Will Donovan saw this photo on Reddit and decided to post it on Facebook. He saw the power of unarmed resistance against Israeli oppression, but ultimately focused on how so many Americans would sympathize with the terrorist, the occupier, under the assumption that the Palestinian is the terrorizer here:
if you can understand that 95% of americans look at this picture and feel more terrified of the man with the flag than the man with the assault rifle, then you will understand the root of the problem, the conceptual basis of racism (and its implicit …self-justification), and the reason behind american acquiescence to apartheid
He shares an exchange that ensued on his Facebook page over this point. It’s an interesting read.
[tarboush tip: Jillian]
Related posts:
- And Today’s Word Is…. Root Cause!
- Is the United States Pressuring Israel?
- Apartheid Airlines in Action
- Carter on Palestinian Prisoners
- CNN will publish anything the Israelis feed them
Well, the main problem with the assertion is "He saw the power of unarmed resistance against Israeli oppression". Palestinian resistance has NEVER been unarmed. So you start your thesis with a lie. Where can you take it from there, except into further falsehoods?
Posted by programmer craig | August 31, 2009, 4:41 pmhttp://www.palestinemonitor.org/spip/spip.php?art…
Posted by Sana | August 31, 2009, 7:41 pmSana, we've been through this before. Mixing violence with non-violence doesn't make a movement non-violent. In order for a movement to be non-violent, there has to be an absence of violence. It doesn't seem like a difficult concept!
Posted by programmer craig | September 1, 2009, 4:41 pmI think that what's at issue here is whether or not it's valid to treat all Palestinian resisters as violent because some are. It's sortof like saying (since spurious comparisons never go out of season here) that the 1950s-1970s black civil rights movement in the US was not non-violent because of the tactics of the Black Panther Party (and, for that matter, the Weather Underground). (PC, I'm not trying to pick on you, per se: it would be equally ludicrous to claim that black agitation was totally nonviolent because of MLK, ignoring the Panthers and the WUO). The reality of dealing with broad resistance movements is that they're rarely black and white, but rather are composed of diverse groups and individuals. You can't say that MLK advocated violence because H. Rap Brown did. And you can't say that all Palestinian protesters/resisters are violent because some are. Creating a false monolith is unhelpful.
Posted by Suddha | September 2, 2009, 4:12 amI'm merely pasting from Sana's link:
Non-Violence in Palestine – Past and Present
Despite the common mischaracterization of Palestinian resistance as wholly violent or radical, there is a long and rich history non-violent actions and campaigns, as well as a large number of contemporary ones. For instance:
In 1902, the inhabitants of three Palestinian villages – al-Shajara, Misha and Melhamiyya – held a collective peaceful protest against the takeover of 70,000 dunums (7,000 hectares) of agricultural land by the first European Zionist settlers.
In 1936 Palestinians held a six-month non-violent industrial strike against the British Mandate’s refusal to grant self determination to Palestine. The ultimate aim of the strike was to make Palestine ungovernable by anyone but the Palestinians themselves.
Fifty years later, in 1986, Hannah Siniora, then editor of the East Jerusalem Arabic Daily, called for Pales-tinian civic disobedience by boycotting Israel-made cigarettes. This led to a full-scale Palestinian boycott of Israeli soap, food, water, clothes and other consumer goods.
The 1987-1993 First Intifada was largely conducted non-violently. Palestinians held mass public demonstra-tions, refused to pay taxes, and sought out local alternatives to Israeli facilities. Community leader Mubarak Awad initiated olive tree planting on Palestinian land about to be confiscated by Israeli settlers. Israeli law prohibited any construction on land dedicated to growing fruit. Awad used non-violent resistance, and Israel’s own laws, to challenge the encroaching settlements.
Currently, and especially since construction of the separation Wall began on June 16th 2002, Palestinian villages across the West Bank have cooperated in non-violent resistance. The communities of Jayyous, Budrus, Bil’in, Ni’lin and Umm Salamonah have all non-violently resisted the Wall being built around them. Weekly non-vio-lent demonstrations against the Wall are held in the cities of Bil’in and Nihlin (north of Ramallah) which bring together Palestinians and Israelis, as well international activists.
Posted by Arayus | August 31, 2009, 7:49 pmIn 1936… The 1936–1939 Arab revolt in Palestine began. An early manifestation of the National revolt was the Palestinian general strike which lasted from April to October 1936.
The dissent was influenced by the Qassamite rebellion following the killing of Sheikh Izz ad-Din al-Qassam in 1935 as well as the declaration by Hajj Mohammad Amin al-Husayni of 16 May 1930 as 'Palestine Day' and calling for a General Strike on this day, following the 1929 Buraq (Western Wall) Uprising.
…in 1986… Aircraft Bombing in Greece, March 30, 1986: A Palestinian splinter group detonated a bomb as TWA Flight 840 approached Athens airport, killing four U.S. citizens.
The 1987-1993 First Intifada was largely conducted non-violently.
What about the second?
