So why do people hate Israel?

[MontyB]

You are obviously prejudiced against the Jew and think yours is the only opinion worth listening to.

Replace the word "Jew" with the word "Zionists" and you may start to understand the point, this problem is not caused by Jews but rather the ideological aspects of Zionism, Zionism is to Judaism what Al Qaeda is to Islam and quite frankly they should be on the same terrorist lists right next to each other.

Mine comes from the many Mideast people I know Israeli and Arab.

Who doesn't know Israelis, Jews, Palestinians and Arabs?
The fundamental mistake in your post is that it assumes Israel speaks for Judaism and that Arabs are one homogeneous group.

Further to this some of us have built our understanding of the region by not only knowing these people but also by going there and taking a look for ourselves and others are of Jewish ancestry.

Israel managed to turn the desert wastelands into a modern miracle that feeds ½ of Western Europe.

Which international laws justify the forced dispossession of a lands inhabitants on the grounds of home improvement?

They are the only democratic nation in the Mideast; I suppose you will argue about this as well.

Might I suggest looking closer, I think if you were to look at it objectively you would see that Israel is closer to a Theocracy than a Democracy and I would also suggest that the Democratic part is really just a veneer which covers institutionalised discrimination.

If Israel were to vacate the left bank they may as well give up. The country would be so narrow as to be indefensible. Do you really expect them to do this, I don’t think so. Your ridicules insults only go to show how ignorant you are by lowing yourself to a childish level.

You know at its narrowest point I can walk from the west coast of New Zealand to the east simply by crossing a 6 lane highway by your logic I should be justified invading the east coast of Australia, colonising it and evicting all the Australians I find on the grounds of security?

Alternatively I could just try getting on with the Australians, developing close ties economically etc. and surprising the threat diminishes exponentially.

But I am prepared to skip all this if you can explain to me how a state that is less than 70 years old and is based on a narrative that has absolutely no archaeological foundation can justify ethnically cleansing its borders of a people that even if you ignore DNA were living on that land for at least 1400 years.

 

[JOC]

Interesting

Replace the word "Jew" with the word "Zionists" and you may start to understand the point, this problem is not caused by Jews but rather the ideological aspects of Zionism, Zionism is to Judaism what Al Qaeda is to Islam and quite frankly they should be on the same terrorist lists right next to each other.


Who doesn't know Israelis, Jews, Palestinians and Arabs?
The fundamental mistake in your post is that it assumes Israel speaks for Judaism and that Arabs are one homogeneous group.

Further to this some of us have built our understanding of the region by not only knowing these people but also by going there and taking a look for ourselves and others are of Jewish ancestry.








Which international laws justify the forced dispossession of a lands inhabitants on the grounds of home improvement?




Might I suggest looking closer, I think if you were to look at it objectively you would see that Israel is closer to a Theocracy than a Democracy and I would also suggest that the Democratic part is really just a veneer which covers institutionalised discrimination.



You know at its narrowest point I can walk from the west coast of New Zealand to the east simply by crossing a 6 lane highway by your logic I should be justified invading the east coast of Australia, colonising it and evicting all the Australians I find on the grounds of security?

Alternatively I could just try getting on with the Australians, developing close ties economically etc. and surprising the threat diminishes exponentially.

But I am prepared to skip all this if you can explain to me how a state that is less than 70 years old and is based on a narrative that has absolutely no archaeological foundation can justify ethnically cleansing its borders of a people that even if you ignore DNA were living on that land for at least 1400 years.

Monty I like your spin and perhaps Israel is more of a Theocracy, for that matter I sometimes wonder if the good old USA sometimes isn't more of an oligarchy at times.
Copied from Wikipedia
The Jews began to revolt against the Roman Empire in 66 CE during the period known as the First Jewish–Roman War which culminated in the destruction of Jerusalem in 70CE. During the siege, the Romans destroyed the Second Temple and most of Jerusalem.[2] In 132, the Jews rebelled against Hadrian. In 135, Hadrian’s army defeated the Jewish armies and Jewish independence was lost. Jerusalem was turned into a pagan city called Aelia Capitolina and the Jews were forbidden to live there, and Hadrian changed the country’s name from Judea to Syria Palaestina.[3]

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/28162671/...wish-archaeological-discoveries/#.U0CAo6OPLIU
There are dozens's of similar links out there.

 

[MontyB]

Here is the problem with the so called Jewish diaspora of the Roman period:

1) There is no Roman record of it.
2) There is no record of it in Egyptian history.
3) There is no record of it in any of the major nations of the time.

Now you might put that down to it not being of much importance yet every major nation in the region recorded day to day activities meticulously, we have tablets and records of every aspect in the lives of these empires yet not one of them could be bothered to note the complete eviction of a population?

There is of course a logical explanation for this, it never happened.

Now I have no doubt that the Romans took captives there is nothing unusual about that but I would suggest that the Romans took the "elite" those they could extract a ransom for, scribes, princes, generals, aristocrats and left the peasants which is the case for almost every invasion of the period, the towns that put up a fight were destroyed and those that didn't were left.

Now here is the kicker... If the population of Palestine was not marched off into captivity then those that remained more than likely became Roman citizens aka Pagan, then Byzantine citizens aka Christian and then when the Arab armies took over the area they became Muslim.
We can assume this with a fair amount of certainty by looking at the "Christianisation" of Europe, the Vikings were not replaced by Christians they became Christian, the Spanish were not replaced with Catholics they became Catholic, the Franks did not replace the population of the countries they Christianised they converted the local populations.

As such I firmly believe that the majority of those who call themselves Palestinians didn't just find an empty land sometime after 135AD and move in as the Zionist narrative would have you believe but are in fact descendants of the population that has always been there right back to the beginning of mans settlement in the region.

Incidentally the first use of the term Palestine was by Herodotus in the 5th Century BCE and the term is thought to have been derived from the word Peleset used in the 12th Century BCE by the Egyptians and it is found in numerous Egyptian documents referring to a neighboring people or land.

Also just to point out how much is known of other empires which should reinforce the idea that much of Israels historical narrative is lets say for the sake of diplomacy "unverified" we know that the Assyrians called the same region Palashtu in the 8th Century BCE, so given that we have documents from:
- 12th Century BCE Egypt.
- 8th Century BCE Assyrian Empire
- 5th Century BCE Greece.
Shows how efficient the record keeping of these nations were therefore it is unlikely they would have missed the destruction of a population in 135CE.

 

[JOC]

some artifacts, scrools etc

Legitimate ancient Hebrew artifacts have been found in the areas now called Israel. Certainly it is hard to deny the Dead sea scrolls. Inscriptions with the Leviticual prayer have been found dating to King Davis's time. As for other people living there at the same time as the ancient Jews, this is true Samaritans, Greeks, Arabs and others. My point here is this evidence points to the ancient presence of the Jewish people in what is Isreal, that is all
Many empires took the craftsman’s and useful artisans as prisoners leaving the rest to survive after raping the land. This was common for many of the ancient powers that rose and fell in the Mideast, I.E. Babylon, Assyria and they did this to Israel, Judea as well their neighbors Tyre, Phoenician and others. BTW what about the writing of the Jewish scholar Josephus from the 1st century AD, are not they widely accepted as fact?

