Herds of Jewish settlers incinerate Palestinian olive trees

By
Aug 26, 2003, 17:32



Email this article Printer friendly page

Nablus - Citizens in the West Bank town of Salfeet have said that herds of Jewish settlers recently incinerated vast areas of cultivated farmlands in their town.

They said that settlers from the nearby settlement of Ar’il, which was established on Salfeet lands, set fire to thousands of olive trees surrounding the settlement without any interference on the part of the occupation forces.

They added that the Zionist troops stood idle by leaving the settlers wreak havoc and devastation in the fertile trees.

http://www.palestine-info.co.uk/am/publish/article_2162.shtml

liberation goes full swing as ever in palestine....

as Prof Tufte would say. Despite the fact that the US is 8 times more in expenditures than the next player, and about 50 times the smallest on that chart, the fake volume suggested says about 4 and 16 times.

what?

What makes the pro Arab dictatorship supporters tick? They repeat the old abandoned ,almost word for word, myths of the worst of the pro arab propagandists ..They get somewhat disturbed when you quote Benny Morris . Of all the historians, he has been considered the most pro Arab minded of the lot.Read "1948 and After"

I took the trouble of revisiting Noam Chompsky's "Fateful Triangle (updated edition)" It is still sold all over the Arab world and I see it most often quoted ,without any attribution, on this and other discussion groups.

In his chapter on the" Historical Backgrounds" he completely leaves out the Arab League meeting just prior to the UN session of November 46 . The facts of this meeting is critical to the understanding of all the events that followed. The Arab League agreed ,with Palestinian representation,as follows:

1- To take up arms against the United Nations decision if it assigned any portion of the ancient Jewish homeland back to the Jews .

2- To make room for the Palestinian in their countries if they were dislocated and had to be moved as a result of the war.

3- Not to meet with any UN committee to find a peaceful solution before the vote.

4- To stop any unfavorable UN decision by engaging in riots, murder , asasinations , looting and burning of Jewish property. (This threat was also made at the UN)

5- To make the Jews throughout the Islamic world pay for the UN action.

6- To stop any unfavorable action by the UN by forcing the issue into the "World Court ".


He mentions only as part of one sentence ,en passant, the existence of equal opportunity Arab irregulars who swarmed into UN territory starting with December of 46 Over 5 000 of them came across the borders to steal burn , rape and kill Jews. An organized "Arab Liberation Army' ,some 6000 in number with full military equipment came out of Syria to get their share of the loot . But Chompsky has no space to include this in his camel dung.

I can attribute it to my poor eyesight but try as I did I can find no mention by Chompsky of the UN Meeting of 1949 at Lausanne to discuss the problem of the displaced Palestinians.
Here the Arab League representatives turned down an Israeli offer to accept back into Israel 260 000 displaced Palestinians after they had already accepted back 50 000 on a family reunion basis. It interesting to note that the Arab League did not permit Palestinians to sit on the committee which rejected the offers.

From the Fourth Progress Report of the UN Conclliation Commission for Palestine.
Item 25: The Government of Israel agreed to unite wives and minor children of legal Arab breadwinners living in Israel.Turned down by the Arab League!

What Chomsky does not go into at all was that during this period every thing was in chaos. Homes ,factories roads and infrastructure in general was in ruins .Thousands of Jews of the Islamic world who had been driven out of their homes had fled to Israel and were living in tents and being fed by soup kitchens.

No offer of any kind was ever made by the Arab dictators to their fleeing Jewish citizens as contrasted to the generosity of the Israelis.

There is a lot more Chomsky pro-Arab non-sence coming on request.

because I can barely contain the rage towards Israel. American Jews were criticized for doing little to help the Jews suffering under Hitler, and now again, in the face of a gross violation of human decency - of abuse of poor and abused people... and they refer to their own who would speak out against it as "self-loathing Jews". I feel disgust.

Why can't trees be top PNAC leaders? I think Hamas could have a good idea going here.

REALLY THE NEXT WILL BE THE ANIMALS, designated by proximity whether the animal is jewish or islamic. And than animals can be slaughtered based on the denomination of those that find them and depending on what location they were found within. It is way too over the edge for me. TREES. I am so glad this is the CRADLE of so many religions and cultures that it can be desecrated in this fashion. TREES!

It's too depressing if it's true

Israel ran out all the foreign journalists.

