So why do people hate Israel?

[MontyB]

NEVER ?

From your beloved The Guardian:

Moments later, Mohammed is dead and his father severely wounded

Or what about this (from The Independent) : "...Abu Rahma, the freelance cameraman who shot the scene, of lying when he told an investigation a month after the incident that, “I can confirm that the child was intentionally and in cold blood shot dead and his father injured by the Israeli army.” ..."

Look very good at the picture. The father is severely wounded yet no bulletholes nor any blood is to be seen. It is FAKE

Ah good to see the training courses are paying off with new arguments.

So your contention is that everyone that is shot bleeds profusely?

Because it seems medical opinion does not always agree with you...
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica][FONT=Arial,Verdana][FONT=Arial,Verdana]Why Gunshot wounds may not bleed profusely.
Remember gunshot wounds are serious. Just because they may not bleed profusely it doesn't mean you are out of the woods yet.
- Entry and exit wounds are often small.
- Bullets rarely transect or sever major arteries and blood vessels
- Surrounding tissue acts as a barrier to blood loss
- As blood pressure falls, bleeding slows.

[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]Now I am sure we could all jump on the internet and find literally thousands of photo's of people killed by gun fire that are not lying in big pools of blood so I don't think we need go that far, how about we accept the comment as fact and stop trying to obfuscate the discussion with Hollywood science.[FONT=Arial, Helvetica][FONT=Arial,Verdana][FONT=Arial,Verdana]
[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]
Incidentally what is that on the boys hand, it appears stained (not skin colour) between the palm of his hand/base of his thumb and the cuff of his shirt, the colour also extends along the chin line it may just be a shadow and it may not be.
I would also draw attention to the kids somewhat unnatural foot position would lead me to think something is up as that would not be a comfortable position to be in for any length of time and kids are notoriously hard to control when they are not comfortable.[FONT=Arial, Helvetica][FONT=Arial,Verdana][FONT=Arial,Verdana]


[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]

 

[VDKMS]

Ah good to see the training courses are paying off with new arguments.

So your contention is that everyone that is shot bleeds profusely?

Because it seems medical opinion does not always agree with you...
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica][FONT=Arial,Verdana][FONT=Arial,Verdana]Why Gunshot wounds may not bleed profusely.
Remember gunshot wounds are serious. Just because they may not bleed profusely it doesn't mean you are out of the woods yet.
- Entry and exit wounds are often small.
- Bullets rarely transect or sever major arteries and blood vessels
- Surrounding tissue acts as a barrier to blood loss
- As blood pressure falls, bleeding slows.

[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]Now I am sure we could all jump on the internet and find literally thousands of photo's of people killed by gun fire that are not lying in big pools of blood so I don't think we need go that far, how about we accept the comment as fact and stop trying to obfuscate the discussion with Hollywood science.[FONT=Arial, Helvetica][FONT=Arial,Verdana][FONT=Arial,Verdana]
[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]
Incidentally what is that on the boys hand, it appears stained (not skin colour) between the palm of his hand/base of his thumb and the cuff of his shirt, the colour also extends along the chin line it may just be a shadow and it may not be.
I would also draw attention to the kids somewhat unnatural foot position would lead me to think something is up as that would not be a comfortable position to be in for any length of time and kids are notoriously hard to control when they are not comfortable.[FONT=Arial, Helvetica][FONT=Arial,Verdana][FONT=Arial,Verdana]


[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]

Let's have a look at the wounds. The father, it was claimed, had multiple gunshot wounds.

Dr Ahmed Ghadeel of the Al-Shifa Hospital said Jamal received multiple wounds from high-velocity bullets striking his right elbow, his right thigh, and several locations in the lower part of both legs; his femoral artery was also cut.​

If your femoral artery is cut you can lose consciousness in about 30 seconds for the average adult male and death in about 3 minutes if the bleeding is unrestricted and you lie in a pile of blood.

from Ma’an News

Israeli troops shot a protester named Ahmad Salem Deeb in his femoral artery on Wednesday and he died of blood loss in the hospital.

compare his body with that of Jamal Al Durrah.

About the boy.

Dr Mohammed Tawil of the Al-Shifa Hospital said the boy had a serious injury to his abdomen, and that his bowels were lying outside his body.​

His bowels lying outside his body? Because of a high speed bullet (5.56mm?)?

This is a lie or it was another boy.

And how do you explain the magic appearance of blood a day after the incident?