 

[MontyB]

Legitimate ancient Hebrew artifacts have been found in the areas now called Israel. Certainly it is hard to deny the Dead sea scrolls. Inscriptions with the Leviticual prayer have been found dating to King Davis's time. As for other people living there at the same time as the ancient Jews, this is true Samaritans, Greeks, Arabs and others. My point here is this evidence points to the ancient presence of the Jewish people in what is Isreal, that is all
Many empires took the craftsman’s and useful artisans as prisoners leaving the rest to survive after raping the land. This was common for many of the ancient powers that rose and fell in the Mideast, I.E. Babylon, Assyria and they did this to Israel, Judea as well their neighbors Tyre, Phoenician and others. BTW what about the writing of the Jewish scholar Josephus from the 1st century AD, are not they widely accepted as fact?

There is no doubt that Judaism developed in the area no one is arguing that point, but I suspect it began as a minor sect during the Canaanite era, I tend to agree with Israel Finkelstein in that 10th century BCE Jerusalem, the period associated with the biblical kings David and Solomon, was nothing more than a mere 'village' or tribal center and not the great empire people are trying to make it into to justify the state of Israel.

As I have said I believe the people who currently call themselves Palestinians have probably called themselves Canaanites, Assyrians, Babylonians, Romans etc. depending on the empire ruling the region at the time.

But I think the question you should perhaps ask rather than rehashing a history we all know about is whether those who now call themselves Israeli have any connection to the region at all other than a religious one, there are a number of scholars including geneticists who can show that the homeland of Ashkenazi Jews is in Eastern Europe not the Middle East.
(If you read back through the thread you can find the links to all these claims)

What you have now in my opinion is something similar to me becoming a catholic, moving into the Vatican on the grounds that it is my "spiritual" homeland and in the process evicting anyone living there claiming they are Italians.

But now I will throw one more cat among the pigeons even if you were to ignore all of the issues we have discussed and decide in favour of Israel surely you would still have to question the way in which they have treated the Palestinian people over the last 70 years, the formation of Israel alone forced 700,000 of them into exile, there is now close on 4.9 million refugees according to the UN, Gaza is just an open air prison camp and a normal daily life in the West Bank is impossible due to an occupying force that goes out of its way to make life difficult.

In the end even if you can somehow justify Israel's existence it would be impossible for anyone with a shred of humanity to justify its actions over the past 70 years hence the reason people hate Israel and the title of the thread.

 

[senojekips]

The US and Israel: The Hypocrisy of UN Security Council Resolutions.

UN Resolutions As Examples of US and Israeli Hypocrisy

Consider now three UN Security Council Resolutions as examples of gross hypocrisy – one Israel and its US paymaster and benefactor support and two others both countries do not so they ignore them. In September, 2004, the Security Council passed UN Resolution 1559, cosponsored by the US and France, that called on Syria to withdraw its military forces from Lebanon and stop intervening in the Lebanese political process. It also demanded all Lebanese and non-Lebanese militias (aimed mainly at Hezbollah, of course) disarm and disband (meaning surrender). Following the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister, Rafik Hariri, in February, 2005, Syria bowed to international pressure and complied fully with the resolution by April. In so doing, it ended its 29 year occupation of the part of the country it controlled which excluded the rest in the South under Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) control that Israel maintained after its invasion of Southern Lebanon in 1978 and again in 1982. Hezbollah’s military resistance wing did not comply. Had it done so, it would have left itself and the Shia third of the Lebanese population dependent on it defenseless against the Israelis. The Lebanese government and its small and weak security forces had no power to force Hezbollah’s compliance and were unable to do it.

Hezbollah was born out of the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982 and the oppressive occupation that followed. It’s a popular resistance movement, much like and in the same spirit as the French Resistance freedom fighters the Nazis called terrorists, formed to resist their illegal occupiers and expel them. Ever since, it has continued as an effective resistance force against the Israelis that finally withdrew from Lebanon in May, 2000 but maintained its occupation of the 25 square kilometer area of South Lebanon known as Shebaa Farms it never relinquished after seizing it in the 1967 war. Hezbollah, the Lebanese people and its government demand Israel give it back as well as cease its frequent hostile cross-border incursions, unjustifiable abductions, repeated violations of the country’s airspace as well as end its current brutal assault and invasion of their country once again. To continue being an effective resistance force, Hezbollah remained armed, has every right to do so in its own self-defense whatever resolutions the UN passes, and will continue resisting Israeli oppression until it ends. It’s now doing it against a vastly superior IDF invasion force in South Lebanon far more effectively than the Israeli government is willing to admit.

Now consider UN Resolutions 465 and 476. The Security Council unanimously adopted UN Resolution 465 in March, 1980 that addressed Israel’s illegal occupation of the Palestinian territories of the West Bank, Gaza, East Jerusalem and the Syrian Golan Heights. Among other provisions in it, it condemned Israel’s policy of “setting parts of its population and new Immigrants in those territories (and said doing so constituted) a flagrant violation of the fourth Geneva Convention relative to the protection of civilian persons in time of war and also constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East.” It called on the government of Israel to “dismantle the existing settlements and in particular to cease….the establishment, construction and planning of (new) settlements in the Arab territories since 1967, including Jerusalem.”

In the last 26 years, Israel has flagrantly violated this resolution and still continues to build new settlements illegally in the Palestinian Occupied Territories. The US supports and funds the Israeli government enabling it to do it, and the UN and world community have taken no action to bring Israel into compliance which it could do by imposing sanctions severe enough to force Israel to stop new settlement construction, dismantle the existing ones and make restitution to the Palestinians and Syrians for the harm caused them.
The Security Council also passed Resolution 476 in June, 1980. Like Resolution 465, it, too, reaffirms the necessity to end the Israeli occupation of Arab territories ongoing since the 1967 war. It went on to condemn Israel for its continued refusal to do it or to comply with the relevant Security Council and General Assembly resolutions demanding it does. It repeated provisions detailed in Resolution 465 and reaffirmed its determination in the event of Israeli non-compliance to examine practical ways to get it to do so. Israel never complied, and the UN never took action to see that it did. Also, by its reinvasion of Lebanon now and its unending occupation of the Shebaa Farms area it’s held since 1967, Israel is also in violation of UN resolution 425 and nine additional ones demanding the withdrawal of its forces from South Lebanon. The net effect of UN action – many relevant and high-sounding words and speeches amounting to nothing, at least when it concerns Israel.

 

[MontyB]

An interesting article...

Are Iran and Israel Trading Places?