Crimes like these are also the policy of the Israeli government:

http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article1840.shtml

Since the commencement of the ceasefire (which applies only to Palestinians) on June 29, Israeli soldiers and settlers have killed 17 people (including 7 children), wounded 437 (including 88 children), arrested 593 people, confiscated 4,457 acres of land for Jewish settlements, bulldozed 987 acres of farmland, destroyed 12,462 trees and destroyed or damaged 253 houses.

and sad.

is it possible to buy palestinian olives, olive oil, or similar agricultural products as a gesture of solidarity with the palestinians?

my story: i know some people... recently an Arab-American tradesman whom i know did a huge favor for a homeowner who happens to be Jewish-American. the J-A homeowner wanted to know what would be a suitable thank-you gift for the A-A... you can guess their respective political views, although of course they never talk politics.

i think a bottle of palestinian olive oil would make a great gift.

of course, i'd want it to be thru a reputable organization that has absolutely no ties to terrorism, that donates a reasonable percentage of its profits to genuine charity or development, and is fully audited.

i did a google search, and the best i could find was www.support-palestine.org . unf i don't see quite what i'm looking for there. can anyone here vouch for support-palestine.org , or suggest a different outfit?

duh, just had to do a little more searching... this looks pretty close to what i wanted...

jewish voice for peace

this one is also interesting, although i didn't see where one could actually buy from them...
grassrootsonline

thanks for posting the information.

but, can anyone vouch for the org "jewish voice for peace"?

are they a reasonable choice of middleman if i want to support the palestinian ARC's?

"esidents said" is not good enough for me. At least the reporter should have checked it out. However, I would not be surprised if it turned out to be true.

settlers are not reacting well to coming under PA control.

At least I hope Sharon does indeed re-route the fence so Ar'il is on the wrong side - taking 6% of the West Banl when the PA only offered 3% at Taba is already a bit of land theft - grabing enough to enclose Ar'il should not be allowed.

Ari'el won't be under "PA control". The IDF is indeed anticipating that the city won't be on the western side of the wall (in fact I posted the first info about it in I/P), but they've come up with an ingenious plan to get around that - a smaller section of the wall will be built seperately to enclose it off from the West Bank.

I wouldn't be surprised if they throw in a nice expansion of the municipal boundaries while they're at it either.

End result = land grab regardless.

the conflict in human toll is one thing. I have also become aggrevated with this assault on nature as well. I mean the bulldozing of groves of oranges, and trees, olives. I find that despicable the attack on the earth. I felt the same with the attack of antiquity as well in regard to the church of nativity. not for religious purposes but just it's antiquity.

It is bad enough the human life abuses but this disregard for the land and antiquity I find as disturbing. For me IF there is a God that is where God resides the most. Probably I am in the minority on this point as well.

Lets face it, people have differences and sometimes they resolve them in unmindful ways. It is ridiculous to call them "jewish" settlers simply because they happened to come from that faith. "Angry" settlers would have been better and less offensive.

For someone to suggest they religion had something to do with this is a farce and the kind of thing that turns me off to DU. Let's quit it with the anti-semetic stuff, Ok?

but let's be clear here. The term "Jewish" is used to differentiate them from the Palestinians. Since there are Israeli Arabs, to minimize confusion the term Jewish is used.

Because they certainly are Israeli. And I don't think that Jewish is anti-semitic in this context, assuming the story is true, and experience indicates it probably is. They are almost certainly Jewish, and almost certainly justifying it to themselves on the basis that it is their biblical land if my experience with the "settlers" as religious holds true.

While victims of the Holocaust certainly are entitled to special remedies in my opinion, those special remedies do not include oppressing other peoples.

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

lets make a very long list of ALL THE WORDS we don't like anymore and just cut them out of the vocabulary. What am I saying in America with teaching curriculum they are doing that already. A teacher in public schools can no longer use words like racism or racists or heretic.

People are biased. In instances that bias facilitates superiority which facilitates preordained possession of things (manifest destiny). Superiority bais facilitates hatred, which facilates violence which begets the same. Superiority gives license for a sequence of all of the above. It creates a reaction.

we cut out the word jewish in this instance than we cut out the word islamic on the side of the opponent and guess what we have? PEOPLE.

If we did that we would cut out the reasons and justifications for the conflict itself. hmmm. on that note ... well that is not a bad idea ....

hah... :crazy:

People dress up and re-enact the Civil War to celebrate it... My idea is to make Israel into a religious theme park. The residents would get paid simply to live and observe in their historical religious ways.

We could have mock suicide bombing and pretend insurrections.

All of this is Israel's history, so it should be preserved and celebrated. A tribute to Cain and Able for the ages.

Think of it in context of Disney's "It's a Small World" park.

This way, instead of getting either side to bend their will, they can each move forward in a mutually beneficial way to preserved and eternalize the hatred between these peoples, and the suffering of the innocent victims can end.

if you asked them (settlers) why they were there in the first place, the answer would boil down to "God gave this land to the Jews."

Lets face it, people have differences and sometimes they resolve them in unmindful ways. It is ridiculous to call them "jewish" settlers simply because they happened to come from that faith. "Angry" settlers would have been better and less offensive.

offensive? how dare you talk about "offensive". the livelihood of a Palestinian community is destroyed, yet somehow you manage to twist things so that the poor Jews (who were after all, only "angry settlers") are the victims.

the fact is, they WERE Jews, and that fact is quite relevant whether you like it or not.

but, here's a deal. i'll join you in calling for the ethnic identity of Jewish terrorists not to be reported, if the Israeli press will extend the same sensitivity to Arab and Palestinian terrorists. (but i wouldn't hold my breath waiting for that to happen.)