Posted by eagle007blogger | September 1, 2009, 3:46 amEagle, no one is denying that the Palestinian resistance has been completely non-violent (even Nelson Mandela's ANC engaged in violent struggle against Apartheid). However, the majority of Palestinian resistance to the theft of their land and the current occupation has been non-violent, this is a simple fact, get used to it.
Furthermore, in the second intifada just like the first intifada, many more Palestinians were killed than Israelis.
Do you really think you can say with a straight face that the Palestinians should just accept their ethnic cleansing without resisting?
Posted by Arayus | September 1, 2009, 5:24 amin the second intifada just like the first intifada, many more Palestinians were killed than Israelis
Israel is stronger. Imagine if Cuba decided to attack the United States… who do you think would have more casualties?
The Palestinians will always have more casualties if they try to have armed conflict with Israel. It doesn't work. That's why Hamas is so irrelevant. Fighting and war are not the answer.
Ethnic cleansing? Failing to allow the country of Israel to be destroyed and even having the nerve to fight back is ethnic cleansing? Ethnic cleansing means killing or removing people because of their race. (Removing Nazis from Poland or France was not racism against Germans!)
The Palestinian refugee crisis began once the Jews took the offensive in the war that raged in Palestine when the British Mandate expired. The first Arabs who left their homes did so on their own, expecting to return once the Jews lost or the fighting stopped. The Jewish mayor of Haifa begged Arab residents to stay; Golda Meir, then head of the Jewish Agency Political Department, called the exodus “dreadful” and even likened it to what had befallen the Jews in Nazi-occupied Europe. While Jewish atrocities — notably, the infamous massacre at Deir Yassin — were very real, apocalyptic Arab broadcasts induced further flight and depicted as traitors those who chose to stay behind.
The country needed room for Hitler’s victims, as well as for those Jews fleeing Arab countries. And it also had to protect itself against insurrectionists in its midst. The Arabs, it was said, had only themselves to blame for the upheaval: they’d started it. And, the Jews were only emulating the Arabs, who’d always envisioned a virtually Judenrein Palestine.
In May 1948, when the British left and Israel declared statehood – the armies of Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Iraq marched in. For all their numerical superiority, the Arabs were ill-equipped, inexperienced, unprepared. Some Arab leaders knew they were in over their heads.
Within five and a half months, they were crushed, militarily and psychologically. But for international intervention, their defeat would have been still worse; the Egyptian army would have been annihilated. Only King Abdullah of Jordan, with the best (British-trained) army and limited objectives (not to destroy the Jewish state, but to annex the West Bank), got what he wanted. Meanwhile, Israel grew beyond the partition lines, gained more defensible borders and — by destroying Arab villages — further reduced the Palestinian population.
Had the Israelis committed systematic ethnic cleansing, there would not be 1.4 million Arabs in Israel today. Of course, by promptly driving out their own Jews, the vanquished Arab leaders became the greatest Zionist recruiters of all.
Posted by eagle007blogger | September 1, 2009, 6:46 amEgypt mobilized forces (and called up reserves) against Israel in 1967 after receiving false intel from the Soviet Union that Israel was preparing to attack Syria. When Abdul Nasser learned that the intel was false, he could have drawn down his forces, but the Arab world had been whipped up into a frenzy about destroying Israel.
Nasser asks the UN to remove the UNEF from the Egyptian-Israeli frontier in Sinai, closes the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping, all the while broadcasting threats against Israel on radio and TV.
When pushed into a corner, Israel finally responded, and in the right way. Israel had to mobilize its men for defense, and its shops and factories were closed… the Israeli economy came to a standstill – it was in limbo until the situation was resolved.
Israel asked Jordan to stay out of the war (but Egypt and Jordan had signed a treaty unifying against Israel). Jordan attacked from the West Bank and East Jerusalem and used long-range guns to shell Tel Aviv. IDF troops move into the West Bank after the Jordanian army are given orders for a general retreat. Israeli forces took the Old City of Jerusalem.
Was this theft of land, or was it defense against an existential threat? Did Israel one day decide to go steal some land, for no reason?
Posted by eagle007blogger | September 1, 2009, 7:19 amWas this theft of land, or was it defense against an existential threat? Did Israel one day decide to go steal some land, for no reason?
yup
Posted by Will Donovan | September 1, 2009, 6:44 pmIsrael didn't just randomly decide to take some land one day…
The 1948 war left East Jerusalem and the River Jordan's West Bank under Jordanian control and the coastal Gaza Strip under Egyptian control.
In 1956, Israel captured the Gaza Strip and Egypt's Sinai peninsula. Israel was forced to leave the Sinai the following year and a United Nations Emergency Force (Unef) was deployed.
Tensions continued to rise and newly-formed Palestinian militant groups began cross-border raids with Arab support.
In May 1967, UN troops withdrew (at Nasser's demand) and Egypt deployed troops in the Sinai and Gaza.
In the 1967 war, Israel's forces captured the entire Sinai peninsula, the West Bank and Golan Heights.