By ABBAS MILANI and ISRAEL WAISMEL-MANORAPRIL 11, 2014

STANFORD, Calif. — Although the Israeli and Iranian governments have been virtually at war with each other for decades, the two countries have much in common.
Both are home to some of the oldest civilizations on earth, and both are primarily non-Arab states in a mostly Arab region. In the 1950s, David Ben-Gurion’s Israel and Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi’s Iran were bastions of secular nationalism; the shah pushed authoritarian modernization, while Ben-Gurion advanced a form of nonreligious Zionism. Only after the 1979 Islamic revolution in Iran did radical Islam all but eclipse this secular brand of politics. It held on for much longer in Israel but is now under threat.

Both Iran and Israel are now entering potentially challenging new stages in their relations with the outside world, and particularly with the United States. Over the last seven years, United Nations Security Council resolutions have imposed sanctions on Iran with the aim of halting its nuclear program. For years, Iran’s former president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad railed against the “Great Satan.” But even if Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, is still opposed to reforms, it appears that some officials inside Iran have finally realized that continued intransigence and bellicosity will beget only more sanctions and catastrophic economic consequences.
As the winds of change blow across Iran, secular democrats in Israel have been losing ground to religious and right-wing extremists who feel comfortable openly attacking the United States, Israel’s strongest ally. In recent months, Israel’s defense minister, Moshe Yaalon, called Secretary of State John Kerry “obsessive and messianic,” while Naftali Bennett, Israel’s economy minister, labeled Mr. Kerry a “mouthpiece” for anti-Semitic elements attempting to boycott Israel.

Israel’s secular democrats are growing increasingly worried that Israel’s future may bear an uncomfortable resemblance to Iran’s recent past.
For more than three decades, Iran’s oil wealth has allowed its religious leaders to stay in power. But sanctions have taken a serious economic toll, with devastating effects on the Iranian people. The public, tired of Mr. Ahmadinejad’s bombastic and costly rhetoric, has replaced him with Hassan Rouhani, a pragmatist who has promised to fix the economy and restore relations with the West.

But Mr. Rouhani’s rise is in reality the consequence of a critical cultural and demographic shift in Iran — away from theocracy and confrontation, and toward moderation and pragmatism. Recent tensions between America and Russia have emboldened some of Iran’s radicals, but the government on the whole seems still intent on continuing the nuclear negotiations with the West.

Iran is a land of many paradoxes. The ruling elite is disproportionately made up of aged clerics — all men — while 64 percent of the country’s science and engineering degrees are held by women. In spite of the government’s concentrated efforts to create what some have called gender apartheid in Iran, more and more women are asserting themselves in fields from cinema to publishing to entrepreneurship.

Many prominent intellectuals and artists who three decades ago advocated some form of religious government in Iran are today arguing for popular sovereignty and openly challenging the antiquated arguments of regime stalwarts who claim that concepts of human rights and religious tolerance are Western concoctions and inimical to Islam. More than 60 percent of Iranians are under age 30, and they overwhelmingly believe in individual liberty. It’s no wonder that last month Ayatollah Khamenei told the clerical leadership that what worried him most was a non-Islamic “cultural invasion” of the country.

As moderate Iranians and some of the country’s leaders cautiously shift toward pragmatism and the West, it seems that many Israelis are moving away from these attitudes. In its 66 years, Israel has seen its share of ideological shifts from dovish to hawkish. These were natural fluctuations driven mainly by the country’s security situation and prospects for peace.

But the current shift is being accelerated by religion and demography, and is therefore qualitatively different. While the Orthodox Jewish parties are currently not part of the government, together with Mr. Bennett’s Jewish Home, a right-wing religious party, they hold about 25 percent of seats in the Knesset. The Orthodox parties aspire to transform Israel into a theocracy. And with an average birthrate of 6.5 children per family among Orthodox Jews (compared with 2.6 for the rest of the Jewish population), their dream might not be too far away.
By contrast, Iran has a falling birthrate — a clear indication of growing secularism, and the sort of thing that keeps Ayatollah Khamenei awake at night.

The long-term power of these demographic trends will, in our view, override Iran’s current theocratic intransigence and might eclipse any fleeting victories for liberalism in Israel.
Israel’s shift toward orthodoxy is not merely a religious one. Since the vast majority of Orthodox Jews are also against any agreement with the Palestinians, with each passing day, the chances of reaching a peace deal diminish. Nor is time on the side of those who want to keep seeing a democratic Israel.
If Israel continues the expansion of settlements, and peace talks serve no purpose but the extension of the status quo, the real existential threat to Israel will not be Iran’s nuclear program but rather a surging tide of economic sanctions.

What began a few years ago with individual efforts to get supermarket shoppers in Western countries to boycott Israeli oranges and hummus has turned into an orchestrated international campaign, calling for boycotts, divestment and sanctions against Israeli companies and institutions.
From academic boycotts to calls for divestment on American university campuses to the unwillingness of more and more European financial institutions to invest in or partner with Israeli companies and banks that operate in the West Bank, the “B.D.S.” movement is gaining momentum. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has recently called B.D.S. advocates “classical anti-Semites in modern garb.”

In the past, Israel could rely on Western nations and especially the United States to halt such initiatives, but as the fabric of Israel’s population changes, and Jewish populations in the West become less religious and less uncritically pro-Israel, the reflex to stand by the Jewish state, regardless of its policies, is weakening.
Moreover, as Western countries shift toward greater respect for human rights, the occupation is perceived as a violation of Western liberal norms. A new generation of American Jews sees a fundamental tension between their own liberal values and many Israeli policies.

This, coupled with the passing of the older generation and a high rate of interfaith marriage among American Jews, means the pro-Israel lobby will no longer be as large or as united as it used to be. While American presidents from Lyndon B. Johnson to Barack Obama have declared that the United States’ commitment to Israel flows from strategic interests and shared values, in a generation or two, interests may be all that’s left.
An opposite shift is occurring in Iran’s diaspora. An estimated five to seven million Iranians live in exile. Their economic, scientific, scholarly and cultural achievements are now well known in the United States thanks to people like the eBay founder Pierre Omidyar. They are increasingly establishing themselves as a powerful force advocating a more democratic Iran and better relations with the United States. Just as a united Jewish diaspora once helped the new state of Israel join the ranks of prosperous, industrialized states, Iran’s diaspora could one day play a similar role for a post-theocratic Iran.

One of Israel’s most popular singers, the Iranian-born Rita Jahanforuz, laments on her recent album, “In this world, I am alone and abandoned, like wild grass in the middle of the desert.”
If Iran’s moderates fail to push the country toward reform, and if secular Israelis can’t halt the country’s drift from democracy to theocracy, both Iranians and Israelis will increasingly find themselves fulfilling her sad prophecy.
Abbas Milani heads the Iranian studies program at Stanford and is co-director of the Iran Democracy Project at the Hoover Institution. Israel Waismel-Manor is a senior lecturer at the University of Haifa and a visiting associate professor of political science at Stanford.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/12/opinion/sunday/are-iran-and-israel-trading-places.html?_r=1

 

[MontyB]

This seemed appropriate even if it is a year old...