For someone to suggest they religion had something to do with this is a farce and the kind of thing that turns me off to DU. Let's quit it with the anti-semetic stuff, Ok?

how about if you quit with calling people anti-semitic when they're just telling the truth.

how can the truth be anti-semitic?

If reality has a liberal bias, then truth can be anti-semitic.

well than that means that liberals are under attack as well as leftist for that matter. You do know it is most currently envogue to vilify leftists these days as well. A good percent of leftists are also jewish so are they anti-semitic TOOOOOOOOOO:crazy:!

Go tell that to the Yesha council and see how much they laugh at ya.

You can't call them Israeli. They're not in Israel. They're there because "god gave them" the land. The roads they drive on are Jewish Roads, for Jews Only, hence the Jewish label is accurate.

:crazy:

Find me ONE ISRAELI who has the same objections to this article as you. There's a challenge. No, don't bother: they're aren't any.

The Israeli government needs to put a halt to such activities by its citizens.

The amen-corner must have a chubby by now...

What, are we cows now? Why not hoards? Or even a gaggle.
Ridiculous and stupid to burn trees. The settlers need to be forcibly restrained immediately.

That's almost as funny as you middle-eastern iceburg! :silly:


Israel acknowledges destroying some trees for security reasons, saying their squat, bushy profile provides good cover for snipers. Thousands of other trees have been bulldozed to make way for Israeli highways and settlements on what Palestinians say is illegally occupied land.

But Israelis aren't the only ones cutting down olive trees. With a fast-growing population, Palestinians are clearing land for their own roads, homes and businesses. St. Petersberg Times, November 2001

I was considering a satirical post that gave a security justification for cutting down the trees, and it turns out that that reason was the real one!

Does ANYONE believe this?

Just pick anybody from the amen corner in the United States. You'd be hard pressed to find anyone else though.

I should have posted "Does any reasonable person with a considerable amount of knowledge on the subject believe this?" Sorry, pro-Israel fanatics at AIPAC, you don't qualify.

I don't like the term amen corner, though. Pat Buchanan originally used the term, and my hatred for him overrides my hatred of Sharon and the extremist members of AIPAC.

Even the most dispicable wretch is right at least twice a day.

The term "Amen-corner" preceded Pat, and it will outlive him.

and likely more than that. Point taken and accepted. You're correct.

more props than I usually get...

or blowing up children. Which is worse? I think you know the answer.

what point do you have left to make?

Got any links to back that up?

You had a link to a HRW article about this, didn't you?

Yah, members of the IDF DO blow up children on purpose.

Yeah, HRW has said some stuff about it. I can't really go off googling right now cause my comp's dead and I've got a very limited time on this one I'm using right now, but I immediately thought of those children in the apartment building that the IDF bombed....

Violet...

but the killings in the apartment building are claimed to be justified by some due to the death of the militant. I'm looking for some info that will prove beyond reasonable doubt that members of the IDF has killed children with no immediate objective for Israel's security.

The nearest you are likely to find will be several incidents in which youths have been killed by riot slugs when in engaged in throwing rocks at soldiers: to my view, those soldiers were in no real danger, nor was the security of Israel, in such incidents. You will find a number of incidents wherein children have been killed during some reasonably legitimate operation, and a few imvolving cases of mistakenly directed fire against people working in fields near military positions, who were taken for infiltrators. There have been some tragic cases of delay at checkpoints. There have certainly been incidents where settler thugs have murdered children deliberately, but these are not serving soldiers. My old friend Mr. Karmadillo has below, in No. 39, presented materials that summarize the circumstances well enough.

counts. As you mentioned above, rock-throwing is not a security threat to Israel in the slightest. It couldn't be classified as strictly non-violent resistance, but it most certainly is less violent then gunfire.

Okay, are you referring to what the Israeli govt defines as a legitimate military operation? I just find it very difficult to define anything the IDF does in the Occupied Territories as a legitimate military operation...

Violet...

Is engagement of enemy combatants, wherever this might take place. Such engagement is legitimate action in a state of war, which in my view is the best description of the actual relation between the peoples of Israel and of Arab Palestine. It is certainly arguable that in some instances, the Israeli forces do not take sufficient care to minimize risk to enemy civilians during such operations, and for this cause, certainly, some can well take the view particular engagements therefore lack legitimacy.

That is terrorism and murder right there. There is absolutely no question about that (relatively minor) example.

Further, it would be remiss to not to point out that this is an area under MILITARY occupation. Virtually nothing Israel does is in any way "legitimate". It may be necessary, but that is a wholly different matter. The distinction is crucial and must be made.

