Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Protest at Bay Area Red Cross Marks Palestinian Prisoners' Day
Two dozen activists protested outside the Bay Area Red Cross offices in San Francisco on Monday, April 18, to spotlight the International Committee of the Red Cross's shameful neglect of Palestinian political prisoners.
Two dozen activists protested outside the Bay Area Red Cross offices in San Francisco on Monday, April 18, to spotlight the International Committee of the Red Cross's shameful neglect of Palestinian political prisoners. They held up pictures of Palestinian prisoners and their families, and gave out several hundred fliers calling on passersby to contact the ICRC and demand they do their job.
April 17 is the International Day in Solidarity with Palestinian Political Prisoners. Because most offices in the US are closed on Sundays, groups around the country held demonstrations on April 18. Many of the actions were held at Red Cross offices.
The ICRC is charged by the United Nations to monitor the conditions of prisoners and ensure that international laws governing those conditions are being followed. They are the only international organization which has regular access to Israeli prisons and the only ones who can arrange visits for families of prisoners or deliver clothes and other supplies. Prison activists and lawyers in the Occupied Palestinian Territories charge that the Red Cross is not carrying out frequent visits to central Israeli prisons, and has failed to deliver urgently needed supplies. They also are not aggressively demanding that Israel stop its illegal abuses of prisoners' human rights. In particular, this year's demonstrations highlighted the case of Manal Ghannam and her son, 18-month-old Nour, who are imprisoned in Telmond. Nour has been subjected to tear gas in the prison; he and Manal both have medical conditions which are not being treated by the prison officials, and Nour's relatives have not been allowed to bring any toys for him to play with.
Before leaving the area, a delegation of six activists went up to the Red Cross offices to meet with an official of the local chapter. He insisted that there is no connection between the American Red Cross, which is affiliated with the International Federation of the Red Cross, and the International Committee, and said the activists need to take their complaints to the ICRC offices in Washington. He refused to pass on the demands of the action to representatives of the ICRC, or to meet with the activists at a later time to learn more about the Palestinian prisoners' issue, which he said he knows nothing about. He insisted that becoming informed about this human tragedy "would not be a good use of his time."
This Thursday, the Bay Area Red Cross plans an "international gala," celebrating its work in tsunami relief and other international humanitarian emergencies. The Justice In Palestine Coalition points out in its flier that the Red Cross's work in Palestine is nothing to celebrate.
For more information or to get involved please contact http://sumoud.tao.ca or info [at] justiceinpalestine.net.
all photos by Bernie
April 17 is the International Day in Solidarity with Palestinian Political Prisoners. Because most offices in the US are closed on Sundays, groups around the country held demonstrations on April 18. Many of the actions were held at Red Cross offices.
The ICRC is charged by the United Nations to monitor the conditions of prisoners and ensure that international laws governing those conditions are being followed. They are the only international organization which has regular access to Israeli prisons and the only ones who can arrange visits for families of prisoners or deliver clothes and other supplies. Prison activists and lawyers in the Occupied Palestinian Territories charge that the Red Cross is not carrying out frequent visits to central Israeli prisons, and has failed to deliver urgently needed supplies. They also are not aggressively demanding that Israel stop its illegal abuses of prisoners' human rights. In particular, this year's demonstrations highlighted the case of Manal Ghannam and her son, 18-month-old Nour, who are imprisoned in Telmond. Nour has been subjected to tear gas in the prison; he and Manal both have medical conditions which are not being treated by the prison officials, and Nour's relatives have not been allowed to bring any toys for him to play with.
Before leaving the area, a delegation of six activists went up to the Red Cross offices to meet with an official of the local chapter. He insisted that there is no connection between the American Red Cross, which is affiliated with the International Federation of the Red Cross, and the International Committee, and said the activists need to take their complaints to the ICRC offices in Washington. He refused to pass on the demands of the action to representatives of the ICRC, or to meet with the activists at a later time to learn more about the Palestinian prisoners' issue, which he said he knows nothing about. He insisted that becoming informed about this human tragedy "would not be a good use of his time."