The new Israeli apartheid: Poll reveals widespread Jewish support for policy of discrimination against Arab minority

47 per cent of respondents would like to see Israel's Arab citizens stripped of their citizenship rights



Catrina Stewart

Jerusalem

Tuesday 23 October 2012

A new poll has revealed that a majority of Israeli Jews believe that the Jewish State practises "apartheid" against Palestinians, with many openly supporting discriminatory policies against the country's Arab citizens.

A third of respondents believe that Israel's Arab citizens should be denied the vote, while almost half – 47 per cent – would like to see them stripped of their citizenship rights and placed under Palestinian Authority control, according to Israel's liberal Haaretz newspaper, which published the poll's findings yesterday.
About 20 per cent of Israel's nearly eight million people are Israeli Arabs, Palestinians who hold Israeli citizenship and live within the borders of Israel proper. The views echo hardline opinions usually associated with Israel's ultranationalist and ultraorthodox parties, and suggest that racism and discrimination is more entrenched than generally thought.
The poll, conducted by Israel's Dialog polling group, found that 59 per cent out of the 503 people questioned would like to see Jews given preference for public-sector jobs, while half would like to see Jews better treated than Arabs.
Just over 40 per cent would like to see separate housing and classrooms for Jews and Arabs. The findings "reflect the widespread notion that Israel, as a Jewish State, should be a state that favours Jews," wrote Noam Sheizaf, an Israeli journalist and blogger. "They are also the result of the occupation … After almost half a century of dominating another people, it's no surprise that most Israelis don't think Arabs deserve the same rights."
Human rights groups have long decried existing Israeli policies that discriminate against Arabs, citing classroom shortages, smaller municipal budgets, and unequal property ownership rights as proof of Israeli Arabs' status as second-class citizens.
That many Jews believe that Israel has adopted "apartheid" policies is surprising, given that the term is usually deployed only by Israel's most vociferous critics, and suggests that the government-led narrative that the Jewish State is the only democracy in the Middle East is unconvincing to some.
But such self-awareness does not mean that Israelis are ashamed of it. Nearly 70 per cent of those questioned would object to the 2.5 million Palestinians living in the West Bank obtaining the vote if Israel was to annex the Palestinian territory, suggesting that they effectively endorse an apartheid regime. Nearly 75 per cent favour separate roads there for Israelis and Palestinians – although most view such a step as "necessary," rather than "good." Although nearly 40 per cent support annexation, that remains a distant prospect for the moment.
The survey "lays bare an image of Israeli society, and the picture is a very, very sick one", wrote Gideon Levy in Haaretz in a piece to accompany the poll. "Now it is not just critics at home and abroad, but Israelis themselves who are openly, shamelessly, and guiltlessly defining themselves as nationalistic racists.
"If such a survey were released about the attitude to Jews in a European state, Israel would have raised hell. When it comes to us, the rules don't apply."
In the three years since Benjamin Netanyahu's right-wing Likud party took control of the Knesset in an uneasy coalition with religious and ultranationalist parties, rights groups have charted a shift to the right that has accompanied a stalemate in efforts to find a solution to the long-running Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Many now see the two-state solution, even though publicly backed by Mr Netanyahu at the outset of his term, as an increasingly distant prospect, given the expansion of Jewish settlement in the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem – territories that along with Gaza the Palestinians want as their future state. That leaves the prospect of a one-state solution, an outcome favoured by some Palestinians, but anathema to Israel as it would threaten the country's Jewish majority.
Many Israelis also fear such an eventuality because it would undermine the Jewish State's democratic values if it were forced to adopt discriminatory policies to retain its Jewish character.
59% want preference in public jobs for Jews over Arabs
49% want the state to treat Jews better than Arabs
33% object to Israeli Arabs having the right to vote
69% object to giving Palestinians the right to vote if Israel annexes the West Bank
74% support separate roads for Jews and Palestinians in the West Bank
42% object to their children going to the same schools as Arabs

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...rimination-against-arab-minority-8223548.html

 

[MontyB]

This sort of thing doesnt help either:

http://edition.cnn.com/video/?/video/world/2014/05/22/pkg-watson-4a-west-bank-teens-shot.cnn&video_referrer=http%3A%2F%2Fmondoweiss.net%2F2014%2F05%2Fpalestinians-occupied-territories.html

Father blames Israeli military in Palestinian teens' deaths

By Ivan Watson, Kareem Khadder and Mike Schwartz, CNN
May 22, 2014 -- Updated 1710 GMT (0110 HKT)


Beitunya, West Bank (CNN) -- Fakher Zayed is accustomed to trouble erupting on his doorstep.
For the past several years, Palestinian protesters have often clashed with Israeli security forces in front of his house. The four-story building stands on the edge of the West Bank village of Beitunya, within sight of the Israeli separation barrier and Ofer prison.
At first, the May 15 anniversary of the "Nakba," the exodus of more than 700,000 Palestinians after the 1948 Arab-Israeli war, looked like just another day of Israeli-Palestinian skirmishing.
"(The Palestinians) were throwing stones, and the (Israeli) soldiers throw the tear gas. Plastic bullets," Zayed said. "They run away. After three or four minutes, they came back to throw stones again."
To protect his home, his family and his carpentry business, Zayed installed more than half a dozen security cameras around his building, which operate 24 hours a day.
Last Thursday, these cameras captured the chilling shooting deaths of two Palestinian teenagers. According to six hours of raw, unedited video distributed by the children's rights advocacy organization Defense for Children International and reviewed by CNN, the two boys -- ages 17 and 16 -- were shot on the same patch of asphalt on the same day, the second victim 73 minutes after the first.
The preliminary IDF inquiry indicates that no live fire was shot at all on Thursday during the riots in Beitunya and we have to determine what caused this result.
Lt Colonel Peter Lerner, Israeli Defense Forces