Posted by eagle007blogger | September 2, 2009, 6:56 amSo, Arayus, I suppose you would claim that the resistance to occupation in Iraq has been non-violent as well? I'm pretty sure I've seen pictures of unarmed Iraqis protesting Americans at checkpoints, just like this photo Will used. And how about that shoe-throwing protest against Bush in Baghdad?
The real question here is why is Will trying to pimp a lie? Who is he trying to fool? There isn't anyone on this planet who would, with a straight face, describe Palestinian resistance against Israel these last 60 years as "non-violent". And that includes Will. So what's he on about? Propaganda only works when there are elements of it which are believable. That's not the case, here.
Posted by programmer craig | September 1, 2009, 4:48 pmi didn't say that americans would sympathize with the terrorist. i said that americans are terrified of the perceived terrorist even though the man with the gun is, in this case, the terrorizer.
and to 'progamer craig' – who gives a damn if the palestinian resistance is armed or unarmed – the man in this picture is unarmed. that's all that matters. but then again you made my case – it doesn't matter that the man has no weapon – you equate him with terrorism and palestinian resistance with armed terrorism and therefore you call me a liar. cute – you try to justify your racism by the assumed self-evidence that it doesn't matter if the palestnian in this picture is armed – palestinians are armed and therefore they are somehow dangerous. but you're wrong – whether or not armed resistance to oppression is justified, the sad thing is that the palestinian here is the scary one and the soldier is not – when there is zero basis for that equation.
but just to clarify in the face of what i said in my post – americans would look at this picture and sympathize with the *israeli* largely on the basis of that subtle racism of expectations.
Posted by Will Donovan | August 31, 2009, 10:31 pmThe security issue in Palestine is not a racial issue. Throwing up the race card is just a weak argument, in the glaring absence of anything else, to criticize people for having the nerve to defend themselves.
You say there is no basis for people to see the Palestinian as the scary one? Try telling that to the family of Shiri Negari .
Americans and most sensible people do not sympathize with the soldier over the Palestinian for subtle racial issues – the soldier is seen as doing his duty, protecting his country and citizens as he is supposed to do. The other man, looking very hateful, reminds that Israel has been under existential threat from Arabs since 1948 – Israel has been successful in defending itself from annihilation, and has had to defend against both wars and terrorist attacks from Arabs.
Posted by eagle007blogger | September 1, 2009, 3:59 amand to 'progamer craig' – who gives a damn if the palestinian resistance is armed or unarmed
Well, obviously you do, since you made it the cornerstone of your argument. Or am I missing something?
– the man in this picture is unarmed. that's all that matters.
All that matters, for what? The photo op? lol. Or maybe it's all that matters for the purpose of your ridiculous pontificating?
Posted by programmer craig | September 1, 2009, 4:54 pmlol you people crack me up.
hey when you want to come and teach children with me in sabra and shatilla, and you want to look those palestinian children in the eye and explain to them why they can't go home – why even though their grandparents still have the deed and keys to their family's house that they'd lived in for generations – then you can come judge.
in the mean time – the guy with the gun is an oppressor. the guy with the flag would like to have his people's land back, please. so what that he's arab and it's been 60 years and he's mad enough to yell about it – his people were there first. that's a fact. deal with it – just accept that you're a racist, and a coward, and you support torturers and murderers and occupiers and just deal with it. and be sick with yourself, but at least know you're being honest. don't make comments about the palestinian economy or resistance or 'soldiers and their responsibility' as if you know the slightest thing about it. because you don't.
i'll be waiting in beirut for you to take me up on my offer and come and learn something. in the meantime, enjoy your suv.
Posted by Will Donovan | September 1, 2009, 6:06 amThe guy with the gun is defending his people. I'm sure the guy with the flag would like to have some land back. (I wonder if after WWII some of the Nazis wanted Poland and France back?)
The Arabs tried to destroy Israel, and lost. See above posts. Then… the Palestinian people just continued to commit useless violence, creating the security problem.
That's not to deny the bad situation that the Palestinian people are in…. it is to say that there is a way out, a way forward, and that progress should be made instead of making excuses or denying the obvious facts.
Posted by eagle007blogger | September 1, 2009, 7:48 amhey when you want to come and teach children with me in sabra and shatilla, and you want to look those palestinian children in the eye and explain to them why they can't go home – why even though their grandparents still have the deed and keys to their family's house that they'd lived in for generations
Hey, Will Donovan, their grandparents have an average of 50 grandchildren. If the grandparents do get a right of return, what do you want to tell the 49 out of 50 kids who aren't going to be able to be welcome in that house, because that one kid inherited it and plans to keep it for his own wife and kids, and not his siblings and cousins? They are just SOL? Or are you going to tell them that it is Israel's responsibility to buy homes for them all?
Wouldn't you rather tell them something that isn't a lie?
Posted by programmer craig | September 1, 2009, 5:02 pmwhat sort of ridiculous argument is that.
how about you start with with giving back to people what belongs with them – then they can work it out on their own. of course it's not israel's responsibility to buy houses for people. it's israel's responsibility to do what's right and give back the homes and the land that they took.