In addition, there is no state of war between Israel and the Palestinians. The Palestinians are under military occupation and actions take place in that context. Calling it "war" gives Israel a free pass, since the best description is occupier and the occupied. That also has the advantage of being accurate.

BTW, returning the sentiment from an earlier thread, I'd like to say that your posts are (very much) appreciated in this discussion, but that won't stop me from saying that I really hope the phrase "enemy civilians" is simply an unfortunate choice of words on your part.

Let's generalise the principle to demonstrate my point:

Incident: U.S. troops shoot Iraqi's at a checkpoint in Falujah.

Comment: "It is certainly arguable that in some instances, the American forces do not take sufficient care to minimize risk to enemy civilians"

I assume there is no need for further comment.

though informal. There is currently a state of war in Iraq and in Afghanistan, and also one in Israel/Palestine. When a government and another institution are locked in violent combat, I would call it a war.

Warfare may be taking place between the state of Israel and some Palestinians but war between Israel and Arab Palestine is not. This isn't a factual question and there are arguments on both sides, but I think this is the position which best describes the situation.

Two reasons:

1. If war was taking place, Israel would bomb Sheik Yassin's house right now. It hasn't done that, because all GOI actions take place in the context of the occupation. That is the overarching structure as I accurately stated.

2. Language and words convey meaning. "State of war" does not accurately represent EVERY fact on the ground. "Occupied and Occupier" does, since the latter also allows for "warfare" to be taking place at the same time, within that context.

we seem to be arguing over essentially nothing but the correct usage of a certain word. Do you agree with the Magistrate and I that engaging enemy combatants, regardless of the location, is neccesary, because a state of war or occupation or whatever you want to call it exists?

See the post you replied to. To repeat:

"Virtually nothing Israel does is in any way "legitimate". It may be necessary, but that is a wholly different matter" (italics in original).

Whether or not some action of the GOI is necessary has to be addressed on a case-by-case basis, hence the "may be". It does not therefore follow that a necessary action is also a legitimate action. That is trivial.*

Also, I did not rule out that it is possible for Israel to take some action that is not only necessary, but also legitimate (and it has done that, on rare occasions, hence the "virtually" qualifier). Again, trivial. **


* example: The extra-judicial "liquidation" of a Hamas terrorist.
** example: The setting up of strictly military usage checkpoints in the WB to search for explosives.

in that case we agree.

We will probably have to agree to disagree in the matter, as you allow some room for.

The existance of a state of war between the two peoples seems to me the most accurate assessment of the actual state of affairs. The current occupation of areas once evacuated in favor of control by the Palestine Authority is but an incident of that war. A people certainly have the right to resist occupation, but have also an obligation to do so without commiting crimes of war. Similarly, a state has the right to use military means to secure the lives of its citizens, but has also an obligation to do so without committing crimes of war. Military occupation is not a crime by definition under international law, else there would be no regulations for its conduct under that law, and there are such. There are no regulations for how to burgle, though there are legal definitions of the act in varying degrees. What is illegal is annexation of conquered ground, deportation of its populace, maltreatment of its populace, and similar things, including moving your own people in. The settlement policy is illegal, by any definition.

If calling the state of affairs a war gives "a free pass" to Israel, it also gives one to the fighters of Arab Palestine. You make above a distinction between necessity and legitimacy, and that affords a good point for illustrating this. The fighters of Arab Palestine habitually hide themselves among their own civilian population, and conduct operations in close proximity to it. On a strict reading of the Geneva accords, this is a crime: it is conducting operations without regard for the possibility of harm to civilians. It is also a necessity of partisan warfare; such forces could not last a week without resorting to such tactics. Therefore it is not my custom to denounce this much, only to point out on occassion that it renders somewhat necessary engagement by Israeli forces that must similarly put at risk Arab Palestinian civilians. It would seem to me ludicrous to actually prosecute Arab Palestinian fighters as criminals on this basis. When Arab Palestinian fighters engage Israel soldiers, it is my practice to point out that these are legitimate acts, and that to call them "terrorism" is improper. Indeed, if some demolished bus could be shown to have contained several uniformed serving soldiers, that would seem to me comparable to an Israeli strike against a group of Hamas men in a traffic jam: the act of a combatant taking the best shot he could against enemy combatants operating among enemy civilians. That usage is my general one, since it seems to flow from the existance of a state of war, and at least is applied consistently: to an Arab Palestinian fighter, an Israeli civilian is an enemy civilian, and to an Israeli soldier, an Arab Palestinian civilian is an enemy civilian. Military forces, regular or irregular, are not supposed to take enemy civilians for the object of their operations. Your shifting of the language to Iraq is, to my view, still the best usage to describe the state of affairs, and certainly if the argument that insufficient care has been taken to minimize harm to enemy civilians is sustained, that is a crime of war.