The families of the boys, as well as Zayed, blame the Israeli military for the killings.
"This is the first time they're shooting to kill here," Zayed said, speaking to CNN while standing on the exact spot outside his home where the two boys were filmed being shot.
But an Israeli military spokesman say its forces fired no live rounds during hours of clashes on May 15.
"During that demonstration that was extremely violent, the Israeli Defense Force used crowd-control methods and riot-dispersal means to prevent and control the overflow of the violence," Lt. Col. Peter Lerner told CNN.
"The preliminary IDF inquiry indicates that no live fire was shot at all on Thursday during the riots in Beitunya, and we have to determine what caused this result," Lerner added.
Security camera footage
CNN producer Kareem Khadder was filming the clashes in Beitunya on May 15.
Several dozen Palestinian youths used the wall of Zayed's house as cover. Periodically, they jumped out to hurl stones at about a half-dozen Israeli soldiers and border police officers standing on a hilltop perhaps 100 meters away. The Israeli forces responded with volleys of tear gas while periodically firing rubber-coated bullets from their rifles.
At one point, Khadder filmed a Palestinian teenager who appeared to be struck in the leg with one of these semi-lethal rounds. The boy hopped and limped for a few seconds in obvious pain but then turned around and rejoined the clashes.
At 1:45 p.m. May 15, Zayed's security camera caught the moment when one of the stone-throwing boys was mortally wounded.
Seventeen-year-old Nadeem Nouwarah was dressed in a sleeveless black t-shirt, wearing a black and white kefiyeh scarf to cover his face and carrying a backpack over both shoulders. As he walked toward the Israeli military positions in front of Zayed's door, Nouwarah suddenly fell forward, landing briefly on his hands, before rolling over to lie on his back.
Within seconds, a crowd of Palestinians gathered to lift Nouwarah and rush him to a waiting ambulance. According to a medical report, Nouwarah was pronounced dead in a hospital less than two hours later, having suffered a single bullet wound that entered his chest and passed out his back.
Though Khadder didn't know it at the time, he was filming two Israeli security troops firing their rifles at the Palestinian protesters at the same exact moment when Nouwarah was shot. In the video, it is not clear what kind of rounds the Israelis were shooting or whether their gunfire hit Nouwarah. However, Khadder's camera shows that less than 15 seconds after one of these gunshots, Palestinians were already racing to put the fatally wounded Nouwarah in the ambulance.
Suffering the effects of tear gas, Khadder soon left the protest. He was unaware that Nouwarah's wounds were fatal.
At 2:58 p.m., the security cameras filmed a second fatal shooting. Sixteen-year-old Mohammad Odeh Salameh was at the front lines of the protest, wearing a green Hamas flag as a cape as well as a green Hamas headband over his black mask.
As he was walking away from the Israeli positions, he suddenly fell to the ground and struggled briefly to get up. The boy was shot just a few steps from where Nouwarah had been wounded.
Doctors pronounced Salameh dead on arrival at the hospital, with a bullet wound that had pierced his back and exited his chest.
School in mourning
At St. George's school in Ramallah, relatives and classmates of the first victim, Nouwarah, were in mourning this week. Students wore black t-shirts with photos of the smiling boy. The eleventh-grader was pictured wearing a backward baseball cap.
The entire world should understand and know that my son was wearing a school backpack and leaving school when he was assassinated in cold blood.
Siam Nouwarah



"There were 21 students in our grade," said his 16-year-old classmate George Yousef. "Now, we are 20."
Nouwarah's father, Siam, told CNN he had expressly instructed his eldest son not to attend the Nakba protests.
"Afterwards, I felt he was not convinced with what I told him," said Siam, who works as a hairdresser in Ramallah.
Nouwarah appeared to have gone to the anti-Israel protests directly from school on the afternoon of May 15. His father showed CNN the bloody backpack his son was wearing when he was shot.
There was a small hole in the bag, in roughly the same location where the bullet would have exited Nouwarah's body.
Siam Nouwarah then pulled a packet of bloodstained papers out of the bag. They were photocopies of a textbook that included the writings of Anton Chekhov, accompanied by a teenage student's handwriting, doodles and class notes.
"We were surprised when we took the school backpack back from the hospital to find this bullet inside," said the elder Nouwarah. He then pulled a small used bullet stored in a plastic bag out of the backpack.
The metal slug appeared to be from a 556 NATO round, the standard ammunition used in M-16 rifles carried by Israeli security forces. It was impossible for CNN to confirm the authenticity of the bullet.
Siam Nouwarah said he was saving it for a forensic examination. He accuses Israeli soldiers of killing his son.
"The entire world should understand and know that my son was wearing a school backpack and leaving school when he was assassinated in cold blood," the grieving father said.
Ballistics
On Thursday, Lerner, the Israeli military spokesman, told CNN that a request had been put in with the Palestinian Authority to do a ballistic report on the bullet found in Nouwarah's backpack.
"That round that was presented shouldn't have been in the bag, so it also raises a question," he said. Lerner repeated the military's assertion that Israeli security forces fired only rubber-coated bullets -- which are not designed to penetrate bodies -- in Beitunya on May 15.
Regarding the CNN video of the Israeli security forces firing rifles at the Palestinian demonstrators at the moment when Nouwarah was shot, Lerner said the weapons being used had an attachment at the end of the barrel for firing rubber-coated projectiles.
Asked whether there could been some malfunction or mistake that would have led to the firing of a lethal round rather than a rubber-coated projectile, Lerner said, "I'm not aware of any malfunction at this time."
Meanwhile, the U.S. State Department has joined several human rights groups calling for an investigation into the deadly incident.
"I am deeply concerned about the circumstances surrounding the recent death of two Palestinian minors," wrote Christopher Gunness, a spokesman for the United Nations in the West Bank.
According to initial reports, Gunness added, both boys appeared "unarmed and appeared to pose no direct threat."


http://edition.cnn.com/2014/05/22/world/meast/israel-west-bank-shooting/

 

[senojekips]

Press TV 24 May 2014. http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2014/05/23/363888/eu-concerned-over-role-in-israel-crimes/

Press TV has conducted an interview with Joe Catron, from the International Solidarity Movement, about the EU banning the import of certain produce from Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank and East al-Quds (Jerusalem).

What follows is an approximate transcription of the interview.
Press TV:

Joe Catron, it seems like the BDS movement obviously is gaining a lot of traction more so recently than before but in the bigger picture, I’d like to get your idea of how Israel is at this point being somewhat cornered, the failed peace talks the US blames Israel for, we are looking at the death of those two Palestinians in the occupied West Bank, it is said that there is a probe now being pushed by the US and the UN on Israel to find out exactly what is happening because some say it is execution-style killing.

The global powers most closely aligned with Israel – the United States and Europe – see themselves increasingly at risk of being held accountable for the role they have played in enabling Israel’s continued aggression, expansion and displacement of Palestinians. And I think that has a lot to do certainly with these gestures or maneuvers to distance themselves from these Israeli policies.

 

[MontyB]

To a large degree the growth of the BDS movement has been caused by the lack of action (complicity if you will) of western governments, there has become a disconnect between what the average person believes is going on and what their governments are doing.

The result has been the grass roots BDS movement which has taken the initiative away from government inaction and into the hands and consciences of private citizens and there is no amount of lobbyist money that can make people buy a product once they have decided it is wrong to do so.

The up side of this has been shown in both the Iran and Syria issues where public opinion was so strong on the issue that not even purchased politicians dared support unpopular legislation.

 

[MontyB]

Perhaps this is something Nutanpsycho should consider, when you cant even blackmail politicians you have paid for into supporting you then it is time to re-evaluate your policy...