This Thursday, the Bay Area Red Cross plans an "international gala," celebrating its work in tsunami relief and other international humanitarian emergencies. The Justice In Palestine Coalition points out in its flier that the Red Cross's work in Palestine is nothing to celebrate.
For more information or to get involved please contact http://sumoud.tao.ca or info [at] justiceinpalestine.net.
all photos by Bernie
For more information:
http://sumoud.tao.ca
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
they said something about the Israeli govt.'s terrorism while they were there, too---It's the responsibility of the oppressor to stop the violence first, period.
Reality check:
There's no official Israeli terrorism no matter how hard you choose to delude yourself or buy into the nonsense you read on your favorite sources of misinformation and disinformation.
If it weren't for the intifada that's still raging albeit on a pretty low flame, there wouldn't be an "oppression". The Palestinians have a responsibility to cease all forms of violence, then the Israelis will follow suit.
There's no official Israeli terrorism no matter how hard you choose to delude yourself or buy into the nonsense you read on your favorite sources of misinformation and disinformation.
If it weren't for the intifada that's still raging albeit on a pretty low flame, there wouldn't be an "oppression". The Palestinians have a responsibility to cease all forms of violence, then the Israelis will follow suit.
Once again, it's the responsibility of the oppressor, the perpetrator of state sponsored violence to stop first. If I was born into the conditions Palestinians were born into, I would take up arms/resistance with whatever means I had available, too. I don't bother posting very often, don't have the time--f/t work, school--but after seeing the rabid posting you were doing--albeit musch of them cutting and pasting associated press news--I had to comment. Your response was predictably angry.
Thank you for the entertainment.
Thank you for the entertainment.
for the simple reason that you don't want to. If you had come to some of the realizations you're adamant on not arriving out, you'd have had at the very least to reevaluate your unbalanced pro-Palestinian position.
Historical facts won't change no matter how much you try to revise the past or misrepresent it. Ever since Israel handed all the so-called A (under total Palestinian control) and B (under Palestinian control except security matters) areas in the disputed territories over to the PA under the terms of the Oslo Accords, there barely had been Israeli imposed hardships on the Palestinian population. Most of the suffering they did endure was a consequence of the PA's continual adamant refusal to crack down on terrorism in an ongoing manner and the involvement of the PA itself in terror. Once the intifada was unleashed, it was only a matter of time until the entire Palestinian population came under Israeli military control. A careful study of the twists and turns of the conflict since the late '90s reveals that Israel always responded to diminishing terror by military withdrawal, goodwill gestures and/or transfer of land control to the Palestinians, i.e. a loosening of the "oppression" grip on a scale corresponding to or greater than the subsidence of Palestinian terror. Any time the "oppression" reached its lowest levels, it was kept to a bare necessary minimum for most intents and purposes.
You apparently don't give a damn about the historical *givens* that not only did the PA sponsor, encourage, aid and otherwise assist Palestinian terror, it played an active role in it itself; indeed it sought to lead on that front. Similarly, you don't acknowledge that Israel, just as any sovereign state, is perfectly in line when it sets out to defend its citizens and property from attack.
You seem to be viewing the matter from an exclusively pro-Palestinian telescope, hence the terminology you resort to describing Israel's military and police activities e.g. "state sponsored violence".
>>>"If I was born into the conditions Palestinians were born into, I would take up arms/resistance with whatever means I had available, too."<<<
I'd like to know, assuming you're capable of challenging yourself to take a view from the opposite side: what if you were born into the conditions Israeli Jewish residents of, say, a village adjacent to E.Jerusalem have constantly endured since the 1970s, i.e. being subjected to seemingly non-stop unprovoked attacks by Palestinians? Would you have restrained yourself as the vast majority of Jews there do, or would you try to retaliate any way you could?
If you intend to reply, let me just preface that I for one (and quite a few other for that matter) don't accept the tired arguments claiming the Jewish residents there are illegal settlers with no right and business to be there anyway, so the question isn't even relevant or worthy of raising. Just like Kashmir, also Judea, Samaria and Gaza have been disputed territories, so Arabs were never the only ethnicity entitled to live and settle there. Truth be told, many of the Palestinians in the territories are descended from Arabs who migrated there from other lands during the 20th century. This remains a fact inspite of all the attempts to deny or disregard it. Just as most would rather be oblivious to the reality of an unbroken Jewish presence in the disputed territories until they were rendered Jew-free in 1948.