Posted by Will Donovan | September 1, 2009, 6:42 pmIts the kind of argument put forth by our favorite trolls here at Kabobfest.
I hope your ready to deal with "racism" being used as a proper argument by these clowns, the complete distortion of history (ie. Eagles comparing Nazi Germany's invasion of Poland and France to the current Palestinian desire to live on merely 20% of their original homeland), and more racism mixed with conspiracy theories about "stealh jihads."
Posted by Arayus | September 1, 2009, 11:16 pmNo one was comparing the Nazi invasion of Poland or France to the Palestinian situation. I'll make it more clear:
It would be more accurate to imagine if some Nazis wanted back parts of Germany after they were defeated. Part of Germany was put under America and the Allies, and part under the Soviet Union. None of it was ever given back to Nazis… the same people lived there, but new governing authorities were put into place.
Let's talk about the West Bank. Jordan attacked Israel from the West Bank in 1967, so Israel defeated them and took the West Bank. Jordan's governor in Jerusalem, Anwar al-Hattib signed an official surrender.
So if the West Bank should be "given back" who should it be given back to? I'll tell you. A new governing authority of the people who live there. Israel is under no obligation to give it to anyone who would attack or be an enemy. Now do you understand?
What "racism" are you referring to?
Posted by eagle007blogger | September 2, 2009, 6:38 amYea, its true Jordan did attack Israel during 1967. This is after Israel invaded Egypt and Syria.
In that war Israel illegally annexed territory, in doing so it inherited a large group of people. Instead of giving those people citizenship or basic human rights it instituted a brutal military occupation over their heads. Furthermore, it began to move its own citizens into occupied territory (something that is illegal under international law).
Naturally, Palestinians got pissed off and began demanding that Israel respect their human rights. This evolved into the first intifada in 1987 where Palestinians simply demanded that either the Israelis end the occupation or grant them Israeli citizenship. By the early 90's the Israelis got exhausted by the constant turmoil of the intifada and AGREED to instead give the Palestinians their own state in the occupied territory so as to avoid the reality of a bi-national state.
So in effect the Israelis agreed to cede the occupied territories to create a Palestinian state and end the I/P conflict. However, instead of the occupation ending, it instead became far more severe. Settlers moved into the occupied territories at a rate far faster than they were during the intifada or any time preceding that, while the brutality of the occupation increased. Today, settlers continue to move into the occupied territories at a quicker rate than ever before, creating a situation that will make the formation of a Palestinian state impossible. This is despite the fact that there are rarely any Palestinian attacks coming from the West Bank.
Israel is now left with only a few solutions to the conflict:
1) Pull out all 500,000 settlers or the majority of them and allow the creation of a viable Palestinian state.
2) Agree to a bi-national state and give everyone = citizenship or the equivalent of that.
3) Ethnically cleanse the Palestinians.
4) Continue with the current apartheid framework.
"What "racism" are you referring to?"
How about this comment right here?
Eagle: "Most people who commit terrorism are not Arabs? What's the matter with you?"
You make racist statements like this all the time. You also made quite a few in your ramblings on this specific post. The fact that you can't understand why they are racist is the scary part.
http://www.kabobfest.com/2009/07/no-humour-all-ha…
Posted by Arayus | September 2, 2009, 7:35 amYea, its true Jordan did attack Israel during 1967. This is after Israel invaded Egypt and Syria and massed troops on the Jordanian border.
In that war Israel illegally annexed territory that never belonged to it. This annexation led to Israel inheriting a large group of people. Instead of giving those people citizenship or basic human rights it instituted a brutal military occupation over their heads. Furthermore, it began to move its own citizens into occupied territory (something that is illegal under international law).
Naturally, Palestinians got pissed off and began demanding that Israel respect their human rights. This evolved into the first intifada in 1987 where Palestinians simply demanded that either the Israelis end the occupation or grant them Israeli citizenship. By the early 90's the Israelis got exhausted by the constant turmoil of the intifada and AGREED to instead give the Palestinians their own state in the occupied territory so as to avoid the reality of a bi-national state.
So in effect the Israelis agreed to cede the occupied territories to create a Palestinian state and end the I/P conflict. However, instead of the occupation ending, it instead became far more severe. Settlers moved into the occupied territories at a rate far faster than they were during the intifada or any time preceding that, while the brutality of the occupation increased. Today, settlers continue to move into the occupied territories at a quicker rate than ever before, creating a situation that will make the formation of a Palestinian state impossible. This is despite the fact that there are rarely any Palestinian attacks coming from the West Bank.
Israel is now left with only a few solutions to the conflict:
1) Pull out all 500,000 settlers or the majority of them and allow the creation of a viable Palestinian state.
2) Agree to a bi-national state and give everyone = citizenship or the equivalent of that.
3) Ethnically cleanse the Palestinians.
4) Continue with the current apartheid framework.
"What "racism" are you referring to?"
How about this comment right here?