World recognizes Palestinian leadership

Patrick Martin
The Globe and Mail
Published Tuesday, Jun. 03 2014, 8:51 PM EDT
Last updated Tuesday, Jun. 03 2014, 8:56 PM EDT

In the latest showdown between Israel and the Palestinians, it was Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu who blinked Tuesday, after it became clear no other country, including the United States, would join him in opposing the Palestinians’ controversial new “unity” government – largely a group of unaffiliated technocrats agreed on by the PLO and Hamas.

Even Canada, Israel’s strongest backer under the government of Stephen Harper, quietly made an ambiguous statement reaffirming its position that Hamas is “a listed terrorist organization under Canadian law” but that Canada would deal with a Palestinian government that “renounces terrorism and recognizes Israel’s right to exist,” which the unity government has done.
For Mr. Netanyahu, who denounced the involvement of Hamas in no uncertain terms on Monday and received his cabinet’s authorization to invoke whatever sanctions against the Palestinians he saw fit, the actions he chose to take turned out to be very measured.
The toughest penalty was to make it more difficult for Palestinian cabinet ministers to travel across Israel between the Palestinian territories of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Each request for permission is to be individually considered, Israel announced.
The Israeli government said it would not negotiate with the Palestinian unity government – although no negotiations are planned. It also said it will hold the Palestinian government responsible for any rocket or other attack on Israel from either the West Bank or Gaza Strip, oppose Hamas running for parliament in Palestinian elections to take place in six months’ time, and won’t permit any campaigning or voting in predominantly Arab East Jerusalem (which Israel claims to have annexed).
What Israel did not do, however, was say it wouldn’t recognize the new Palestinian government. Nor did it say it would boycott the members of the cabinet, or completely forbid contact with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.
Even the tried and true punishment of withholding tax revenue was not invoked. Instead, the government settled for deducting some 20 million shekels (about $6-million), from the 400 million shekels or so it collects each month on behalf of the Palestinian Authority, to cover the cost of electricity from Israel.
And the Israelis made sure that their security co-operation with the Palestinian Authority was unaffected by all this.
Several Israeli cabinet ministers railed against the Palestinian move Monday. Naftali Bennett, leader of the settler-oriented Jewish Home party, called for severing all ties with what he called a “government of terrorists in suits.”
He insisted his long-standing proposal to annex parts of the West Bank be considered. A a special committee was formed to examine it, although Shimon Shiffer, a columnist for the Yediot Aharonot newspaper, described it as “a sop to Bennett” rather than a serious policy change.
It didn’t take long for the international community to make clear where it stood. Turkey was the first to recognize the unity government. The government of Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has supported the Hamas government in Gaza for several years.
Barely five hours after the Palestinian cabinet had been sworn in, the Obama administration announced it “will work with this government.”
“It appears that President Abbas has formed an interim technocratic government that does not include ministers affiliated with Hamas,” said State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki. It will be judged “by its actions,” she said.
It was “like a knife in the back,” a senior official told Israel Hayom, the newspaper considered closest to Mr. Netanyahu.
Mr. Netanyahu was quoted saying he was “deeply disappointed” by the news. U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry had assured him only a few days ago that Washington would not immediately recognize any unity government, Mr. Netanyahu reportedly told his cabinet.
Once word came about U.S. acceptance, the floodgates opened. China was next to endorse the new government, then India, the European Union, Russia and the United Nations. All stressed that their recognition was conditional on the government renouncing violence, recognizing Israel and accepting previous agreements entered into with the Jewish state.
With France, Mr. Netanyahu took the unusual step of telephoning President Francois Holland, then releasing details of their conversation in which he appealed to the leader to reject the Palestinian government. The tactic didn’t work. France too endorsed the new Palestinian entity.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/world-recognizes-palestinian-leadership/article18980836/

 

[MontyB]

Pro-Palestinian Ads are UP in Boston, AND we need YOUR help...


Ads challenging Israel’s commitment to peace are up on Boston’s subway system, the MBTA.
The ads were paid for by Ads Against Apartheid, a Boston-based nonprofit exhibiting Israeli human rights violations in Palestine. The campaign is running throughout the month of June and will feature three separate posters running in a series, side-by-side.
One of the ads highlights the number of Palestinian homes systematically destroyed by Israel – over 25,000 homes, leaving thousands of families homeless.
A second ad calls attention to the 150 Jewish-only cities Israel has built on internationally-recognized Palestinian land.
Both ads challenge Israel’s commitment to peace with a banner that reads, “Does Israel want peace..or land?”
The last of the three ads features a young Palestinian girl with statistics about the tragic level of violence perpetrated by the Israeli military – “Israel has killed 1 Palestinian child every 4 days since 2000.”
A banner at the bottom of the poster reads, “End support for Israeli apartheid.”
President of Ads Against Apartheid, Chadi Salamoun, states “the ads present the facts and are backed up with citations from credible human rights and international organizations, including the United Nations.”
Mr. Salamoun understood that some may find the information in the advertisements upsetting, but he explained that, “if the ads are shocking, that’s because the reality on the ground is shocking.”
Richard Colbath-Hess, co-founder of Ads Against Apartheid and a Jewish-American faculty member at the University of Massachusetts, stated, “American tax dollars help the Israeli government maintain a brutal military occupation, which has denied the Palestinian people their basic rights for decades.
“These ads show what Israel’s occupation and apartheid really look like, and it is important for Americans to see that,” he said.


http://www.adsagainstapartheid.com/boston-palestinian-ad-campaign/

 

[MontyB]

Israel no longer a cause that unifies US Jews

Once a unifying cause for generations of American Jews, Israel is now bitterly dividing Jewish communities.