And why is there no video or still photos – despite the numerous journalists at the scene – of the boy being carried away in a stretcher, or being loaded onto an ambulance?

I can understand your comment above if it was about one shot, but not multiple ones and certainly not when an artery is hit.

 

[zhaldev]

Fcuk the Israel, you and your people have blood of Palastines on your hands.

and you have blood of Tibetans on your whole body.
I think this thread will be on till the destruction of history.

 

[MontyB]

Let's have a look at the wounds. The father, it was claimed, had multiple gunshot wounds.

Dr Ahmed Ghadeel of the Al-Shifa Hospital said Jamal received multiple wounds from high-velocity bullets striking his right elbow, his right thigh, and several locations in the lower part of both legs; his femoral artery was also cut.​

If your femoral artery is cut you can lose consciousness in about 30 seconds for the average adult male and death in about 3 minutes if the bleeding is unrestricted and you lie in a pile of blood.

from Ma’an News

Israeli troops shot a protester named Ahmad Salem Deeb in his femoral artery on Wednesday and he died of blood loss in the hospital.

compare his body with that of Jamal Al Durrah.

About the boy.

Dr Mohammed Tawil of the Al-Shifa Hospital said the boy had a serious injury to his abdomen, and that his bowels were lying outside his body.​

His bowels lying outside his body? Because of a high speed bullet (5.56mm?)?

This is a lie or it was another boy.

And how do you explain the magic appearance of blood a day after the incident?

And why is there no video or still photos – despite the numerous journalists at the scene – of the boy being carried away in a stretcher, or being loaded onto an ambulance?

I can understand your comment above if it was about one shot, but not multiple ones and certainly not when an artery is hit.

Your argument is not a valid one as no two shootings are alike therefore discussing the second shooting is pointless other than to show a trend.

I would also point out that your response is self defeating as I suspect most people would have little difficulty in recognising that a nation that would use live rounds on a protestor would have little issue using them on a kid.

But if I am to believe the report you posted I cant see anything there that the picture can not support, it says his femoral artery was cut, define his definition of a cut does it mean cut through or half way or nicked and the kid is laying on his father so the wound location is covered no one can tell from that picture.
Further to that it depends on the cut itself if it is a straight cut then the body can compensated for that if it is a cut along the artery it cant compensate as well so your 30seconds to 3 minutes is only in the case of a severed artery in the right location.

The picture given appears to have been taken from across the road or as the cameraman states about 15 meters and it is taken at a low flat angle so you are not going to see what is on the ground but given that the road/path seems to slope down toward the barrel (based on the angle of the brickwork) I would expect any blood to flow in that direction.

So my conclusion would be that there is not enough proof based on that picture to prove or disprove the case however there are a few things that go beyond the photo:
1) If Israel were the saints you want us to believe they are children and civilians would never be in a position where a photo like that could be believed.
2) There are enough provable offenses by the occupation forces that make it possible to say that the photo may be real.

Therefore I would suggest that in this case Israel is being judged as much by the weight of evidence based on past actions as it is on information available in that picture so whether this happened or not is largely immaterial which is what I mentioned in the first line where I said it could only be used to determine a trend.

 

[udaka]

yeah, if you want know the truth, I tell you the Chinese killed 10 millions Indians in 1962s' war. are you satisfy?

And "elite" government of India killed more Indians than foreigners. It prefer use hundreds of billion dollars on military instead of feed their hungry people.

With 230 million Indian people under-nourished, the country awaits some comprehensive policy intervention from the Indian government to tackle this haunting crisis.

and you have blood of Tibetans on your whole body.
I think this thread will be on till the destruction of history.

 

[zhaldev]

We have to spend billions on defense because we have two very good neighbors who you can trust blindly.
And second thing we accept the facts and are working regarding poverty and upbringing the poor people into middle classes.

I don't get it what you said about Elite Indian govt killed more Indians...This may be your govt run news channel have brainwashed you about.

We accept our mistakes if made unlike you.Who killed innocent people and shamelessly still doing it.

 

[VDKMS]

Your argument is not a valid one as no two shootings are alike therefore discussing the second shooting is pointless other than to show a trend.

Never has someone been shot multiple times without bleeding and certainly not when an artery is hit.

I would also point out that your response is self defeating as I suspect most people would have little difficulty in recognising that a nation that would use live rounds on a protestor would have little issue using them on a kid.