Eagle: "Most people who commit terrorism are not Arabs? What's the matter with you?"
The fact that you can't understand why this is racist is the scary part.
http://tiny.cc/IFwzp
Posted by Arayus | September 2, 2009, 7:38 amWhat about 1948? What if Israel had lost that war – instead of the Arab armies? How do you get to a bi-national state if you don't concede the right of Israelis to live where they do? How, if you do concede the right of Israelis to live where they do, do you deal with the claims of refugees? Do you move Ben Gurion Airport or Tel Aviv University to a new location because that's where Palestinians once had homes?
Posted by Steve | September 2, 2009, 7:46 pmSteve, every country in the Middle East signed on to the Arab Peace Initiative which states that all Arab countries and Iran would establish normal relations with Israel if Israel allows for the formation of a viable Palestinian state based on the 1967 borders. Even Hamas agreed to this.
All Israel has to do is allow Palestinians to have their own state on just 20% of their historic homeland. No one is even talking about the 48 borders anymore. However, Israel continues to move thousands of settlers into the West Bank, kills Palestinians on a daily basis, sets fire to their agricultural lands, destroys their infrastructure, and stagnates their economy. They also continue to push more and more Palestinians off their land to make room for Israeli settlers. This is ongoing as we speak.
Because of this situation, the two state solution is almost dead, and the only thing left is a one state solution. Do you really think 500,000 settlers are just going to leave? Most of them are probably going to stay in the West Bank, and if that's how Israel plans on addressing the situation, then they are basically saying that the West Bank is a part of Israel. If that is the case, then everyone living in the West Bank should be given citizenship rights, otherwise you have a situation known as apartheid.
Posted by Arayus | September 2, 2009, 10:14 pmhttp://www.fromoccupiedpalestine.org/node/798
Half a million seems a high number, but I won't dispute that figure. I will point out that a large percentage are not 'ideological settlers', but have moved because houses are less expensive in the West Bank. This has been a consistent pattern since the last 1980s (when the Shamir govt subsidized housing in the West Bank). I believe the question of the US providing 'economic incentives' to persuade non-ideological 'settlers' to leave has been on the table since Camp David. Netanyahu is clearly situated on the delusional end of right wing, so perhaps your contention about thousands of settlers is correct. I'd love to see actual, verifiable data to support your point.
It's great that Hamas signed the API, but since they don't formally recognize Israel's right to exist, it's a pretty easy argument for hawks in Israel (and their even more rabid US supporters) to argue that it lacks sincerity.
Have you actually researched the apartheid system, or are you speaking generically about a formalized system of racist economic exclusion and repression?
Posted by Steve | September 3, 2009, 1:28 amHalf a million is the accepted number, this includes settlers in East Jerusalem.
And yes, no doubt many of the settlers are living in the occupied territories for economic reasons. This however, does not mean that what they are doing is any less illegal. The fact that the Israeli government gives incentives to live in occupied territory is the reason they moved their in the first place.
However, now there are hundreds of thousands of settlers living in the West Bank, relocating them is not going to be an easy affair. Putting incentives to move settlers back into Israel proper "may work" but we have never seen even a hint of legislation from Israel that even indicates that they will move in this direction.
Furthermore, Hamas has not only signed the API, they agreed to the 2 state solution based on the 67 borders.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1035414.html
Removed their call for the destruction of Israel from their charter.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/jan/12/israe…
And publicly stated that they will end the practice of suicide bombing that took the lives of 300 Israelis.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/apr/09/israe…
This is on top of the fact that Hamas has consistently stated that they will recognize Israel only when Israel officially establishes its borders.
This is the opinion of the most extreme mainstream Palestinian group. Every major Palestinian group has agreed to the 1967 borders as a basis for a full peace with Israel. All Israel has to do is end the occupation, and the conflict will be over.
Posted by Arayus | September 3, 2009, 3:51 amAnd Israel will not agree to this because…?
Posted by Steve | September 3, 2009, 2:17 pmThat's a very good question.
Most honest commentators on the conflict believe that Israel wants to annex the West Bank and ensure it has access to its rich agricultural land and aquifers. The entire peace process game its playing is merely a charade to establish more time to move even more settlers into the occupied territory so that when a "peace" must finally be made, the so called "facts on the ground" will ensure that Israel gets to keep as much of the West Bank as possible.
The Palestinians in the meantime are being squeezed into smaller and smaller ghettos, while almost all of their best land and most of their aquifers have been forcefully taken away from them and given to illegal settlers. This activity is subsidized with American tax payer dollars. Also, donations to settlers groups from private groups counts as a tax deductible in the United States.
Posted by Arayus | September 3, 2009, 4:59 pmAnd would you say most Israelis agree or disagree with this settler agenda?
Posted by Steve | September 4, 2009, 1:06 amAre those mistaken ideas the reason why the Palestinians celebrated 9-11?