>>>"I don't bother posting very often, don't have the time--f/t work, school--but after seeing the rabid posting you were doing--albeit musch of them cutting and pasting associated press news--I had to comment."<<<
Obviously you weren't paying close attention. You apparently mixed me up with someone else. I never cut and paste from AP news. I'll leave it up to you to appraise "rabid" as you wish; I'll only say you should get a sense of proportion if you honestly believe my overall posting is rabid and didn't confuse me for someone else. Also, I wasn't angry while writing my initial response. But then again I can't control your perception of others' anger.
Glad you feel entertained. Your view of my explanations as amusing is preferable to hitting the roof in anger.
Historical facts won't change no matter how much you try to revise the past or misrepresent it. Ever since Israel handed all the so-called A (under total Palestinian control) and B (under Palestinian control except security matters) areas in the disputed territories over to the PA under the terms of the Oslo Accords, there barely had been Israeli imposed hardships on the Palestinian population. Most of the suffering they did endure was a consequence of the PA's continual adamant refusal to crack down on terrorism in an ongoing manner and the involvement of the PA itself in terror. Once the intifada was unleashed, it was only a matter of time until the entire Palestinian population came under Israeli military control. A careful study of the twists and turns of the conflict since the late '90s reveals that Israel always responded to diminishing terror by military withdrawal, goodwill gestures and/or transfer of land control to the Palestinians, i.e. a loosening of the "oppression" grip on a scale corresponding to or greater than the subsidence of Palestinian terror. Any time the "oppression" reached its lowest levels, it was kept to a bare necessary minimum for most intents and purposes.
You apparently don't give a damn about the historical *givens* that not only did the PA sponsor, encourage, aid and otherwise assist Palestinian terror, it played an active role in it itself; indeed it sought to lead on that front. Similarly, you don't acknowledge that Israel, just as any sovereign state, is perfectly in line when it sets out to defend its citizens and property from attack.
You seem to be viewing the matter from an exclusively pro-Palestinian telescope, hence the terminology you resort to describing Israel's military and police activities e.g. "state sponsored violence".
>>>"If I was born into the conditions Palestinians were born into, I would take up arms/resistance with whatever means I had available, too."<<<
I'd like to know, assuming you're capable of challenging yourself to take a view from the opposite side: what if you were born into the conditions Israeli Jewish residents of, say, a village adjacent to E.Jerusalem have constantly endured since the 1970s, i.e. being subjected to seemingly non-stop unprovoked attacks by Palestinians? Would you have restrained yourself as the vast majority of Jews there do, or would you try to retaliate any way you could?
If you intend to reply, let me just preface that I for one (and quite a few other for that matter) don't accept the tired arguments claiming the Jewish residents there are illegal settlers with no right and business to be there anyway, so the question isn't even relevant or worthy of raising. Just like Kashmir, also Judea, Samaria and Gaza have been disputed territories, so Arabs were never the only ethnicity entitled to live and settle there. Truth be told, many of the Palestinians in the territories are descended from Arabs who migrated there from other lands during the 20th century. This remains a fact inspite of all the attempts to deny or disregard it. Just as most would rather be oblivious to the reality of an unbroken Jewish presence in the disputed territories until they were rendered Jew-free in 1948.
>>>"I don't bother posting very often, don't have the time--f/t work, school--but after seeing the rabid posting you were doing--albeit musch of them cutting and pasting associated press news--I had to comment."<<<
Obviously you weren't paying close attention. You apparently mixed me up with someone else. I never cut and paste from AP news. I'll leave it up to you to appraise "rabid" as you wish; I'll only say you should get a sense of proportion if you honestly believe my overall posting is rabid and didn't confuse me for someone else. Also, I wasn't angry while writing my initial response. But then again I can't control your perception of others' anger.
Glad you feel entertained. Your view of my explanations as amusing is preferable to hitting the roof in anger.