You forget one thing, it came from a Palestinian news agency so the "protester" might as well have been an attacker or a rival family member during a feud or just a bystander that was hit when jihadis fired their guns in the air. Ever wondered how many people have been killed that way? What goes up , comes down.

But if I am to believe the report you posted I cant see anything there that the picture can not support, it says his femoral artery was cut, define his definition of a cut does it mean cut through or half way or nicked and the kid is laying on his father so the wound location is covered no one can tell from that picture.
Further to that it depends on the cut itself if it is a straight cut then the body can compensated for that if it is a cut along the artery it cant compensate as well so your 30seconds to 3 minutes is only in the case of a severed artery in the right location.

No blood was found after the incident, it magically appeared the next day.

The picture given appears to have been taken from across the road or as the cameraman states about 15 meters and it is taken at a low flat angle so you are not going to see what is on the ground but given that the road/path seems to slope down toward the barrel (based on the angle of the brickwork) I would expect any blood to flow in that direction.

Blood is thicker than water, so the slope should have had a steeper angle to run towards the concrete barrel.

So my conclusion would be that there is not enough proof based on that picture to prove or disprove the case however there are a few things that go beyond the photo:
1) If Israel were the saints you want us to believe they are children and civilians would never be in a position where a photo like that could be believed.
2) There are enough provable offenses by the occupation forces that make it possible to say that the photo may be real.

Then you haven't seen the video that was cut out. Remenber what Charles Enderlin, the editor of the clip, said in September 2003 : "We do not transform reality. But since some parts of the scene are unbearable, France 2 cut a few seconds from the scene, in accordance with our ethical charter."
He never thought that a court order would force him to reveal the "unbearable" clip. After all he works for France2, a national TV station, and the clip was supported by the president of France. The "unbearable" thing was that the boy lifted his arm to look at the camera. That's the clip that followed Enderlin's commentary that the boy was dead and was cut out.

Therefore I would suggest that in this case Israel is being judged as much by the weight of evidence based on past actions as it is on information available in that picture so whether this happened or not is largely immaterial which is what I mentioned in the first line where I said it could only be used to determine a trend.

When you are being attacked by defferent groups you do not take the time to aim at a father and a boy behind a barrel with some journalists a few meters behind them. This is also on film, but not the one from France2. Look at the raw footage then you'll know it was staged. Look at the one who is supposedly hit in the leg (TCR 01:15:15:23). The driver keeps talking to the person on the other side of the jeep as nothing had happend. The bullet should have penetrated his leg and hit the other person or at least the jeep which should have alerted the driver. Then look at the medics, they lay him on the stretcher sideways on the "wounded" leg! Again, no blood. Pre war Hollywood actors were better than him. It's fake, it's Pallywood style. Do some research and you'll know, unless you don't want to know.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUz55tLLXUg
at TRC 01:17:59 the boy starts lifting his arm. That secene was cut because it was unbearable to look at!

 

[MontyB]

You have once again completely missed the point, it doesnt matter whether this event happened or not just as it does not matter whether 90% of the information out there is Palestinian propaganda the fact is people are believing it therefore Israel has already lost the battle of public opinion which in the long term becomes national opinion.

I have told you this countless times and still you persist in banging your head against the wall of perception only as time goes on you seem to have come to the conclusion that a longer run up will help you batter your way through when in reality all it will get you is a greater concussion.

So once again the problem for you is to convince people who are now receiving information within minutes of it happening world wide that what is happening is "ok" and for some reason you have chosen the unfathomable tactic of simply denying it happened when what you need to do is justify what is happening.

However all that really has to be discussed here is "why Israel is hated" and I would argue that it is hated because:
1) Many people do not see it as a legitimate state.
2) It has a horrible reputation in terms of its foreign policy (the fact that we routinely expel and jail Israelis for identity theft is a good enough reason for me).
3) It is a predator state that is only interested in expansion.
4) That it is defended by clowns who cling to the idea that because there was no Palestinian state means there are no Palestinians when anyone with half a brain cell knows that Palestine is a geographical tag not a national one.
5) That its occupation of land that is internationally recognised as not Israeli is not stopping them from displacement of that lands inhabitants and claiming it through what amounts to the ghettoising of the people on that land.

Now until such times as you can change those perceptions Israel for many of us will remain little more than a parasite on the arse of society the result of western guilt and little more than a 70 year old crusade a nation I would hope New Zealand will have nothing to do with.