Posted by wake-up | September 8, 2009, 5:36 pmYou want to cite conspiracy theories? How about the one where the Israelis were dancing in the streets right when 9/11 happened?
http://technorati.com/videos/youtube.com%2Fwatch%…
Posted by Arayus | September 8, 2009, 8:45 pmAll Israel has to do is allow Palestinians to have their own state on just 20% of their historic homeland.
Centuries before there were ever Arabs in [what is now called Palestine] it was the homeland of the Jews.
Posted by wake-up | September 8, 2009, 5:35 pmYea, and prior to it was the "homeland" of the Caananites.
When the Caananites begin demanding their land back, I'm sure Israel will be more than happy to give it back to its original owners. =P
Posted by Arayus | September 8, 2009, 8:57 pmMost terrorists ARE Arab. It's a fact. That not any more racist than most Nazis were German.
Most terrorists and terrorist groups are Arab. Sure there are other ones like ETA and the IRA.
Not all Arabs are terrorists, but most terrorists are Arab. Just like not all Germans were Nazis, but most Nazis were German, but not all (for example, some were Arab )
Palestinians got pissed off and began demanding that Israel respect their human rights
That's right. But remember that Palestinian fighters forgot Israeli human rights when they tried to destroy Israel in '48 and '67 and with their guerrilla attacks and terrorism.
Israel is now left with only a few solutions to the conflict
It is the Palestinians who have run out of options – they are on the losing end. They must continue to develop a legitimate government and move this process forward.
You need to read this post again. And then this one
Posted by eagle007blogger | September 8, 2009, 7:00 amPalestinians didn't participate as an army in 1948 or 1967 Eagle. They were ethnically cleansed from their lands simply because they didn't fit a certain "criteria."
And, for the record most so called terrorist groups are not "Arab." I know your a racist, and that makes it difficult for you to understand this concept.
"It is the Palestinians who have run out of options – they are on the losing end. They must continue to develop a legitimate government and move this process forward"
Please tell me how you would create a legitimate government while the area you are supposed to govern is under a brutal military occupation by one of the worlds most powerful armies.
Posted by Arayus | September 8, 2009, 8:49 pmThe Palestinians DID fight against Israel in 1958 and 1967. If you actually didn't know that, you are woefully uninformed.
Not all fought… as we all know, many did not fight, and many fled.
In 1947 the Palestinians attacked Israel. when the British Mandate expired, civil war raged in Palestine. On paper and on the ground, the Palestinians had the edge: there were twice as many of them, they occupied the higher altitudes and they had friendly regimes next door. But isolated and outnumbered as they were, the Jews were far better organized, motivated, financed, equipped and trained than their adversaries, who were so fragmented — by geography and tradition and clan — that the term “Palestinian” was either unwarranted or at least premature. The war became a rout once the Jews took the offensive, and the Palestinian refugee crisis began (if “crisis” can be used to describe anything so chronic).
Transfer — or expulsion or ethnic cleansing — was never an explicit part of the Zionist program, even among its more extreme elements.
In 1948, Israel declared statehood and the armies of Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Iraq marched in. Again, for all their numerical superiority, the Arabs were ill-equipped, inexperienced, unprepared. Some Arab leaders knew they were in over their heads.
Had the Israelis committed systematic ethnic cleansing, there would not be 1.4 million Arabs in Israel today.
1947–1948 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine READ THIS ARAYUS
After the 1948 war, Palestinian fedayeen guerrillas attacked Israel.
Did you know that before the 1967 war, Syria harbored and trained Palestinian commandos… their aim was to destroy the Jewish state. And yes, those Palestinians as well as others others fought in the 1967 war.
Most terrorist groups in the world today ARE Arab! You might as well be arguing that the sun doesn't exist. What is the matter with you? Are you living in some sort of denial, like an alternate reality?
And no, I am not a racist – I am pointing out a simple fact. The fact that you are denying the truth suggests racism or brainwashing or something wrong.
I am not here to lie to you Arayus. It seems like you actually believe some of these mistakes – and that is not good – so discovering what really happened is a good thing for you… although you may find out some things that disturb you, as you were obviously lied to by someone or by what you read.
Posted by eagle007blogger | September 9, 2009, 6:49 amEagle, making up bullshit doesn't help your argument even slightly.
Once again, I know that being a racist clouds your judgment. But most terrorists are not Arab, its something you will eventually understand when you actually travel the world a little. I know your full of conspiracy theories and racist thoughts just like your easily debunked belief that "all the wars in the world are started by Muslims."
Furthermore, linking people to Wikipedia on the internet, when it comes to political and historical discussions makes you look like even more of a retard. (It also doesn't help that your links didn't really prove anything you had to say).
Anyway Eagle. Heres the real history. Europeans of the Jewish faith came to Palestine with the intents of creating their own country in the Middle East. Unfortunately for them, there was already a thriving community of more than a million people living there. This prompted them to kick most of the Palestinian people out, and forced the survivors to live under martial law for 2 decades and then forced them to live as 2nd class citizens.
Naturally, the Palestinians those who were ethnically cleansed and those few who managed to stay behind did not like the situation. Of course like most normal human beings they resisted in whatever ways they could.