To address the most specific matter you raised above: curfew killings had escaped my recollection while writing the initial comment. The enforcement of curfew by lethal force does lead to some killings of children. While curfew is a legitimate tool of partisan suppression, its mindless enforcement by lethal means, as does occur, is a murderous crime of war. Officers who give orders that envision the shooting of children abroad during such a clamp-down, and soldiers who obey those orders, ought to be prosecuted. Orders for such measures ought to be far more specific than they seem in many instances to be, and soldiers ought to be better trained in judging when lethal force is appropriate. It would seem to me that, reduced to the coldest calculation, even if some child should manage to kill a soldier who did not shoot, such an incident would bring the state of Israel more benefit than a dead child and a live soldier ever could.

Burning trees and taking land tends to lead to the continued killing of children, so I'm not sure your attempted bifurcation of the issue is helpful.

http://www.miftah.org/Display.cfm?DocId=1040&CategoryId=8

KILLING THE FUTURE: Children in the line of fire
September 30, 2002
By Amnesty International
Introduction

Since the beginning of the intifada, the Palestinian uprising against Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip which broke out in September 2000(1), Palestinian and Israeli children have been targeted in an unprecedented manner. In the period from 29 September 2000 to the end of August 2002, some 1700 Palestinians, including more than 250 children, were killed, and more than 580 Israelis, most of them civilians and including 72 children, were killed.(2)

The overwhelming majority of Palestinian children have been killed in the Occupied Territories when members of the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) responded to demonstrations and stone-throwing incidents with excessive and disproportionate use of force, and as a result of the IDFs reckless shooting, shelling and aerial bombardments of residential areas. Palestinian children have also been killed as bystanders during Israels extrajudicial execution of targeted activists, or were killed when their homes were demolished. Others died because they were denied access to medical care by the IDF. At least three Palestinian children have been killed by armed Israeli settlers in the Occupied Territories.

Israeli children have been killed in direct and indiscriminate attacks, including suicide bombings, and shootings by members of Palestinian armed groups and by Palestinian individuals who may not belong to armed groups(3), both inside Israel and in settlements or on roads leading to settlements in the Occupied Territories.

more...

the numbers are higher now in a years time BTW as of June 2003

snip

In 33 months of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, 2,414 people have been killed on the Palestinian side and 806 on the Israeli side.

The Palestinian figure includes at least 99 suicide bombers, about 60 suspected informers for Israel killed by Palestinian militants, 13 Israeli Arabs killed in pro-Palestinian riots, a British U.N. staffer, an American peace activist, one Italian and one British journalist, and a German resident of the West Bank.

The Israeli figure includes four non-Jews killed in Israeli army uniform, at least 14 foreign workers, two international observers — Swiss and Turkish — and a Greek monk killed in a roadside shooting.

http://www.chronwatch.com/content/contentDisplay.asp?aid=3289

The toll on children IS quite high and should be the best argument for good faith toward lasting peace and the addressing of understandable grievance. Is there nothing that will shake some sense into the General's (US as well)? Must this just go on and on? Violence from both sides correlates. It embraces each other and gives life for more violence. Must only one side be all bad and the other all good? That is another part of the problem you know.

The propagandists that insist on vilifying the whole of one side is another thing that gives the violence life. Apparently the violence must serve a purpose. It makes victory possible. And victory not peace seems INDEED the real aim here. So that one side can have it's history and the other side can be erased forever.

I have had enough of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It wears heavy on my sense of humanity.

That would have really been a copycat act.

but does not negate the countless offenses against innocence in the OT's (against peace activists and journalists from the foreign press), though some would have you believe there is no innocence in the OT's. One offense does not negate the other regardless of the fact that the IDF is commended for fighting terrorism, while the SO CALLED children in the OT's are being vilified and lumped together as ALL offensive. That does not obscure the fact that Sharon is way over the top and guilty of much unwarranted demolition, death of innocence, another Palestinian mass exodus, and destruction of the dignity and identity of a whole people.

Last week 20 innocent Israelis, including children, were deliberately targeted and murdered in the most barbaric fashion the terrorists could come up with, and there is more outrage over a bunch of freakin' trees (which can be replaced-unlike the lives lost last week) than there is over the bus bombing.

I guess I didn't get the memo that says destroying trees is such a crime against humanity.

"But Proudlib", the supporters of the Palestinians will say, "what about the innocent Palestinian deaths? Were is your outrage over that?"

The IDF as an organization does not sit around all day trying to think of new ways of killing innocent Palestinians and no one has ever demonstrated facts to the contrary. Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Al Asqua Brigades et al do. Unlike some here, I see the moral difference. I never knew it was progressive and liberal to equate organizations that exist to murder civilians in the most barbaric way possible with the organized armed forces of a sovereign nation that is fighting them, but I guess I'm out of the loop.