 

[ScarabVenom]

2) It has a horrible reputation in terms of its foreign policy (the fact that we routinely expel and jail Israelis for identity theft is a good enough reason for me).

This one is interesting, can you please give examples?

3) It is a predator state that is only interested in expansion.

True that.

when anyone with half a brain cell knows that Palestine is a geographical tag not a national one.

This one is also interesting, Could I ask you to explain how it's just a geographical tag not a national one?

 

[MontyB]

This one is interesting, can you please give examples?

Sure...
http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2010/may/23/australia-moves-to-expel-israeli-diplomat/

This was the first instance there have been a couple of others but they were the first to show up in the search...
http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/israeli_agents.html

There have been about 4 or 5 instances since 2004 and a couple that saw an Israeli rescue team sent home because they turned up unannounced and no one trusted them.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-unmasked-team-Israeli-spies-New-Zealand.html

These were just the New Zealand stories but the same issues have been raised from Britain and Australia.

This one is also interesting, Could I ask you to explain how it's just a geographical tag not a national one?

Because the argument is correct when they say that there has never been a Palestinian state, Palestine is a region it has not been a state although it did appear on British maps as a nation between about 1830-1945, Palestinians are the inhabitants of a region known to the world for at least 3000 years as Palestine what religion they are is immaterial.

The strawman argument used to obfuscate the issue is that there has never been a nation of Palestine therefore there are no Palestinians but that is like arguing that there are no New Yorkers because there has never been a nation of New York, Floridians don't exist because there has never been the nation of Florida, you can apply the logic to anything you like and until someone actually thinks about it, it sounds logical when in reality it is complete bollocks.

 

[ScarabVenom]

Sure...
http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2010/may/23/australia-moves-to-expel-israeli-diplomat/

This was the first instance there have been a couple of others but they were the first to show up in the search...
http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/israeli_agents.html

There have been about 4 or 5 instances since 2004 and a couple that saw an Israeli rescue team sent home because they turned up unannounced and no one trusted them.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-unmasked-team-Israeli-spies-New-Zealand.html

These were just the New Zealand stories but the same issues have been raised from Britain and Australia.

Why do they keep asking why the world dislikes them then? If someone faked Israeli passports and went inside Israel to hack their systems or whatever, they would be the first to come up and say "See? They hate us for no reason".

Because the argument is correct when they say that there has never been a Palestinian state, Palestine is a region it has not been a state although it did appear on British maps as a nation between about 1830-1945, Palestinians are the inhabitants of a region known to the world for at least 3000 years as Palestine what religion they are is immaterial.

Hmmm, I see it now. And yeah, the religion part doesn't make any difference. We as Egyptians have had different religions throughout our history until the current day of Orthodox Coptic Christianity and Islam yet, it's the same people. It's like coming up and saying expel the current Egyptians because they don't worship Ra', Amun or Horus anymore.

The strawman argument used to obfuscate the issue is that there has never been a nation of Palestine therefore there are no Palestinians but that is like arguing that there are no New Yorkers because there has never been a nation of New York, Floridians don't exist because there has never been the nation of Florida, you can apply the logic to anything you like and until someone actually thinks about it, it sounds logical when in reality it is complete bollocks.

Eh, this one is more like manipulating and choosing very specific words that represent one side of the bigger picture.

 

[MontyB]

Why do they keep asking why the world dislikes them then? If someone faked Israeli passports and went inside Israel to hack their systems or whatever, they would be the first to come up and say "See? They hate us for no reason".

But there is a slightly more "sinister" reason for faking the passports of nations like New Zealand and Australia.
1) We are small countries so even if they are caught there is little we can do.
2) We are politically neutral states in that we generally don't make waves world wide and on top of that we are nations that travel a lot which is a benefit of living in a country that no one hates.

So they can steal identities and travel relatively anonymously and problems they cause become those of the nations who's passports they have stolen.

Hmmm, I see it now. And yeah, the religion part doesn't make any difference. We as Egyptians have had different religions throughout our history until the current day of Orthodox Coptic Christianity and Islam yet, it's the same people. It's like coming up and saying expel the current Egyptians because they don't worship Ra', Amun or Horus anymore.

Indeed I enjoyed my time in Egypt, visited various mosques (liked the one in the Cairo Citadel) and a Coptic church in Alexandria, I am not a religious person (in fact damn near atheist) but I love the architecture.

