and the next one and the next one, he will never really beat them

i beleive the assasinated israeli tourism minister had a description of the palestinians "lice" "in need of eradicating"
now where have i heard that phrase before?
some time around the Final solution maybe?
Also look up the link to the various quotes of sharon in the previous israeli thread.

The Cigarette Smoking Man

I was listening to Arafat talking to Christiane Amanpour on CNN earlier and he sounded like a nervous man, then towards the end of the Interview he got very agitated and hung up. There's a transcript here:

http://europe.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/03/29/arafat.cnna/index.html

ARAFAT: You have to be accurate when you are speaking with General Yasser Arafat. Be quiet! You are covering, with such questions, the terrorist activities of the Israeli occupation and the Israeli crimes. Be fair. Why do you make these certain mistakes?

Thank you. Bye, bye.

Terran

That's exactly what he said. I'm curious as to what is going to be Israels next move.

Victor

Gargoyle why do you keep refering to Hizbollah, an organisation primarily operational in Lebanon? And who are de facto at peace with Israel (Sheeba Farms aside).

Originally posted by DadaKopf
Is it against international law for any state to attack, invade or occupy another's consulate

I'm not sure what status the compound holds. I'm quite sure the Allies occupied the German and Japanese seats of government after the war. However if it has the status of a consulate, it is protected by the Vienna Convention. It is up to all parties involved to protect and vindicate the protection of consulates.

Originally posted by DadaKopf
even following a militarily aggressive act by that state?.

Is Palestine a state? Or is it a 'pre-state'? Does the Camp David agreement and other agreements de facto make it a state? And have the armed forces of Palestine engaged in "militarily aggressive act" (invasion, attack)

Originally posted by DadaKopf
It's just I remember all that humming and hawing with Milosevic's arrest.

It was generally considered better for the Yugoslav government to arrest Milosevic. It proved their willingness to move on from previous mistakes and gave the arrest greater ligitimacy in the eyes of the Yugoslav and international public.

Clintons Cat

Yesha Residents: "We Should Conquer, The Arabs Can Leave"
Kedumim Mayor Daniella Weiss dismissed today's military offensive as "insignificant," because it is "designed to prepare the way for dialogue with the Palestinian murderers immediately after the end of the battles." The enemy must be destroyed, she said, "and we must not ever proposed additional concessions; the very mention of these is what has brought upon us these terrible tragedies." Minister Danny Naveh partially confirmed Weiss' fears by saying that after the army takes control of the terrorist centers, it must withdraw and re-deploy on a new border "according to Israel's security needs."

On the political left, Minister Raanan Cohen (Labor) said that suicide terrorists' families must be killed. Other voices on the left haven't changed, though. The government decision for the military offensive was accepted unanimously - except for Shimon Peres, who abstained. Former Minister Yuli Tamir said today that the "settlers" must not drag Israel back into the "kasba (market) of Shechem."

Rabbi Menachem Felix, a next-door neighbor of the Gavish family in Elon Moreh and who lost his daughter Ofrah in a terrorist shooting several years ago, said, "If you're asking whether I want to return to Shechem, I say yes, I want to return and conquer it. Our situation when we were in control of these areas was immeasurably better than it is now. There will be no peace until we know that we are returning to our Land of Israel to stay... After we return to these area, the Arabs can leave and go wherever; we will stay."

Hundreds of people demonstrated outside the Prime Minister's office in Jerusalem last night, chanting, "Peres to jail! Death to terrorists!" and the like. Hevron spokesman Noam Arnon, speaking with a megaphone, yelled to the government ministers convened not far away, "We demand that you take action to restore security! This government is committing suicide and bringing the nation to do the same!" The protesters attempted to enter the government complex, and some were knocked down by police.

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/news.php3?id=20909


ciggie >Very intresting article thanks


News Round Up
Palestinian
Palestine Times http://www.ptimes.com/


Israeli
arutz sheva http://www.israelnationalnews.com/
jeruselem post http://www.jpost.com/
globes (financial) http://www.globes.co.il/serveen/
ha'aretz http://www.haaretzdaily.com/



If anyone has some good links to the history of the Settlers Associations within the occupied territories i would appriciate them.