"they said something about the Israeli govt.'s terrorism while they were there, too---It's the responsibility of the oppressor to stop the violence first, period."
You are mistaken the oppressor: the oppressor is the Palestinians who commit terrorist attacks against the Israelis.
So the israelis have to enjail those terrorists, who, therefore, are not political prisoners.
You are mistaken the oppressor: the oppressor is the Palestinians who commit terrorist attacks against the Israelis.
So the israelis have to enjail those terrorists, who, therefore, are not political prisoners.
"Once again, it's the responsibility of the oppressor, the perpetrator of state sponsored violence to stop first."
You ignore that the Palestinians are the attackers.
What you want is that Israel doesn't defend its citizens so that the terrorists can achieve their goal, which is the extermination of Jews.
" If I was born into the conditions Palestinians were born into, I would take up arms/resistance with whatever means I had available, too."
If you were born into the conditions Palestinians were born into, if you protested against those conditions against your authorities, you would be publicly tortured and murdered.
If you didn't protest, you could be one of those terrorists.
As far as you weren't born in those conditions, you use your right to express you freely to support the terrorists.
You ignore that the Palestinians are the attackers.
What you want is that Israel doesn't defend its citizens so that the terrorists can achieve their goal, which is the extermination of Jews.
" If I was born into the conditions Palestinians were born into, I would take up arms/resistance with whatever means I had available, too."
If you were born into the conditions Palestinians were born into, if you protested against those conditions against your authorities, you would be publicly tortured and murdered.
If you didn't protest, you could be one of those terrorists.
As far as you weren't born in those conditions, you use your right to express you freely to support the terrorists.
"What you want is that Israel doesn't defend its citizens so that the terrorists can achieve their goal..."
Which terrorists? the Israelis or the Palestinians? I'd say that the violence on both sides has killed many innocent bystanders.
"As far as you weren't born in those conditions, you use your right to express you freely to support the terrorists."
What are you trying to say with this sentence? It appears to be 2nd grade style jibberish, attempting to make what point?
The conditions of oppression that Palestinians are born into, as a result of Israel's cruelty, make it understandable--not neccessarily right--that out of hopelessness and anger they would resort to violence.
P.S. stick to cutting and pasting because your sentences aren't too good.
P.P.S. Thanks for another predictably angry response. I can almost see you tturning red as you frantically type out your furied and jumbled responses.
Which terrorists? the Israelis or the Palestinians? I'd say that the violence on both sides has killed many innocent bystanders.
"As far as you weren't born in those conditions, you use your right to express you freely to support the terrorists."
What are you trying to say with this sentence? It appears to be 2nd grade style jibberish, attempting to make what point?
The conditions of oppression that Palestinians are born into, as a result of Israel's cruelty, make it understandable--not neccessarily right--that out of hopelessness and anger they would resort to violence.
P.S. stick to cutting and pasting because your sentences aren't too good.
P.P.S. Thanks for another predictably angry response. I can almost see you tturning red as you frantically type out your furied and jumbled responses.
I am not in 2nd degree. I'll be there when I grow up.
However, I know that the Palestinians are the aggressors, that the PA has demonstrated many times they don't want peace with Israel but to destroy it and to drive the Jews out. I also know that, because of this, the Palestinians' conditions of life cannot improve: in fact, they were better-off when they were under israeli rule. I also know that the PA people are corrupt and have "invested" the international aid in paying for terrorism and in putting the money in their personal accounts. And I know more thing I can tell you if you are interested.
And so I find this situation to be very enjoyable: I , who are still attending nursery, know more than a grown-up boy like you.
My comment about the cutting and pastin AP articles and the angery responses was meant for Sefarad, and while perusing a few of the postings, it's evident that there is a distinct diference in intellect, education and writing abilities between you and this poster.
If I was "born into the conditions Israeli Jewish residents of, say, a village adjacent to E.Jerusalem have constantly endured since the 1970s, i.e. being subjected to seemingly non-stop unprovoked attacks by Palestinians?"----I would, like the Palestinians born into brutal conditions, be tempted to engage in violence, but also, hopefully come to see the bigger picture and be a voice of peace--like many have done in Israel and the U.S.