I'll take a pass on condemning what happened to some trees. The day the supporters of the Palestinians on this forum express the same outrage over the acts of the Palestinian terrorist groups, instead of making excuses for them or rationalizing what they do, is the day I'll jump in to condemn the assault on some trees.

I guess your indignation makes you more morally perceptive than others who see the conflict in historic context and from both sides, not just within the last 3 years or just from the bus bombing or just from the hundreds of dead and "so called" innocent Palestinian children vs the "more so" innocent Israeli children.

It appears your perception of this so called moral difference is formed by a lack of written proof or orders which gives allowances for IDF being a bit over zealous and trigger happy. All happy trigger fingers get rubberstamped under collateral damage or accident, or mistaken identity, investigations incomplete, pending or never carried out at all, and your moral indigation finds that AOK.

Perhaps you don't notice all the articles that give testament to the outward displays of IDF bigotry? Is it that those articles can be easily dismissed for one reason or another? How nice and tidy you have it all assessed and analyzed. And your argument and its indigation DOES work. For those unwilling to place the conflict in historic context, the human factor tends to take a backseat to the kind of moral indignation you have so eloquently articulated, at least that is the way it seems.

All the death and destruction should give voice to outrage, yes trees too, but it is true what you say, about outrage. It most certainly does appear lacking sometimes, and it is not only lacking from those in defense of the Palestinians, as your moral indigation seems to attempt to point out.

More than once when one reads through these discussions one falls upon comments that seem to indicate there is no innocence in the OT's, perhaps you haven't noticed that. And it is that opinion that is countered and can diminish the vocalizing of only outrage for the Israeli side, and vica versa.

Your sense of moral difference does seem to diminish the human and psychological factors at play here on both sides. It avoids the damage done to the palestinian side because of your focus on this moral difference, as well as it avoids historic context. What we see here is a cumination of 50+ years of history and 30 years of occupation.

YES PROUDLIB WHERE IS THE OUTRAGE CRIES BOTH SIDES!!

The IDF is the organized armed forces of a sovereign nation. It does not exist to murder innocent people. Hamas, Jihad, etc ARE organizations that exist to murder as many innocent people as they can unleash a bomb on. Color my vision blurry, but I see the difference. The IDF carries out operations to fight terrorists that plot and exucute barbaric acts of mass slaughter on the Israeli people. During these operations, soldiers use bad judgement, are trigger happy, and do things that are against military protocol and innocent people are harmed. The outrage I see each day on this forum is over what individuals in the IDF did, and nary a word is mentioned about why they were there in the first place. You, and the supporters of the Palestinians, make it seem as though IDF generals wake up one morning and say, "Hey, lets go attack so Palestinians for no good reason and put our soldiers at risk in doing so." No, that's not what happens. They are fighting those who seek to destroy a nation and take as many innocent civilians as they can with them. If you don't see the moral difference, then I'm sorry. I do.

Spare me the "both sides" crap. The day the IDF deliberately draws up a plan to murder as many civilians as possible, say blow up a bus or pizzaria, is the day I'll say that both share the blame.

spare me your moral indignation!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=124&topic_id=8994#9019

those supporters of the Palestinians DO express outrage.

It doesn't exist. Trust me, you could point out specific and numerous instances of outrage, but they can't see it. It doesn't "fit", so to speak, with their ideological blinders.

In this case, addressing the actual topics at hand means you're not condemning sucicide bombers "enough". Notice how "enough" is never defined, because it can't be defined. This is just a technique to close off discussions by demanding ritual condemnations which don't matter one jot anyway. The more intelligent members of the amen corner understand this sort of structual restriction on debate very well.

This isn't just a problem with the so-called "pro-Israel" people either. Notice the reaction when a thread is posted detailing say, a suicide bomb attack. You can guarantee somebody will try and take the discussion off on any kind of tangent other than sympathy with the victims, catching those responsible etc. That is not to say discussion of root causes isn't appropriate (that is needed in fact), but I've seen people saying Shin Bet is actually responsible while the bus is still smoking etc. That is extreme insensitivity IMO, not to mention fairly idiotic.

People who try to justify suicide bombings or who say that Sharon is in league with Hamas are as annoying as those "pro-Israel" fanatics who think that israel isn't the slightest to blame.

Your efforts, and your fairmindedness, are much appreciated in this discussion.

n/t

we have come to a crossroad where even insensitivity is measured within the battle or words. At this point neither side to varying degrees will comply. I feel this is because at all costs root cause is avoided. You pull that off the table neither side will ever express enough outrage. One side or another deserves concessions. The bus bombing gives rise to across the board condemnation of the palestinian culture which will not do either (foxnews outwardly did it as does most of the propaganda and the respin on the history) and therefore serves to every time negate the other side of the conflict. when this is mentioned it rankers ill will amongst the participants in the discussion.