Boston

Yesha Residents: "We Should Conquer, The Arabs Can Leave"
Kedumim Mayor Daniella Weiss dismissed today's military offensive as "insignificant," because it is "designed to prepare the way for dialogue with the Palestinian murderers immediately after the end of the battles." The enemy must be destroyed, she said, "and we must not ever proposed additional concessions; the very mention of these is what has brought upon us these terrible tragedies." Minister Danny Naveh partially confirmed Weiss' fears by saying that after the army takes control of the terrorist centers, it must withdraw and re-deploy on a new border "according to Israel's security needs."

On the political left, Minister Raanan Cohen (Labor) said that suicide terrorists' families must be killed. Other voices on the left haven't changed, though. The government decision for the military offensive was accepted unanimously - except for Shimon Peres, who abstained. Former Minister Yuli Tamir said today that the "settlers" must not drag Israel back into the "kasba (market) of Shechem."

Rabbi Menachem Felix, a next-door neighbor of the Gavish family in Elon Moreh and who lost his daughter Ofrah in a terrorist shooting several years ago, said, "If you're asking whether I want to return to Shechem, I say yes, I want to return and conquer it. Our situation when we were in control of these areas was immeasurably better than it is now. There will be no peace until we know that we are returning to our Land of Israel to stay... After we return to these area, the Arabs can leave and go wherever; we will stay."

Hundreds of people demonstrated outside the Prime Minister's office in Jerusalem last night, chanting, "Peres to jail! Death to terrorists!" and the like. Hevron spokesman Noam Arnon, speaking with a megaphone, yelled to the government ministers convened not far away, "We demand that you take action to restore security! This government is committing suicide and bringing the nation to do the same!" The protesters attempted to enter the government complex, and some were knocked down by police.

if i came out with this sort of thing, id probably be condemned a racist nazi scum bag, and mostlikely arrested if i said it in public.

these are the people so many try to defend, were is sands, i want to hear his opinion on the mass murder of a sucicide bombers family

Typedef

and we must not ever proposed additional concessions; the very mention of these is what has brought upon us these terrible tragedies.

If you're gonna delude yourself why not go the whole hog eh, in for a penny in for a pound after all.

Whatever you do don't mention peace and compromise, that is a surefire way to war. Ok well thanks for the productive input.

Sand

these are the people so many try to defend, were is sands, i want to hear his opinion on the mass murder of a sucicide bombers family

Well to be honest Im sick to christ of the same old ****e that the pro - palestine lobby come out with while tripping over their words when it comes to terrorism (Yeah, shock-horror, that includes the "mass murder" of Israeli families by Palestinian sucide bombers) . Yeah its true, I couldnt give a feck what you think tbh - be offended if you want, like I said I couldnt give a feck.

Lets just clarify one more time. Quote this (when you reply, as you will) so I know you read it, try and repeat it in your own words so I know you finally comprehended it. Im not pro- Israeli. Im anti-terrorist. Read that a few times. I dont defend the Israelis, I defend their right to kill terrorists. Read that a few times. Ive already defined my understanding (and most peoples understanding) of terrorism. If youve forgotten, search for a Israel thread. Assuming this has sunk through finally, move on to the next paragraph. Otherwise re-read this paragraph until it does sink through.

Assuming you understand this (finally) lets examine the first question that hit me the second I read the original post where that (the killing of terrrorists familys) was quoted, before I even read your post.

On the political left, Minister Raanan Cohen (Labor) said that suicide terrorists' families must be killed.

Thats the quote your referring to? Actually its not a quote as such. Its a quote of the reporters interpretation of what Cohen said. Dig up the original quote and Ill comment on it.

Actually, here, Ill help you. Read the Israeli articles in Newsweek, theres a quote where an Israeli says they should drop a nuke on the Gaza strip. Do you disagree with this? Ill hazard a guess and say yes. Do I disagree with this? Yeah, for the same reasoning I disagree with terrorism.

P.S. - Boston if you want to know my opinion on something relating to the Israeli-Palestinain conflict you can find it out very simply. Ask yourself is it terrorism or a milatary action (As *I* define it - I know your definitions are extremely loose much like those of the Palestinians)? If its terrorism I oppose it. If its a milatary action my response is generally to shrug - **** happens. This will save us both time.

king of fifa

occupied territories? sounds like liebemstraum to me

Clintons Cat

Dig up the original quote and Ill comment on it.