Later in 1967, Israel launched a surprise attack on Egypt and Syria, and captured even more territory. The people in these territories were forced to live under a brutal military occupation, while Israel moved Jewish settlers onto their most valuable land and appropriated all the water for themselves, forcing the Palestinians to survive on 1/10 of the water of a regular Israeli. Of course the Palestinians did not like this. (nor did they like being forced to sit at check points, get killed randomly, be imprisoned for no reason, have their infrastructure destroyed randomly, nor did they enjoy paying taxes to the Israeli government when their money was being used to build even more settlements).
Its been 60 years since the first ethnic cleansing and another 40 years since the occupation began. Despite all these injustices, today's Palestinians are willing to accept a Palestinian state on just 20% of their historic homeland (yes even Hamas), or to live in a bi-national state as equals to their Jewish counterparts.
Israel has continued to reject both solutions and insists on continuing to move settlers into the West Bank, and intensifies its blockade of the Gaza strip.
And this is where we are today.
Posted by Arayus | September 9, 2009, 7:19 amSpouting your brainwashing while ignoring facts and refusing to read really doesn't prove anything, other than you seem uncapable of handling the truth .
Did you even notice that what you asserted was wrong?
Posted by eagle007blogger | September 9, 2009, 7:34 amSpouting your brainwashing while ignoring facts and refusing to read really doesn't prove anything, other than you seem incapable of handling the truth .
Did you even notice that what you asserted was wrong?
Posted by eagle007blogger | September 9, 2009, 7:34 amPalestinian state 'in two years'
Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Salam Fayyad has set a two-year target for the creation of a Palestinian state, in a speech in Jerusalem.
Israel PM 'may back two states'
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu may be prepared to endorse a peace process leading to an independent Palestinian state, his defence minister has said.
US presses Israel over two states
US Vice-President Joe Biden has said Israel must back a two-state solution to the conflict with the Palestinians.
Posted by eagle007blogger | September 9, 2009, 6:53 amThe 1948 war left East Jerusalem and the River Jordan's West Bank under Jordanian control and the coastal Gaza Strip under Egyptian control.
In 1956, Israel captured the Gaza Strip and Egypt's Sinai peninsula. Israel was forced to leave the Sinai the following year and a United Nations Emergency Force (Unef) was deployed.
Tensions continued to rise and newly-formed Palestinian militant groups began cross-border raids with Arab support.
In May 1967, UN troops withdrew (at Nasser's demand) and Egypt deployed troops in the Sinai and Gaza.
In the 1967 war, Israel's forces captured the entire Sinai peninsula, the West Bank and Golan Heights.
Posted by eagle007blogger | September 2, 2009, 6:51 amhow about you start with with giving back to people what belongs with them – then they can work it out on their own
When an enemy is defeated, the land is not just given back to the people so they can "work it out on their own". A new governing authority is created, and jurisdiction turned over to that authority – and there is no obligation to turn it over to an enemy or potential enemy.
And that has been the main problem of the Palestinians, hasn't it, being able to create a government.
Posted by eagle007blogger | September 2, 2009, 6:43 amSo if the Palestinians create an army and take back their homeland would that mean Israel has no right to the land?
So your basically advocating armed resistance? In your world might makes right?
Posted by Arayus | September 8, 2009, 8:51 pmWow. Great pic. And, these negative comments just further prove your theory. No matter WHAT, they will think of the Palestinians as the terrorists. Even with clear proof in front of them. Can we say thick-skulled? Mhmm..
Posted by AmnaB | September 1, 2009, 6:14 amEven with clear proof in front of them.
So, any Arab can carry a Palestinian flag up to an Israeli soldier and get his picture taken, and that is "clear proof" of the non-violent nature of Palestinian resistance?
Can we say thick-skulled?
Funny… I was just thinking the same thing.
Posted by programmer craig | September 1, 2009, 5:04 pmi know AmnaB it's nuts. they read me say 'it's racist to be calling this unarmed man a terrorist just because you see that he's pissed and arab' and then they say 'we're not racist but we see this angry arab dude and we call him an arab terrorist because that's just what he is. but we're not racist.'
Posted by Will Donovan | September 1, 2009, 6:19 amThe man with the gun is not a terrorist. Soldiers have the responsibility of protecting Israeli citizens from attack, this is not terrorism.
The unarmed man in the picture appears the same as many who have detonated hidden explosives under their clothing, around their waist, ect. Yet you ask how the Israelis have the nerve, the gall, the sheer despicable arrogance to seek to protect themselves?
Perhaps the indignant unarmed man is asking how the dare the soldier take security measures, when those measures have the consequence of inconveniencing him! His life is made more difficult by the silly little need to protect people!
The "power of resistance" against Israel? What has it accomplished? Things sure are working out well with that. Meanwhile, it's actually time to start building the Palestinian economy – improving the standard of living is the critical thing, including making things more secure.
Posted by eagle007blogger | September 1, 2009, 3:26 amEagle, why are Israeli soldiers on Palestinian land? Perhaps you should ask yourself that question.