If you do not recognize what is giving rise to the voilence on the LOSERS side there will not ever be enough outrage because both sides have to be reigned in. When you say both sides, that is not enough either. Even saying that, for those on one side or another, seems to suggest a negation and it is pointing out the negation that seems to suggest one condones one side or another.

Even Mr. Magistrates argument in the other thread states the obvious. Yes the militant factions are fighting within a common population throwing stones, but if not for the final status negotations this would not be so.

So even that statement, which bares some truth in and of itself, stands as justification on the side of the IDF (with no recognition of the corruption also evident) for something that at this stage is no longer justifiable. I say that, I look to be excusing the other side.

The catch 22 of dismantling the militants doesn't work if Sharon and the US insists upon implementing an assassination policy which insures the killing of bystanders WITHOUT addressing the original grievance of the Palestinian refugees. When those innocent bystanders are killed there is never enough outrage to satisfy those palestinian sympathetic who stand admidst almost total destruction of their land and their homes.

It's vicious, the circle. Now we have dueling reparation. IT is now beyond comprehension. The fine points blurred beyond recognition, so people hold fast their side of the arguments. The current policy OF MILITARISM DOESN'T WORK. It doesn't work. Only vilifying the resistance to the Occupation does not work if there is not equal condemnation of the fringe racism of current Israeli policy and the unconscious racism evident on the Jewish side feels free to point out the racism on the Muslim side with little consciousness. I say what I observe there is condemnation left over for me. The grievance of the Palestinian is robbed of credence. Their history rendered lies. On the other hand Outrage is required for Hamas calling for non-recognition of the existance of Israel. DO YOU NOT SEE HOW ONE SIDE MIRRORS THE OTHER?

TO negatate all that led up to this moment in time does not work. I say that, I am condoning palestinian militants. I say innocence on both sides is a victim of this insanity. I then encounter a post that informs me one side is more innocent than the other. and round and round. way too much has been allowed to be denied for way too long. If we can not reconcile arguments... what does that say for those entrenched in conflict all these years?

Even the "where is the outrage arguments" ring hollow amidst posts where a handful can not express outrage or sensitive to the other side, and this goes for posters on both sides not just one... and we are back to the "both sides argument" which aggrevates a handful of posters as well. Without a brutally honest assessment of cause and effect, which would include factoring in the outside authority of the Europeans that has aided and abetted this conflict, debate at this time will remain tit for tat. Is killing innocence morally despicable? Yes it is. Both sides agree on that. Yet the justifications work on both sides too, which further perpetuates the ire between both sides within the debate.

and even as I post I cringe because in just saying this I am sure I have yet not expressed enough outrage for one side over the other. The only truth I see now is THERE WILL NOT BE PEACE. That is the one and only truth evident to me at this time.

The killing of trees has brought more outrage than the killing of Jews. Oh, my.

read this thread. Ignore the VERY FEW dissenting opinions, and see how the major posters on this forum reacted to the attack on the Jerusalem bus on Tuesday.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=124&topic_id=6600#6606

I see little condemnation.

Resistance, Tinnypriv, Equinox, myself, vierundzwanzig, Quietstorm, and others all condemned the attack.

I realize the word colonization is not a very popular one when discussing IP. I did not entitle the chronology of events below. It is perhaps why I am placing it here within a thread rather than opening a new thread with the chronology. From one perspective people utlize the word from the opposing standpoint saying Israeli colonization is frowned upon. I am familar with the debate. That aside this is a chronology of events.

snip

The monthly report is an overview of events that have been reported by field workers and\or by one or more of the following sources: Al-Ayyam, Al-Quds, Alhayat Al Jadeeda, Ha’aretz, Jerusalem Post, Ministry of Information (MoI) and Palestinian Information Center (PIC). The text is not quoted directly from the sources but is edited for size and clarity.

snip

August 22, 2001

The Israeli bulldozers continue destroying a hundred dunums of land cultivated with olive and almond trees belong to the villagers west of Jenin, aiming to execute the separation plan between the Palestinian land and the green line along the separate boundaries. Moreover, the villagers said that the Israeli bulldozers digging a trench, its height about 2 m and its width about 2.5 m along tens of kilometers, in addition to damaged couples of meters besides the trench and dumped the almond and the olive trees with a heap of earth. The villager Mohamad Jaradat confirmed that the bulldozers, under the protection of occupied Israeli soldiers, swallowed scores of kilometer of agricultural village land without notice to their owners: Sabri Farid Abu Baker, Ibrahim Mohamad Jaradat ,Mohamad Tib and Mohamad Jaradat. Jadeeda

In Yatta village of Hebron District, two of Israeli bulldozers accompanied by Karmel colonists stormed land belongs to Mohamad Al Hazalin and commenced a wide bulldozing work. Moreover, the bulldozer constructed a new by-pass road that link between Karmel and Maon colonies, the villager Mohamad with his family tried to defend of their land but Israeli soldiers and the Jewish colonists attacked them. Ayyam