Its probally in hebrew.
Searches on ha'aretz,google,newstrove,israelinaationalnews,jureuselem post
have come up with nothing.

Bush Backs Israel On Storming of Arafats Compound
http://www.jpost.com/Editions/2002/03/31/News/News.46065.html

Israel calls up 20,000 reservists http://www.haaretz.co.il/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=146848&contrassID=2&subContrassID=1&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y

Clintons Cat

intresting article on settlers associations here
http://www.haaretz.co.il/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=146873&contrassID=2&subContrassID=4&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y

Boston

a terrorist is someones whos goal is purely to cause terror amoung a civilian population. thats is basically waht a terrorist is, no two ways about it, osamin falls in to that group as does arafat. but so does the isreali forces. to attack a town in circle it, and go house to house arresting, even summerly executing some police officers is terrorism, its strikes fear and dread into the heart of even palestinian in that town, even more so then a suicide bomber on a isreali town, cause once it happens thats it for a while.

I dont defend the Israelis, I defend their right to kill terrorists

and i defend the palestinian right to kill the terrorist that blockade their cities and bomb there leaders.

unlike the isrealis, the palestinians dont have an army that repersents the people. it is my view that if a peoples army, one answerable to an elected goverment behaves like terrorist(which believe me they are) they the people themselves can be held answerable. Just as the german people were held answerable for the actions of the nazi's so should the isreali people be held responsible for the actions of their nazi's in power.

Btw milatary action is when one miliatary force attacks another milatary force or para military (hamas) i can except your few on that. but the occupation of a city for hte popesses of executing a government leader and rounding up thousands of innocent Palestinians is tyranny at its worse

Sand

to attack a town in circle it, and go house to house arresting,

<

---

Milatary Operation.

even summerly executing some police officers

<

---

Do you mean engage in gun battles with OR capture, line up against a wall and shoot them (Thats what summarily (summerly?) executes implies you know)? Can you provide a link to a reputable news organisation carrying this incredible story?

Boston we disagree. While I would be interested to see the link to the story of Police officers being executed, and while not wishing to incite Bonkey, I dont see what the need is (for me anyway) to repeat what has been said over the past few months, as nothing has changed.

Boston

I understand now sands, your definition of a Military Operation is solely one carried out by the military. The holocaust was a Military Operation, the burning or cork city in the war of independence by the black and tans wasn't a terrorist act but a Military Operation. the mass purging of Muslims by Serbs wasn't genocide it was a Military Operation.

i see, i take it you hold the few that any and all Military Operations are legal?

AS for the police officers, thats exactly what i mean. I dont have links as it was on sky news, though the station is clearly bias it still had to report what happened.

5 police officers bodies were found in a police station, hands tied behind their back, each recieved a single bullet wound to the back of the head, and this wasnt a palestinian spookes man but the actual reported looking at the bodies.

Typedef

Damn right nothing has change Sand, Israel still occupies Palestine and it is still 'illegal' and Israel is still flouting the UN and UN resolutions calling for Israel to withdraw from occupied terroritories.

People always make the argument, 'If the law of return were extended to Palestinians then the 750,000 refugees would come back to Israel and it would no longer be a Jewish state'. That argument is a nice fuzzy way of espousing ethnic cleansing, now sure dress it up as American funded 'counter terrorism' to the tune of three billion dollars or 10% of Israeli GDP per year, but what this conflict is really about is making a few fanatical Zionists' vision of a 'Old Testament' Israel, this is nothing more than the American exponenciation of Jewish religious fanaticism and I presume if the whim took them the USA could just as easily fund Islamic fanatics and dress it up as 'counter terrorism' when in reality that too would be religious ethnic cleansing.

I guess when Slobodan Milsoveic orders or allows ethnic cleansing that is a matter for NATO, but when Israel does it, why that is a matter for no one to decide on but the USA eh?
Oh I noticed for the first time the US didn't filibuster a UN resolution calling for Israeli withdrawal from Palestine and in fact even voted for it. So Sand while you may think that the quote Military Operation in Palestine is a great idea, the Americans actually seem to disagree.
You never know the US might even have UN trade restrictions imposed on Ariel Sharon and Israel in the same fashion as it has on Iraq for flouting the UN.