As far as the terminology I use--state-sponsored terrrorism is what it is---I don't differentiate between govt. terror or terror from individuals/NGO's, ect.--But this is not some expression I found in "Pro-Palestinian" literature---I am not looking through the "telescope" of Pro-Palestinianism either--My focus is much more on the terrorism of my own fucked up govt. right here in the U.S.---but that's another discussion
If I was "born into the conditions Israeli Jewish residents of, say, a village adjacent to E.Jerusalem have constantly endured since the 1970s, i.e. being subjected to seemingly non-stop unprovoked attacks by Palestinians?"----I would, like the Palestinians born into brutal conditions, be tempted to engage in violence, but also, hopefully come to see the bigger picture and be a voice of peace--like many have done in Israel and the U.S.
As far as the terminology I use--state-sponsored terrrorism is what it is---I don't differentiate between govt. terror or terror from individuals/NGO's, ect.--But this is not some expression I found in "Pro-Palestinian" literature---I am not looking through the "telescope" of Pro-Palestinianism either--My focus is much more on the terrorism of my own fucked up govt. right here in the U.S.---but that's another discussion
Hi again.
Hopefully you won't try to conflate me with Sefarad,-- we're two different people posting.
Now in response to one of Sefarad's remarks, you're essentially positing a moral equivalence between Palestinians and Israelis as far as violence is concerned, and making an implication that the designation of "terrorist" can be equally applied to both Palestinians and Israelis with equal merit. Truth is, no more than a few dozen Israelis have been involved in anti-Palestinian terror. Moreover, terror has never been an Israeli policy, as opposed to the immense pervasiveness of terrorism in both Palestinian society and leadership.
None of the innocent Palestinian bystander casualties had been targeted, yet each and every Israeli/Jewish victim of Palestinian terror had been. Hopefully you don't contest these facts.
Also, what you deem "Israeli cruelty" is a somewhat misleading refrain. Sure enough there have been individual Israeli soldiers and border policemen who've dealt cruelly with Palestinians they've come in contact with, but there hasn't been an overall Israeli policy of acting in cruelty. Not only that... the term cruelty gets interpreted differently by various people. There's not always universal consensus as to what the term constitutes before it gets bandied about.
Finally, the PA cruelty has overshadowed any cruelty by Israeli agents in the disputed territories since the mid 1990s. Many Palestinians have been born into this thugocracy excuse for a regime, but I don't see any anti-Zionists except the odd one here complaining about it. Does this cruelty not count?
Hopefully you won't try to conflate me with Sefarad,-- we're two different people posting.
Now in response to one of Sefarad's remarks, you're essentially positing a moral equivalence between Palestinians and Israelis as far as violence is concerned, and making an implication that the designation of "terrorist" can be equally applied to both Palestinians and Israelis with equal merit. Truth is, no more than a few dozen Israelis have been involved in anti-Palestinian terror. Moreover, terror has never been an Israeli policy, as opposed to the immense pervasiveness of terrorism in both Palestinian society and leadership.
None of the innocent Palestinian bystander casualties had been targeted, yet each and every Israeli/Jewish victim of Palestinian terror had been. Hopefully you don't contest these facts.
Also, what you deem "Israeli cruelty" is a somewhat misleading refrain. Sure enough there have been individual Israeli soldiers and border policemen who've dealt cruelly with Palestinians they've come in contact with, but there hasn't been an overall Israeli policy of acting in cruelty. Not only that... the term cruelty gets interpreted differently by various people. There's not always universal consensus as to what the term constitutes before it gets bandied about.
Finally, the PA cruelty has overshadowed any cruelty by Israeli agents in the disputed territories since the mid 1990s. Many Palestinians have been born into this thugocracy excuse for a regime, but I don't see any anti-Zionists except the odd one here complaining about it. Does this cruelty not count?
My posts appear and disappear.
Sefared, if English is not your 2nd language, then is it your 3rd?---It cannot and must not be your 1st.---It just can't be. Reading your postings, when they are not cut and paste from another source, is a painful excercise.