By RACHEL ZOLL
AP Religion Writer



NEW YORK — Once a unifying cause for generations of American Jews, Israel is now bitterly dividing Jewish communities.
Jewish organizations are withdrawing invitations to Jewish speakers or performers considered too critical of Israel, in what opponents have denounced as an ideological litmus test meant to squelch debate. Some Jewish activists have formed watchdog groups, such as Citizens Opposed to Propaganda Masquerading as Art, or COPMA, and JCC Watch, to monitor programming for perceived anti-Israel bias. They argue Jewish groups that take donations for strengthening the community shouldn't be giving a platform to Israel's critics.
American campuses have become ideological battle zones over Israeli policy in the Palestinian territories, with national Jewish groups sometimes caught up on opposing sides of the internal debate among Jewish students. The "Open Hillel" movement of Jewish students is challenging speaker guidelines developed by Hillel, the major Jewish campus group, which bars speakers who "delegitimize" or "demonize" Israel. Open Hillel is planning its first national conference in October.
And in a vote testing the parameters of Jewish debate over Israel, the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations, a national coalition that for decades has represented the American Jewish community, denied membership in April to J Street, the 6-year-old lobby group that describes itself as pro-Israel and pro-peace and has sometimes criticized the Israeli government. Opponents of J Street have been showing a documentary called "The J Street Challenge," in synagogues and at Jewish gatherings around the country, characterizing the group as a threat from within.
"I believe this has reached a level of absurdity now," said Rabbi Sharon Brous, founder of the IKAR-LA Jewish community in California, which is considered a national model for reinvigorating religious life. "Even where people are acting from a place of love and deep commitment that Israel remains a vital and vibrant state, they are considered outside the realm. It's seen as incredibly threatening and not aligned with the script the American Jewish community expects."
In 2012, when Israel carried out an offensive in Gaza after an upsurge in rocket fire, Brous wrote an email to IKAR members that was published in The Jewish Journal of Greater Los Angeles. She supported Israel's right to defend itself, while also urging recognition of Palestinian suffering.
The result? She was overwhelmed with hate mail, and inspired competing op-eds and letters in the Journal from Jewish clergy and others until a prominent rabbi called for an end to the recriminations and name-calling.
American Jews have always vigorously debated Israeli policy, but mostly within the community and with an understanding that differences would be set aside if the Jewish state faced an existential threat. But the discussion within the U.S. has become more reflective of the very broad debate within Israel.
"It's a very old issue that many countries face and now Israel faces: to what extent should domestic debate carry over when you're abroad?" said Jonathan Sarna, a Brandeis University scholar of American Jewish history. "The critics of J Street and the like say, 'Of course, it's fine in Israel because the minute they call up the reserves, all politics disappear. Moreover, they have to live with the results of their decision.' Their argument is that there should be a great difference between what you can do and say in Israel and what you can do or say in America. There are all sorts of enemies who make use of the words in America differently than they do in Israel."
Internal American Jewish conflict has worsened as many Israel advocates have come to feel under siege in the U.S. The international boycott movement against Israel over its treatment of the Palestinians has gained some momentum in the U.S., and critics increasingly draw analogies between Israeli policies and South African apartheid.
The clashes among American Jews are partly colored by the sharp tone of overall left-right debate within the U.S. Earlier this year, the Brandeis chapter of J Street and one of its most vocal antagonists on campus, Daniel Mael, accused each other of harassment and made complaints to campus police. Mael, a 21-year-old Orthodox Jew, wrote a series of posts for the conservative site truthrevolt.org accusing J Street of bringing "Israel bashers" on campus.
J Street has said its opponents often distort the group's statements. The liberal lobby created a "Myths & Facts" page on its website challenging the claims.
Many leaders of the older, more-established organizations say the divisions are not as broad or deep as some claim. Defenders of the presidents' conference argue their 50-member association includes liberal organizations with similar views to J Street, and they blame the lobby group for whipping up a backlash to the vote.
The presidents' conference was formed in the 1950s in response to what was considered a failure of U.S. Jewish leaders during World War II to speak to American policy makers with one voice. Members were expected to keep internal discussion and voting private.
Among the 17 conference members who voted for J Street in April were the Anti-Defamation League, the Jewish Council for Public Affairs, and the Conservative and Reform Jewish movements. Twenty-two conference members voted no and three others abstained. The remaining member groups did not send a representative to vote.
Farley Weiss, president of the National Council of Young Israel, an association for Orthodox synagogues, dismissed J Street's members as students with a skewed understanding of Mideast history because of the "one-sided, left view" on U.S. college campuses. Weiss was among the few members of the Conference of Presidents who campaigned publicly to block J Street's admission to the group.
"Their views are not part of what I consider the mainstream of the Jewish community," Weiss said.
"I wouldn't characterize them as enemies of Israel," Weiss said. "I would characterize it that their self-avowed statement that they are pro-Israel is not accurate."
The split among U.S. Jews has its roots in the Jewish settlement building in the occupied territories after the 1967 Six Day War, which sparked debate in the U.S. and in Israel over whether the settlements helped or hurt Israeli security.
At the same time, American Judaism was splintering. The strictly traditional Orthodox population grew, but so did the number of Jews who left organized religious life. Jews were marrying outside the faith at a high rate, and their families were generally less involved in the Jewish community and less tied to Israel.
"We now have more people who care deeply about Israel and more people who care very little about Israel," said Steven M. Cohen, a professor at Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute on Religion who specializes in research on the American Jewish community.
Meanwhile, liberal Reform Judaism, which has worked for years to underscore its deep commitment to the Jewish state, grew to become the largest movement in American Judaism. The result: a pro-Israel American Jewish community largely split between conservatives and liberals, both emotionally attached to Israel but with conflicting outlooks on many Israeli policies.
At Temple Sharey Tefilo-Israel, a Reform Jewish synagogue in South Orange, New Jersey, Rabbi Daniel Cohen struggles to hold the ever-shrinking common ground among his congregants over Israel. Before Cohen delivers a sermon on the subject, he re-reads what he wrote and asks himself, "How are they going to hear it?"
From the pulpit, he tries to weave together the views of doves and hawks among the 850 families in his congregation, comparing Israel to a flawed friend who nonetheless should be defended against slander. Still, he hears complaints -- about his personal involvement with the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the long-established lobbying group, and his simultaneous support for congregants active in J Street.
"I'm very, very careful to focus on the importance of Israel and the American Jewish community and being involved in activism. I'm not proscriptive about how people should get involved," said Cohen, the temple's senior rabbi for 16 years.
A Pew Research Center survey conducted last year found more than two-thirds of American Jews feel somewhat or very attached to Israel, but only 38 percent believe the Israeli government is sincerely pursuing peace with the Palestinians and 44 percent said settlement construction hurts Israeli national security. (In the same poll, just 12 percent of U.S. Jews said Palestinian leaders were making a sincere effort to resolve the conflict.)
Many Jewish leaders worry the infighting could not only undermine U.S. support for Israel, but also drive away the younger American Jews who are pressing for a broader definition of what it means to be pro-Israel.
"The attacks are stronger and more vicious sometimes ...," said Cohen. "If you're not hearing other perspectives, I don't know how you can have an honest, open debate."


http://seattletimes.com/html/nationworld/2023798576_apxrelamericanjewsisrael.html

 

[VDKMS]

why do people hate Israel?

Part 1:

because of all the misinformation and lies that are told in the media.

Let's start with the name: Palestine. The media let us believe that Palestine belongs to the Palestinians because France belongs to the French and Germany to the Germans.

What the media doesn't tell you is that Palestinians have nothing to do with Palestine.

Palestine comes from the word Pelesheth in the Hebrew bible, land of the Greek Pelishtim. Translated into Greek in the Old Testament (Palestine is not used in the New Testament, Israel is) it becomes Palaistine. The Latin translation of Palaistine is Palaestina (language of Christian liturgy changed from Greek to Latin in the 3rd century) and translated in English (16th century) it becomes Palestine.
Palestine is not the land of the "Palestinians", which are Arab, but the land of the extinct Greek society of the Philistines.
If you don't believe the bible is right there's another source that confirms it: Ramses III, he defeated the Sea Peoples in 1177 BC.
There's also archaeological evidence of the Philistines that links them to the Minoan culture.
Palestine as in the "Palestine mandate" refers to the land mentioned in the Bible and not to the land of the "Palestinians".