Typedef.

Sand

AS for the police officers, thats exactly what i mean. I dont have links as it was on sky news, though the station is clearly bias it still had to report what happened.

Two google searches:

Your search - "Palestinian police officers executed" - did not match any documents.

Your search - "Israelis execute police officers" - did not match any documents.

You mentioned sky so I made that my next stop in my misson to find out what you were going on about. See for yourself. http://www.sky.com/skynews/worldnews . I assume seeing as Sky News try to keep their webby up to date that it would have made the webby by now.

Ive had no luck trying to back up your claim. Can you try and back yourself up with something?

As for milatary operation, do a search for an Israeli thread on this board. My definition of a milatary operation will be there.

So Sand while you may think that the quote Military Operation in Palestine is a great idea, the Americans actually seem to disagree.

If its a milatary action my response is generally to shrug - **** happens.

Comprehension is an important part of communication. Search for an Israel thread. My opinion on Israel and settlements will be there.

Boston

so let me get this right, unless an atrocity is well documented it didnt happen? i saw the pictures and heard the report.

Sand

so let me get this right, unless an atrocity is well documented it didnt happen? i saw the pictures and heard the report.

Well thats just it. Ill need something like a reputable source (You dont come under this heading). So I dont see any reason to believe it happened. You can rectify that by getting a link.

Clintons Cat

From Human Rights Watch.

IDF attacking ambulances. http://hrw.org/press/2002/03/medics030902.htm

During the past week,(march 9 2002) at least three ambulances have been fired upon, three ambulance staff have died, and nine other medical personnel have been injured.

"Attacking humanitarian personnel and their vehicles is strictly prohibited under international humanitarian law,"

On March 4, the head of the Palestinian Red Crescent Service (PRCS) emergency medical service in Jenin, Dr. Khalil Sulieman, was killed and another five PRCS staff injured when Israeli troops shot at their ambulances in Jenin refugee camp. Initial explanations from the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) indicated that the ambulance was fired on when it was observed to be speeding towards a group of Israeli soldiers. Medical personnel in the area have said that, contrary to these claims, Dr. Sulieman was killed after an IDF soldier fired a projectile at his ambulance as it drove slowly down a narrow street. Oxygen containers in the ambulance then blew up as a result of either direct impact or heat, causing a secondary explosion.

Ibrahim Assad, a PRCS driver, and Kamal Salem, of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA) were killed by Israeli fire on March 7 while en route to provide emergency assistance to wounded in the West Bank town of Tulkarem. Medical personnel have informed Human Rights Watch that Ibrahim Assad had received permission to move forward from the Israeli authorities. He drove some 750 meters, and was shot in the hand from the machine gun of an Israeli tank. He exited the ambulance, and was then shot in the head.

The International Committee of the Red Cross and PRCS have publicly stated that all ambulances were clearly marked and were coordinating their movements closely with the Israeli authorities.

Human Rights Watch expressed further concern that ambulances had reportedly been prevented from gaining access to injured in Tulkarem refugee camp.

"Purposely hindering medical access also constitutes a serious violation of international humanitarian law," said Stork.

Boston

I want to explain why i support the palestinians

Generally, I am sceptical about conspiracy theories. However, the current furore in the Muslim world surrounding Western media coverage of recent events in the Middle East is, in my opinion, justified. Two particular incidents have been as revealing for me as they are horrifying.