>>>"If I was "born into the conditions Israeli Jewish residents of, say, a village adjacent to E.Jerusalem have constantly endured since the 1970s, i.e. being subjected to seemingly non-stop unprovoked attacks by Palestinians?"----I would, like the Palestinians born into brutal conditions, be tempted to engage in violence, but also, hopefully come to see the bigger picture and be a voice of peace--like many have done in Israel and the U.S."<<<
While your reply seems to indicate that you expect more of Israeli Jews than you do from Palestinians living under similar conditions, and I find this unfortunate but not surprising as I've grown used to the application of this double standard, I do appreciate your candor.
I concede it's a bit difficult for me to witness someone not distinguishing between gov. terror and terror from individuals/NGOs as I can't fathom what logical grounds can be used for this end where the factors at play in the Palestinian-Israeli dispute are concerned. It eludes me. I can, however, surmise that your definition of terrorism is very inclusive and is a product of your beef with the way the US gov deals with common folk both domestically and abroad; it ends up inadvertently supportive of the Palestinian argument to some extent even if you don't intend to.
P.S.: I hadn't seen your clarifying remark that you do distinguish me from Sefarad when I composed my preceding comment. No hard feelings.
:-)
While your reply seems to indicate that you expect more of Israeli Jews than you do from Palestinians living under similar conditions, and I find this unfortunate but not surprising as I've grown used to the application of this double standard, I do appreciate your candor.
I concede it's a bit difficult for me to witness someone not distinguishing between gov. terror and terror from individuals/NGOs as I can't fathom what logical grounds can be used for this end where the factors at play in the Palestinian-Israeli dispute are concerned. It eludes me. I can, however, surmise that your definition of terrorism is very inclusive and is a product of your beef with the way the US gov deals with common folk both domestically and abroad; it ends up inadvertently supportive of the Palestinian argument to some extent even if you don't intend to.
P.S.: I hadn't seen your clarifying remark that you do distinguish me from Sefarad when I composed my preceding comment. No hard feelings.
:-)
English is my second language. In fact, I am learning it and I am much better at reading and listening. Although in a conversation vis-a-vis I am also more easily understandanble than when I write.
"making an implication that the designation of "terrorist" can be equally applied to both Palestinians and Israelis with equal merit. Truth is, no more than a few dozen Israelis have been involved in anti-Palestinian terror. "
1. The definition of terror--" the calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimindation or coercion or instilling fear "
I believe that this applies to both sides of the conflict.
2. I don't know about it being applied with equal merit for sure, but I also don't believe that it is just a few bad apples, as you insinuate either. While you may have more statistics and reading in regards to this conflict than I, I have checked it out a bit, and have encountered widespread cruelty on both sides--I would say that Palestinian bystanders have been targeted though. Along with Palestinian homes, their water, ect. Bulldozing an entire family's home is as much swatting a fly with a sledgehammer as some of the unfair practices of the Palestinians in their treatment of Israelis. Dumping sewage into their water and killing their children (and I don't believe that they are all 'terrorists' is as unacceptable as strapping on a bomb and going into a nightclub. I think it's possible that you are 'stuck' on the pro-Israeli side and not looking through a broader lens. I think both sides are guilty of numerous atrocities and it's unacceptable.
1. The definition of terror--" the calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimindation or coercion or instilling fear "
I believe that this applies to both sides of the conflict.
2. I don't know about it being applied with equal merit for sure, but I also don't believe that it is just a few bad apples, as you insinuate either. While you may have more statistics and reading in regards to this conflict than I, I have checked it out a bit, and have encountered widespread cruelty on both sides--I would say that Palestinian bystanders have been targeted though. Along with Palestinian homes, their water, ect. Bulldozing an entire family's home is as much swatting a fly with a sledgehammer as some of the unfair practices of the Palestinians in their treatment of Israelis. Dumping sewage into their water and killing their children (and I don't believe that they are all 'terrorists' is as unacceptable as strapping on a bomb and going into a nightclub. I think it's possible that you are 'stuck' on the pro-Israeli side and not looking through a broader lens. I think both sides are guilty of numerous atrocities and it's unacceptable.