Still Horus and Anubis were my favourite ancient gods, if you are going to pick some mumbo jumbo to believe in why not pick something innovative like those two.

Besides who can hate this guy...

 

[ScarabVenom]

But there is a slightly more "sinister" reason for faking the passports of nations like New Zealand and Australia.
1) We are small countries so even if they are caught there is little we can do.
2) We are politically neutral states in that we generally don't make waves world wide and on top of that we are nations that travel a lot which is a benefit of living in a country that no one hates.

So they can steal identities and travel relatively anonymously and problems they cause become those of the nations who's passports they have stolen.

And I believe in one of your links, I read at the bottom that passports from New Zealand also gives you some advantage with England since both countries have family relations or something similar.

Indeed I enjoyed my time in Egypt, visited various mosques (liked the one in the Cairo Citadel) and a Coptic church in Alexandria, I am not a religious person (in fact damn near atheist) but I love the architecture.

It's awesome to hear that you enjoyed being in Egypt. If you ever think of visiting again, don't hesitate, you'll always be more than welcome.

Still Horus and Anubis were my favourite ancient gods, if you are going to pick some mumbo jumbo to believe in why not pick something innovative like those two.

Besides who can hate this guy...

That's true, who can hate him? My favorite is Anubis also...

"Show me the road through Duat (darkness).
I have passed through this door into nothing.
Nothing grows and nothing dies; all that was and would be is.
This life is a singular breath and your passive eye is time.
The Ankh(key of immortality) in your one hand, the knife in the other.
In dark corridors we pass, a pair of jackals black as the night around us.
We are beastly forms made beautiful by moonlight, beheld by the gods.
Together we are twilight and dawn.
I am the left eye and he is the right.
We behold the things the gods have made, down a road few men have walked."

Even we atheists gotta pray sometimes, no? LOL.

 

[MontyB]

It's awesome to hear that you enjoyed being in Egypt. If you ever think of visiting again, don't hesitate, you'll always be more than welcome.

I had a great time in both Egypt and Jordan and hopefully will get the chance to return around November but that will depend on how soon things settle down politically, I would like to look around the Sinai and spend more time around Aswan.

That's true, who can hate him? My favorite is Anubis also...

"Show me the road through Duat (darkness).
I have passed through this door into nothing.
Nothing grows and nothing dies; all that was and would be is.
This life is a singular breath and your passive eye is time.
The Ankh(key of immortality) in your one hand, the knife in the other.
In dark corridors we pass, a pair of jackals black as the night around us.
We are beastly forms made beautiful by moonlight, beheld by the gods.
Together we are twilight and dawn.
I am the left eye and he is the right.
We behold the things the gods have made, down a road few men have walked."

Even we atheists gotta pray sometimes, no? LOL.

I am assuming that is the general prayer to Anubis as I have only ever seen it listed as "Being led by Anubis"
Oddly enough I have always been interested in the similarities between the Amarna period and Christianity seems to me there may be a common link.

 

[senojekips]

In the past there have been many occasions when I have quoted the Israel Law Resource Center, and on more than one occasion my antagonist has indicated that this is a Palestinian or pro-Arab site, so several days ago I emailed the contact listed on the bottom of the page, and today I received my reply.

The fact is that the site is a subsite of "Non-violence International" an International organisation based in the United States and founded by Jews.

Dear Spike;

We appreciate the work you are doing, and are honored that you find our website of value.

Our organization (ILRC) is a creation of staff at Nonviolence International (NI), an international human rights organization, with programs around the world, that advocates nonviolent solutions to world problems. ILRC was founded in 2002, and has slowly evolved semi-autonomous status. You can view their website at http://nonviolenceinternational.net/

The staff that started the ILRC are Jewish, and base their efforts on the morals and ethics they learned in Synagogue. Their protest against the Zionist program is based on the recognition that (1) the Zionists are seeking to start a democracy dominated by Jews in a land where Jews are a minority, and then (2) that the idea of a "Jewish State" is a formula for discrimination, which is exactly what they found when they began researching law-based discrimination in Israel. This research led to the ILRC website.

In 2007, the Palestine Media Project (PMP) evolved out of their effort to publicize the work of the ILRC. Check it out - www.palmediaproject.org. It has evolved into a 10-part program to outreach to mainstream US media as well as support the pro-Palestine movement in general.

The main source for the Israeli laws on the ILRC website is the official English translations of Israeli Laws published by the Israeli government from 1948 up to 1989, which is referenced at the bottom of each law. The idea is that these laws speak for themselves, so you will notice that in our explanatory essays we quote extensively from these official translations themselves.