Millions of us watched in horrified disbelief as Israeli soldiers shot a 12-year-old Palestinian boy, Mohammad Al-Durra, in cold blood. We watched the boy’s father vainly trying to shield his cowering son, desperately begging the assassins to hold fire. Equally shocking was the pointless murder of the Palestinian ambulance driver who arrived to help the man and his by then lifeless son. The next ambulance driver was shot at again, but this time he survived and managed to transport them to hospital. I watched this on Sky News, BBC, CNN and Fox News. All four channels reported that the boy was caught in crossfire. This was blatantly untrue and the captured images, always more powerful than words, showed clearly that the firing was one-sided and unprovoked. The Palestinians claim that father and son had innocently gone to Gaza in search of a car. Israel claims they were violent protesters. But let’s be clear on one thing: even if they were violent protesters, since when did the hurling of rocks warrant gunfire? I remember being equally appalled by television images five years ago when a Palestinian suicide bomber blew up a fast food restaurant in Israel packed with children. But the difference is that in that instance those reporting the blast were as outspokenly horrified by the images of mutilated children’s bodies as I was. And there was no attempt either by the media to blame the Israelis for provocation or any public justification of the attack by the Palestinians. Now, however, far from condemning this brutal public execution of a young boy, I was amazed to read in the Western press that actually condemned the Palestinians for “sending their children out to die” for the sake of “scoring media points.” Worse still, they labelled Mohammad Al Durra “a trouble maker” who had brought it all upon himself. Similarly, when the Palestinian Ministry of Education decided to temporarily close down schools to minimise the vulnerability of students to attack to and from school, it was immediately seized upon as proof that they were indeed encouraging their children to go out and riot. How does that explain the shooting of Sara Abdel-Athim-Hassam, an 18-month old baby girl, in the back seat of her father’s car? Neither does it explain how Mu’ayyad Al-Jawarish, another 12-year old boy, was shot in the garden of his own home.

read the rest if you canhere

up to this incident i had no real feelings one way or another. now i do and allways will.

i cant find any information on the net about the 5 murdred police officers, but i can find plenty about the 4 dead isrealis that died in the bombing

Clintons Cat

As a result of the 1967 war, Israel occupies the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, East Jerusalem, and the Golan Heights (the human rights situation in the occupied territories is discussed in the annex appended to this report). The international community does not recognize Israel's sovereignty over any part of the occupied territories.

From the Bastion of Palestinian Propaganda The US State Department http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2001/nea/8262.htm

In November 2000, a Legal Commission of Inquiry headed by Justice Theodore Or was established to investigate the demonstrations and riots of October 2000, during which police used excessive force and killed 13 Arab citizens. During the first round of testimony, police officers involved in the events admitted that they were underprepared for dealing with potentially violent demonstrations and that, despite initial denials, the police, including snipers, had used live ammunition against unarmed demonstrators

A landmark decision by the High Court of Justice in September 1999 prohibited the use of a variety of other abusive practices, including violent shaking, painful shackling in contorted positions, sleep deprivation for extended periods of time, and prolonged exposure to extreme temperatures; however, during the year, human rights organizations, including B'tselem, Human Rights Watch (HRW), and the Public Committee Against Torture in Israel (PCATI), and the Mandela Institute for Political Prisoners reported that there was an increase in the number of allegations that security forces tortured detainees, including using methods prohibited in the High Court decision.

Israeli law provides for freedom of worship, and the Government generally respects this right in practice in the occupied territories. Israel does not ban any group on religious grounds, and permits all faiths to operate schools and institutions. Religious publications in East Jerusalem are subject to the Publications Laws, including prohibition against the publications, for example, sermons, that incite violence against Israelis or against the state of Israel. However, Israel's imposed closure of the West Bank and Gaza, including the internal closure that severely restricted travel between towns and cities within the occupied territories, significantly impeded freedom of worship for Muslims and Christians. Israeli closure policies prevented tens of thousands of Palestinians from reaching their places of worship in Jerusalem and the West Bank, including during religious holidays such as Ramadan, Christmas, and Easter. In early April, Israeli authorities prevented thousands of Muslims from reaching the Nabi Musa shrine near Jericho, the site of an annual 3-week Muslim celebration. Israeli officials stated that they decided to cancel the religious festival because the PA intended to turn the event into a "political rally." On numerous occasions, the Israeli Government also prevented worshippers under the age of 45 from attending Friday prayers inside the Haram al-Sharif. In addition a number of Palestinian religious leaders were prevented from reaching their congregations. The Israeli Government states that such actions are necessary for security reasons.

Since the outbreak of the Intifada, Israeli police have prevented all non-Muslims (including Jews seeking to pray) from entering the Temple Mount/Haram al-Sharif. The Government has cited security concerns for this restriction.