As far as the pool of Jewish extremists in the disputed territories goes, I grant you that the number of dangerous people prone to violence does outnumber the total of Jews who've engaged in terror. These people have a propensity to treat Palestinians cruelly and certainly aren't above provocations. I didn't mean to insinuate that these Israelis were without moral blemishes.
I share your disagreement with what *had been* (but is no more) the seemingly reflexive demolition of Palestinian homes where even only one of the inhabitants had been involved in terror, even if the others hadn't supported and assisted the terroristic pursuits of co-tenant. By the same token, I echo your refusal to brand all Palestinian children as terrorists. This goes to further underscore the monstrosity inherent in the form of child abuse whereby Palestinian parents still either rear their kid or allow him/her to be reared by others from a tender age for a terrorist "career".
I don't think it's justified to make sweeping conclusions to the effect of Israel having set out to dump sewage in Palestinian consumed water in order to murder their children based on one incident where the alleged offending contractor's intent wasn't to achieve that unspeakable objective.
I take special issue with your contention that Palestinian bystanders have been targeted. It may seem to you that they have been; skewed coverage by certain reporters may have helped create that impression. There should be an evident difference between an impression and what has really occurred. In addition, if that were actually the case, it would have probably had dire repercussions for Israel even in Congress, and even more so in the White House and the State Dep, even though many folks here find this incredible to believe.
I share your disagreement with what *had been* (but is no more) the seemingly reflexive demolition of Palestinian homes where even only one of the inhabitants had been involved in terror, even if the others hadn't supported and assisted the terroristic pursuits of co-tenant. By the same token, I echo your refusal to brand all Palestinian children as terrorists. This goes to further underscore the monstrosity inherent in the form of child abuse whereby Palestinian parents still either rear their kid or allow him/her to be reared by others from a tender age for a terrorist "career".
I don't think it's justified to make sweeping conclusions to the effect of Israel having set out to dump sewage in Palestinian consumed water in order to murder their children based on one incident where the alleged offending contractor's intent wasn't to achieve that unspeakable objective.
I take special issue with your contention that Palestinian bystanders have been targeted. It may seem to you that they have been; skewed coverage by certain reporters may have helped create that impression. There should be an evident difference between an impression and what has really occurred. In addition, if that were actually the case, it would have probably had dire repercussions for Israel even in Congress, and even more so in the White House and the State Dep, even though many folks here find this incredible to believe.
good link that is pretty fair.
http://www.mideastweb.org/nutshell.htm
The sections on Israeli repression and Palestinian violence were decent.
http://www.mideastweb.org/nutshell.htm
The sections on Israeli repression and Palestinian violence were decent.
it just makes it difficult to engage in a coherent debate, especially if it's more nuanced.
I think the link http://www.mideastweb.org/nutshell.htm
describes much in pretty fair way---the atrocities on both sides have to be acknowledged, and there has to be a genuine effort for peace from both sides---so far, I haven't seen either side stop the violence, or stop retaliating to the other side's violence for long enough to let change happen.
describes much in pretty fair way---the atrocities on both sides have to be acknowledged, and there has to be a genuine effort for peace from both sides---so far, I haven't seen either side stop the violence, or stop retaliating to the other side's violence for long enough to let change happen.
I'll grant that it does a reasonable job at recounting the events compared to pro-Palestinian sources, though much was left out that could have been included without compromising the webpage's rather concise nature and rendering it a pro-Israel propaganda organ. Additionally, at some places it's downright misleading. I dare say there's no webpage anywhere on the net that would very close to objectivity. Perhaps that's too much to ask concerning history beginning a mere 123 years ago or so -- perhaps this will be feasible only a few centuries into the future. Meanwhile, even those trying to recount this conflict's history as fairly as humanly possible seem to be governed somewhat by a wariness of getting drawn too closely to a pro-Israel historical view, an apprehension which compromises their objectivity on some points.
One of my sentences should read:
Additionally, at some places it's downright misleading. I dare say there's no webpage anywhere on the net that would even stick very closely to objectivity.
Additionally, at some places it's downright misleading. I dare say there's no webpage anywhere on the net that would even stick very closely to objectivity.
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$320.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network