Unfortunately, the Israeli government seized publishing these official translations in 1989, so we are currently searching for a translator so that we can continue our tracing of Israeli legalized discrimination up to the present.

One of the features of our website is how we sort the laws amongst categories of discrimination (citizenship & immigration, land ownership, etc.). We base this mainly on the writings of Professor David Kretzmer, a highly decorated law professor from the Hebrew University, Jerusalem.

The legal analysis of Israel's military orders in use in the occupied West Bank is based mainly on the legal writings of Raja Shehadeh, a Palestinian lawyer and writer, who founded Al-Haq (http://www.alhaq.org/), a legal defense organization in the West Bank, which is an affiliate of the International Commission of Jurists, and has Special Consultative Status with the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations.

As I believe you already understand, the pro-Israel folks cannot substantially defend Israeli policies and practices, so instead they attack the messenger. The idea behind ILRC is to present evidence that is irrefutable - that we could be from Mars and it wouldn't matter, because the evidence - the laws themselves - is all that is needed to incriminate Israel for major violations of international law - actually of apartheid - a crime against humanity.

I hope this answers your questions. Please let us know if you have any further questions.

Sincerely,


David
Israel Law Resource Center
Palestine Media Project
Nonviolence International

 

[senojekips]

Why are they hated and distrusted?

Let me guess.

Maybe this is a clue,...

And, No,... the spelling mistake is not mine.

 

[hamidreza]

Well friends, God doesn't make any race wretch unless they want themselves.
In recent bombing in Lebanon many people were killed or injured and guess who did that? HAMAS!
more than 1600 Palestinians were killed in Syria crisis when they were fighting against Assad and a lot of them were arrested by Hezbollah and Syria army.
Well, aren't they traitor? aren't they mean?
Who did support them in recent years when all Arab states were against them? weren't them Iran, Syria or Hezbollah? didn't Iran support them by money and give them weapons or teach them how to make weapon for themselves such as missile? to fight against Israel and to live Palestine desire? at least they could be neutral in Syria crisis.
These stupids thought brotherhood movement will be the winner of Syria crisis. But they forgot that Brotherhood can't be the winner if the US doesn't support them. And absolutely they first have to guarantee to have a good relation with Israel before any real support! and what will be the benefit for HAMAS then?
Well, till now brotherhood hasn't been able to win the war in Syria and it seems that they won't be able and in Egypt they lost the power too. Now HAMAS hands are longer than their feet. Now who should they beg for help?
How many people should be killed in the ME? the ME is shambles now.

 

[MontyB]

I guess here is another opinion from a man that will no doubt be branded "anti-semetic"...

It's now clear: the Oslo peace accords were wrecked by Netanyahu's bad faith
Avi Shlaim
The Guardian, Thursday 12 September 2013 22.11 BST

I thought the peace accords 20 years ago could work, but Israel used them as cover for its colonial project in Palestine

Shimon Peres, the Israeli foreign minister, signs the Oslo accords at the White House on 13 September 1993. Onlookers include Israel's PM, Yitzhak Rabin; Bill Clinton; and the PLO's Yasser Arafat and Mahmoud Abbas. Photograph: J David AKE/AFP

Exactly 20 years have passed since the Oslo accords were signed on the White House lawn. For all their shortcomings and ambiguities, the accords constituted a historic breakthrough in the century-old conflict between Jews and Arabs in Palestine. It was the first peace agreement between the two principal parties to the conflict: Israelis and Palestinians.

The accords represented real progress on three fronts: the Palestine Liberation Organisation recognised the state of Israel; Israel recognised the PLO as the representative of the Palestinian people; and both sides agreed to resolve their outstanding differences by peaceful means. Mutual recognition replaced mutual rejection. In short, this promised at least the beginning of a reconciliation between two bitterly antagonistic national movements. And the hesitant handshake between Yitzhak Rabin and Yasser Arafat clinched the historic compromise.

Critical to the architecture of Oslo was the notion of gradualism. The text did not address any of the key issues in this dispute: Jerusalem; the right of return of 1948 refugees; the status of Jewish settlements built on occupied Palestinian land; or the borders of the Palestinian entity. All these "permanent status" issues were deferred for negotiations towards the end of the five-year transition period. Basically, this was a modest experiment in Palestinian self-government, starting with the Gaza Strip and the West Bank town of Jericho.