On January 9, Israeli soldiers at a checkpoint in the West Bank fired at the car of Latin Vice-Patriarch and Archbishop of Nazareth Paul Marcuzzo; his car bore diplomatic license plates and was flying the Vatican flag. Archbishop Marcuzzo was not injured in the shooting. The following day, the Israeli Minister of Justice visited Marcuzzo and apologized for the incident

Bob the Unlucky Octopus

Let's put all of this in perspective just for a moment. Looking at the issue from a purely objective standpoint, Israel is currently illegally occupying territory. The West Bank, Golan Heights, and the Gaza strip. None repeat none of these territories were orignally part of Israel/Palestine. The Golan heights belonged to Syria, the Gaza strip to Egypt, and the West Bank to Jordan. The fact that Palestinians have been pushed into these territories and into several refugee camps across the border, and that they are treated as second-class citizens almost anywhere they go by Israeli forces, doesn't speak well for the character of Israel as a state.

Just to make one thing clear- I absolutely abhor and condemn terrorist action taken by either side, be it Palestinian terrorists indiscriminately blowing up pizzarias in Jerusalem, or Israel firing rockets into residential areas in Palestinian towns. It's a fine line between the two, no matter what anyone says. Certainly, the IDF can easily hide behind the ideology of a 'counterterrorism operation' just as easily as the Palestinians hide behind the ideology of a freedom struggle. I maintain what I've always said though- elected officials of the Israeli government and its forces must maintain high moral standards of operation if they are not to alienate the Palestinian populace.

Saying that the Israelis are conducting 'military operations because they are targeting terrorists and not innocent civilians' is an argument of convenience. Put it this way- if Hamas bombed an Israeli army outpost (an attack on soldiers not civilians), it's still considered a terrorist act. But when Israel roll tanks into Palestinian land, and shoot young boys dead because they throw stones (I have yet to read a media report of an Israeli soldier in body armor being seriously injured by one of these 'deadly handheld projectiles' :P), it is simply a military operation. Double-standards? Seems that way to me. Another dilemmna- Israel are continually talking about security above all else, security for its citizens. Said security cannot and will not be achieved by military action. That's how you create terrorists, by unpopular military action and answering stones with tank shells, mortars, M16 5.56 rounds and helicopter gunship rockets. I can think of worse ways to incite a civilian population to take up arms and join the militias.

If you instead address the root causes of the security issues- Jewish settlements being constructed on Palestinian land, the indiscriminate house to house arrests, and crippling the already-shaky Palestinian bureaucracy. Which is something else I don't understand- how are the Palestinian security forces to crack down on terrorism in their own territories if the Israelis bomb police depots and cripple the enforcement machine? It's like kicking someone while they're down on the floor and asking them to get up- it's an action at cross-purposes with the intent of the rhetoric preceding that action. If Palestinian police chiefs can't move from their homes because they fear they'll be blown to smithereens by the next Israeli artillery weapons test on their police station, there is no way they'll be able to carry out any kind of effective enforcement.

Unless of course, Sharon doesn't want them to succeed in their enforcement role. In fact, their not succeeding suits his political agenda, which is a united Israel with either no concession to the Palestinian people, or a woefully unfair concession. I think it almost a certainty that Sharon had a central role to play in the Sabra and Chatilla massacres in Lebanon, and that his hawkish approach will fail to bring about peace or security. However, Yasser Arafat, hobbled as he has been by Israel, has made little attempt to negotiate. Can't blame him from a moral standpoint, it's very tough to negotiate with the threat of Israeli force looming over your head.

Terrorist attacks on Israeli citizens also suit Sharon ironically enough, each attack effectively grants him a blank cheque to send his forces into Palestinian territory and terrorize the civilian population with the stated objective of 'countering a terrorist incursion', when in fact their objective seems to be to beat the Palestinian people into submission. Arafat must go, for right or wrong, he is no longer in a strong enough position to negotiate with someone as willing to take strong military action as Sharon. Who in my opinion, should also not be in power. Yes, he was granted the powers of Prime Minister of Israel via a free and democratic election, but again I believe it's a fine line. I'm willing to bet that although the national socialist party in Germany didn't come to power via a general election, if one was held, they wouldn't just have won, they'd have routed their opposition in the Reichstag. Just because public opinion is in favor of oppression and military action bordering on ethnic cleansing, doesn't make these actions right. It'd be interesting to see how much time the Israeli electorate is willing to give Sharon to achieve 'security' within the state of Israel. Arafat's days however, have to be numbered, and the peace process will be the poorer for it.