In Jericho District, a large number of Israeli army stormed Fasayil village whereas gave evicted and notice to a number of villagers: Ayash Daajnah, Odah Rashayda, and Jazeeya Ali Ghazal. Ayyam

The Israeli bulldozers, under the protection of Israeli police and army, dug a trench along the road that is near the military checkpoints that are erected on the Jerusalem District endurances to forbidden the cars and lorries and even the walkers from passing the region. In addition the bulldozers damaged and dug a deep trench on the tracks roads that lead separate the ”Nisabeh” buildings from the northern area and other Palestinian houses; see photo1 & photo2. Quds

snip

August 25, 2001

An Israeli decision to demolish 12 commercial shops in Mas-ha village market in allegation of dose not possesses permits. These commercial shops belong to:

1. Yousef Abu Safia
2. Mohamad Abu Shhadeh
3. Talal Odeh
4. Abed Al Aziz Ibrahim
5. Nemer Abed Al Rahman
6. Saleh Abu Safia
7. Jamal Alqarem
8. Zaher Rashedeh
9. Daoud Abed Al Haq
10. Sami Al Aqra’
11. Jamal Abu Safia

In addition to house owned by Mouhamed Issa which area is 160 m. Quds

In Hebron District, the Jewish colonists continue their harassment against Palestinian people. In Wadi Al Tufah the colonists of Tal Al Rumeida fired shots at Palestinians injuring one. In addition to other villagers, form another side the Israeli forces captured roof of one of Palestinian villagers called Saleh Rajeh Abu Shehab and transformed it into military barracks in Beit Furik village in Nablus District. Moreover, in Tulkarem District the Israeli bulldozers uprooted more than 200 olive trees from the land of Khaled and Majed Khresha that located to the east of Dahiyat Dhinnaba village as well as constructed a track road through the villagers land lead to ‘Izbat Abu Khameish and toward a military base near Avne Hefets colony. Quds

August 26, 2001

The Israeli Authorities delivered three demolition orders to three houses and a kindergarten under the pretext of building without permits, in Dhaher Al ‘Abed village of Jenin District .the houses belong to:

Ahmad Ghaleb ‘Amarneh

Helmi Abed Al Latif

Ghasan Sameh ‘Amarneh

While the kindergarten belong to the village council. Quds

In Qalqiliya District, the Israeli Authorities imposed curfew in Azun village, and also blocked the northern entrance of the village, which is the main entrance that link it within the District. Quds

The colonists of Tekoa poisoned heads of sheep, after sprayed chemical poisonous substances into the grazing area where located between the colony and Al Qab village south Al Fureidis village in Bethlehem District. The heads of sheep belonged to Farhan Hasan Al Salahat.Quds

August 28, 2001

In Nablus District, According to villagers from Beit Furik said that tens of Jewish colonists attacked the villager’s properties and burned scores dunums of agricultural land. Moreover the Israeli bulldozers destroyed villagers land cultivated with citrus trees and vegetable in Area called “Sufeen” east of Qalqiliya city Jadeeda

The Israeli soldiers fired at livestock pen that caused death of more than 15 heads of sheep in Rakhme village, Bethlehem District. Quds

The Israeli forces stormed the Abu Nujeim village in Bethlehem District and destroyed the water network as well as damaged part of Abu Nujeim school in addition uprooted more than 20 olive trees that belonged to the school. Quds

August 29, 2001

A group of Jewish colonists fired shots into a Palestinian car at Hizma – Jericho road, caused the death of 25 years old young man called Hedar Jadou’ Kanan from Hizma village (north eastern occupied Jerusalem) while he was traveling to his work and also his father and his brother were injured. Kanan’s father and brother reported that three Jewish colonists riding in a car opened fire at the Palestinian car and run away toward the Maale Adummim colony. Jadeeda ,Ha’aretz& PIC

The Israeli army occupied Palestinian house owned by Ibrahim Qasem Salim, which is located nearby the main road in Beit ‘Ur at Tahta west of Ramalllah city, that has placed under curfew for forth days consecutively. Jadeeda

August 30, 2001

In Jenin District the Israeli bulldozers uprooted scores of olive trees belonged to the villager Hamza Abu Al Rub (45 years old) from Jalbun village without prior notification. And also closed his land by blocks to prevent him from entry. Furthermore in Jerusalem District the Israeli forces set up new four military posts in Palestinian villages, which are overlooking the Givat Zeev colony and Modin colony west of Jerusalem. Several villagers said that military posts were established on houses in Tera, Beit ‘Ur At Tehta and Kharbatha Al Misbah villages Quds

http://www.arij.org/paleye/monthley/01aug/

That's new. Usually the Israeli government uses chainsaws or bulldozers to destroy the olive groves tended by Palestinians in the West Bank.