The text did not promise or even mention an independent Palestinian state at the end of the transition period. The Palestinians believed that in return for giving up their claim to 78% of historic Palestine, they would gain an independent state in the remaining 22%, with a capital city in Jerusalem. They were to be bitterly disappointed.

Controversy surrounded Oslo from the moment it saw the light of day. The 21 October 1993 issue of the London Review of Books ran two articles; Edward Said put the case against in the first. He called the agreement "an instrument of Palestinian surrender, a Palestinian Versailles", arguing that it set aside international legality and compromised the fundamental national rights of the Palestinian people. It could not advance genuine Palestinian self-determination because that meant freedom, sovereignty, and equality, rather than perpetual subservience to Israel.

In my own article I put the case for Oslo. I believed that it would set in motion a gradual but irreversible process of Israeli withdrawal from the occupied territories and that it would pave the way to Palestinian statehood. From today's perspective, 20 years on, it is clear that Said was right in his analysis and I was wrong.

In 2000 the Oslo peace process broke down following the failure of the Camp David summit and the outbreak of the second intifada. Why? Israelis claim that the Palestinians made a strategic choice to return to violence and consequently there was no Palestinian partner for peace. As I see it, Palestinian violence was a contributory factor, but not the main cause. The fundamental reason was that Israel reneged on its side of the deal.

Sadly, the Jewish fanatic who assassinated Rabin in 1995 achieved his broader aim of derailing the peace train. In 1996 the rightwing Likud returned to power under the leadership of Binyamin Netanyahu. He made no effort to conceal his deep antagonism to Oslo, denouncing it as incompatible with Israel's right to security and with the historic right of the Jewish people to the whole land of Israel. And he spent his first three years as PM in a largely successful attempt to arrest, undermine, and subvert the accords concluded by his Labour predecessors.

Particularly destructive of the peace project was the policy of expanding Israeli settlements on occupied Palestinian territory. These settlements are illegal under international law and constitute a huge obstacle to peace. Building civilian settlements beyond the Green Line does not violate the letter of the Oslo accords but it most decidedly violates its spirit. As a result of settlement expansion the area available for a Palestinian state has been steadily shrinking to the point where a two-state solution is barely conceivable.
The so-called security barrier that Israel has been building on the West Bank since 2002 further encroaches on Palestinian land. Land-grabbing and peace-making do not go together: it is one or the other. Oslo is essentially a land-for-peace deal. By expanding settlements all Israeli governments, Labour as well as Likud, contributed massively to its breakdown.

The rate of settlement growth in the West Bank and Israeli-annexed East Jerusalem is staggering. At the end of 1993 there were 115,700 Israeli settlers in the occupied territories. Their number doubled during the following decade.
Today the number of Israeli settlers on the West Bank exceeds 350,000. There are an additional 300,000 Jews living in settlements across the pre-1967 border in East Jerusalem. Thousands more settlement homes are planned or under construction. Despite his best efforts, John Kerry, the US secretary of state, failed to get the Netanyahu government to accept a settlement freeze as a precondition for renewing the peace talks suspended in 2010. As long as Netanyahu remains in power, it is a safe bet that no breakthrough will be achieved in the new round of talks. He is the procrastinator par excellence, the double-faced prime minister who pretends to negotiate the partition of the pizza while continuing to gobble it up.

The Oslo accords had many faults, chief of which was the failure to proscribe settlement expansion while peace talks were in progress. But the agreement was not doomed to failure from the start, as its critics allege. Oslo faltered and eventually broke down because Likud-led governments negotiated in bad faith. This turned the much-vaunted peace process into a charade. In fact, it was worse than a charade: it provided Israel with just the cover it was looking for to continue to pursue with impunity its illegal and aggressive colonial project on the West Bank.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/12/oslo-israel-reneged-colonial-palestine

 

[senojekips]

On September 18, 2013, Saleem Al Faseh, 57 years old, was wounded by Israeli gunfire while he was fishing in Gazan territorial waters.

At about 5 pm an Israeli gunboat opened fire against their fishing boat 6 miles off the coast of Shati camp. Saleem was injured at his right hand and he was brought to Shifa hospital. Fishing is the only source of income for his family. In this picture, his right hand before the surgery.

 

[BritinBritain]

I don't like to see anyone killed or injured, but what a pity no one was able to sink that gunboat with all hands. I detest bullies.