Occy

king of fifa

did anyone hear that there is a irish intern STAYING in arafats compound while her american compatriot has buggered off home.this women should be declared a hero of the state.

Sand

did anyone hear that there is a irish intern STAYING in arafats compound while her american compatriot has buggered off home.this women should be declared a hero of the state.

Why and which state?

ReefBreak

Quote by Sand:

Well to be honest Im sick to christ of the same old ****e that the pro - palestine lobby come out with while tripping over their words when it comes to terrorism (Yeah, shock-horror, that includes the "mass murder" of Israeli families by Palestinian sucide bombers) . Yeah its true, I couldnt give a feck what you think tbh - be offended if you want, like I said I couldnt give a feck.

Lets just clarify one more time. Quote this (when you reply, as you will) so I know you read it, try and repeat it in your own words so I know you finally comprehended it. Im not pro- Israeli. Im anti-terrorist. Read that a few times. I dont defend the Israelis, I defend their right to kill terrorists. Read that a few times. Ive already defined my understanding (and most peoples understanding) of terrorism. If youve forgotten, search for a Israel thread. Assuming this has sunk through finally, move on to the next paragraph. Otherwise re-read this paragraph until it does sink through.

An excellent post that just about sums up my own opinion also. I despise Sharon - but I equally despise Hamas and anyone that supports Palestinian terrorism.

A quote from Boston (I couldn't resist):

and i defend the palestinian right to kill the terrorist that blockade their cities and bomb there leaders.

Does this mean you defend the bombing of the passover party last week? Or the bombing of the supermarket? I'm sorry, I didn't realise those murdered Isreali men, women and children were blockading cities and bombing leaders.

As I said before, this is very similar to the type of language used by the 'RA/UDA over the last 30 years to justify their murderous atrocities. "We reserve the right to defend ourselves against (British/Israeli/Nationalist) oppression". Try justifying it to the families of the bereaved. Or worse, try justifying it to those that have to live with a serious injury after a terrorist attack.

Boston

Originally posted by ReefBreak


A quote from Boston (I couldn't resist): Does this mean you defend the bombing of the passover party last week? Or the bombing of the supermarket? I'm sorry, I didn't realise those murdered Isreali men, women and children were blockading cities and bombing leaders.

hmm, if you had asked thme before hand their views on arabs, im sure after hearing it you wouldnt give a damn if they were blown to bites, ill not cry for bigots

Hobbes

Originally posted by Sand
Do you mean engage in gun battles with OR capture, line up against a wall and shoot them

Prehaps he means the times they missile attacked police stations killing officers inside in the hopes of killing the prisoners who where arrested as terrorists.

Other topic...

Camp David accord was a mess. There was no way in hell any sane person would of agreed to what was handed to Arafat.

handyandy

Originally posted by Hobbes
Camp David accord was a mess. There was no way in hell any sane person would of agreed to what was handed to Arafat.

What do you mean?

Sand

hmm, if you had asked thme before hand their views on arabs, im sure after hearing it you wouldnt give a damn if they were blown to bites, ill not cry for bigots

And yet you cry for the Palestinians, who hold a similarly bitter hatred towards the Israelis. Perhaps even a greater one given the wrongs that have been done to them.

Whats your view on the murder of the Israeli academic/student types in the known left wing coffee shop who oppossed the occupation? Were they Israelis "good" ones you can cry for? Or just Israeli bigots? How about the children at the bar mitzvah who were hardly old enough to hold a political opinion let alone be bigoted about it?

You might come back with something along the lines of "Well the Israelis are doing this and that". True. But it does not exscuse the deliberately planned murder of civillians.

Camp David accord was a mess. There was no way in hell any sane person would of agreed to what was handed to Arafat.

But a sane person would have at least attempted to negotiate. Arafat didnt even make a counter offer. He simply refused Baraks offer and walked out- to a heros welcome back in Palestine.

Ive believed that Arafat is either unwilling or unable to prevent the terrorists in palestine from attacking civillians. Now I suspect hes actually afraid of them, and what they would have done to them if he had come back with a deal from Camp David. Sadat for example was killed by a fundamentalist less than a year after he signed a deal with Israel in which Egypt recovered the Sinai taken in the 1967 war. Ive come to the belief now that Araft is too frightened to make peace, especially in the current climate.