And you have the gall to say that Palestinians need to improve their economy? How are they supposed to do that with a brutal military occupation over their heads, hundreds of checkpoints and roadblocks splitting their land into pieces, angry settlers rampaging and burning their farmlands, while a separation wall continues to steal more land from them? This isin't even taking into account the random arrests, assassinations, and murder committed by the IDF against the Palestinian population. Do you really think the Palestinian people just dont want to improve their economy? That its fun for them to be poor? that they do it on purpose?
Are you on complete retard today?
Posted by Arayus | September 1, 2009, 5:29 amwhy are Israeli soldiers on Palestinian land?
See above posts about that.
Palestinians DO need to see their economy improve. They can work together with the international community and Israel… things are already taking place in the West Bank. You see, how can you open up everything as long as there are those wanting to take advantage of any opportunity to get arms and attack? So that's another reason why the security issue is so crucial – its stifling economic activity.
Economic growth is important – when people can make a good living and see their lives get better, all things improve. Poverty and desperation are the big cause of extremism, hatred, and all that.. how do you heal that? With economic growth.
By the way, most of the laborers working on the settlements in the West Bank are Palestinians. I was listening to an interview on BBC World Service with one guy, a student who worked on settlement construction to pay for his schooling… he said that he, and many Palestinians, would like to see a freeze on construction even though they would lose their jobs. That's sort of understandable I suppose.
But it makes you realize how important jobs are. More jobs, more economic activity, more trade, and less of the rockets and screaming about destroying Israel.
Posted by eagle007blogger | September 1, 2009, 7:38 amThis isin't even taking into account the random arrests, assassinations, and murder committed by the IDF against the Palestinian population.
These aren't just random, and they aren't against the entire population. Palestinian groups that support and carry out politically-motivated acts of violence have included Hamas, the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO),the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Fatah, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine – General Command (PFLP-GC), the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and the Abu Nidal Organization.
Posted by eagle007blogger | September 1, 2009, 7:40 amThe security problem still exists today…
take a look at the charts on this page to see some statistics.
Given these facts, what should the Israelis be doing if not taking security precautions???
Posted by eagle007blogger | September 1, 2009, 7:56 am"The "power of resistance" against Israel? What has it accomplished?"
When we wipe Israel off the face of the Earth, we shall see who has the last laugh!
It will happen and I hope you and I are alive to see it happen.
Posted by A Dee Barakat | September 1, 2009, 8:08 pm"Yet you ask how the Israelis have the nerve, the gall, the sheer despicable arrogance to seek to protect themselves?"
By your logic Hitler was right since he saw himself as the protector of his people. Zionists are just EVIL stoopid!
Posted by Chauncey | September 1, 2009, 9:21 pmHow do you know the Palestinian man went up to the Israeli? The way I see it is the Palestinian was protesting, clearly unarmed, and the Israeli with the gun went to disrupt the protest. Because let’s face it, you’re not exactly going to go to a guy with a gun and shout in his face (unless provoked).
Posted by abcd | September 1, 2009, 6:06 pmWell, neither one of us can know for sure what happened in that photo, but as a former infantryman in the US Marines I can tell you that is not the way troops approach potential hostiles.
Posted by programmer craig | September 1, 2009, 6:22 pmA good observation – I think this is also an appropriate place to note, if only in passing, that the question of offensive/defensive stances is crucial to thinking about the security dilemma facing a soldier manning a checkpoint in a conflict in which suicide bombers are being employed. Everyone is a potential hostile. In such a situation, why would approach them in the first place unless necessary (and probably, as you correctly point out, not what happened here).
Posted by Suddha | September 2, 2009, 4:19 amP.S. The point i'm trying to make is you don't know what happened since you were not there on the ground at that point in time to witness anything. Its easy to jump to conlusions, isn't it.
Posted by abcd | September 1, 2009, 6:16 pmYou are jumping to conclusions. We don't know exactly what is happening in that snapshot of a moment in time… but we know the context of the whole thing, don't we?
Posted by efg | September 2, 2009, 2:42 amgreat pic. thanks for posting.
Posted by aideh | September 1, 2009, 9:59 pmhttp://www.maannews.net/eng/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=2…
Posted by Steve | September 1, 2009, 10:21 pmThe man with the flag is yelling "why are you so worried about stopping a few suicide bombers?"
To which the soldier was heard replying, "hey just doin my job buddy"
Posted by goonie | September 3, 2009, 9:48 pmThat I don't know the answer to. However, based on recent polls it seems like the majority of Israelis are against even a settlement freeze. However, this does not mean that they are against the "settler movement."
Also, based on my experience in Israel and the West Bank, I came across Israelis that were all about keeping the settlements, Israelis who were largely apathetic to the entire enterprise, and some who were actually clueless as to what was going on in the West Bank. However, my experience with a few dozen Israelis does not constitute a scientific poll in the least.
Posted by Arayus | September 4, 2009, 5:53 am