Palestinians were created by Arafat when he told his followers to call themselves Palestinians. It was a very clever politcal move.

None of the documents of the Mandate of Palestine, and they had to report yearly, mentions Palestinians. Only Jews and Arabs. One of those documents mentionend that the local population called themselves Arabs.

Second: Arafat.
He lied about his birthplace. Told the world he was born in Jerusalem. He was not, he was born in Cairo. He was an immigrant from Egypt. The media also wants you to believe he married a christian woman. This is also a lie. She had to convert to Islam before being able to marry Arrafat. So at the wedding she was a muslim, not a christian.
So the most important "Palestinian" who fought against the immigrated Jews was an immigrant himself!
But he is not alone:
Saeb Erekat Born April 28,1955, Jordan (Bedouin)
Faysal Al-Husayni Born July 17,1940, Baghdad Iraq
Sari Nusseibeh born Feb 12, 1949 , Damascus Syria
Mahmoud Al-ZaHar born 1945 Cairo, Egypt
Nayef Hawatmeh born 1935, Jordan

Third: Palestinians want peace.
Maybe this is the biggest lie of them all. "Palestinian" leaders have had countless of opportunities to get their independent land. Up untill the mandate of Palestine there was no such movement for an independent country. The first thing the British did was devide the mandate in an Arab and a Jewish part. Jews were not allowed to settle in the Arab part (Transjordan) and the Arabs were not allowed to settle in the Jewish part. The British restricted Jewish immigration into their own homeland while doing nothing about the massive Arab immigration. Most "Palestinians" are descendants from other Arab countries: immigrants.
The Partition plan would give the Arabs extra land and another country, they refused.
Barak gave everything Arafat asked for, he denied because the temple mount was not included.
Olmert gave everything Abbas asked for, he denied because the temple mount was not included (international administration of Jerusalem)
Kerry was going to press Netanyahu with crippling sanctions so Abbas was going to get everything he asked for, except the templemount. Abbas blew up the talks by making peace with a terrorist organisation (Hamas).
"Palestinian" textbooks of geography do not mention Israel. They teach their children Palestine consists of Israel, West Bank and Gaza. So their children grow up with a big lie in order to provoke aggressiveness towards Israel.
"Palestinians" want the destruction of Israel (control of the Templemount), not peace.

 

[MontyB]

So I take it the retraining was a success, you have been updated to Habarabot 2.0?

Hope they renovated your cubical while you were off being reprogrammed.

So on to the mythbusting, I see you are complaining that the Palestinians are misrepresenting the facts yet I also notice a few things in your post that are good examples of misrepresntation for example you say "Saeb Erekat Born April 28,1955, Jordan (Bedouin)" yet Saeb Erekat was born in Abu Dis which if I am not mistaken is quite clearly in the West Bank and considered part of area B under Palestinian civil control.

Mahmoud Al-ZaHar born 1945 Cairo, Egypt, actually born in Jerusalem but studied at Cairo University.

Sari Nusseibeh born Feb 12, 1949 , Damascus Syria, born in Damascus raised in Jerusalem.

So a couple of months being brainwashed does not seem to have improved your accuracy at all.

Still lets play this game:
Avigdor Lieberman, Isreali foreign minister born Kishinev, USSR.
Silvan Shalom, Minister of Energy and Water Resources, born Gabès, Tunisia
Amir Peretz, Minister of Environmental Protection, born Boujad, Morocco
Sofa Landver, Minister of Immigrant Absorption, born in Leningrad, USSR.

So your media would have us believe that Israel belongs to the Russians it seems.

You give me 4 Palestinians from the last 80 years and in return I give you 4 "Israeli's" in the current government, so I am sure you are not trying to argue that place of birth makes you less of a Palestinian or Israeli oh wait you are...

So what was your point again?

Oh yes thats right it was about misrepresentation of the facts.

 

[VDKMS]

My retraining was wonderfull. 7 Days in luxuxry on the Queen Mary 2 then 16 days in an RV traveling the NE USA. Learned about the battle of Gettysburg. Saw the niagara falls and fort. Threw some "tea" in the river in Boston and spoke with 17th century people at the Plymouth Colony. They didn't talk about Jews but Hebrews. Sorry, no word of Palestinians. Learned about the Salem witch trials and visited Ellis island and of course the Statue of Liberty. Also had a look at the USS Intrepid.

Saeb Erekat: He has the Jordanian citizenship. When he was born there was no area B of the west Bank. It was annexed by Jordan. It was called Judea and Samaria. Jordan called it the West Bank because it was on the west bank of the Jordan river.
On 11/02/2014 he declared:

“It is an honor for me to be a Bedouin and to be a Jordanian.”​

Mahmoud Al-ZaHar: born in Jerusalem? So was Arafat until the lie was exposed. According to globalsecurity.org he was born in Gaza. Who knows where else he was born!

Sari Nusseibeh born Feb 12, 1949 , Damascus Syria, born in Damascus raised in Jerusalem. Right. He was born in Damascus.
The Nusseibeh family are trustees, according to tradition, for opening and closing the Gate of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. (Wikipedia).
It seems they have a tradition of keeping things that are not theirs (The Christian key and "Palestine")

The Jews don't lie about where they come from. Most of them are immigrants just like the "Palestinians".

FDR in 1939: "the Arab immigration into Palestine since 1921 has vastly exceeded the total Jewish immigration during this whole period." [Elliott Roosevelt (ed.), F.D.R., His Personal Letters, 1928-1945 (Duell, Sloan and Pearce, 1950), p. 886.]

Churchill in 1939: "the Arabs have crowded into the country and multiplied till their population has increased more than even all world Jewry could lift up the Jewish population." [H.M. Stationery Office, Parliamentary debates: Official report: Volume 347 (Great Britain: Parliament, House of Commons, 1939), p. 2178.]

why do people hate Israel?

Part 2:

Refugees.

Jewish refugees: Jews were expelled from most Arab countries, their property and belongings confiscated because Israel accepted the UN partition plan and declared its independence. Not all of them were expelled, many were murdered because they were Jewish. Just like in Nazi Germany.

Arab refugees: were advised to leave their homes so the Arab armies could "drive the Jews into the sea". AKA a new holocaust. It turned out to be a defeat for the Arab armies and many Arabs who left their homes were affraid to come back or couldn't return because their homes were destroyed in the war. Some were expelled from their villages for Jewish defensive reasons.

None of the Jewish refugees went to refugee camps, most Arabs did. How many? No one exactly knows but many figures are wrong. It is said that there were more than 700.000 Arab refugees. That is possible, but it is impossible that they all were expelled by Israel. The population of Israel in 1947 propably was 498.000 Jews and 325.000 Arabs. (see UN Partition Recommendation November 29, 1947 Map). From the 325.000 Arabs 160.000 stayed or came back to live in Israel. A 1948 report of U.N. Mediator Count Folke Bernadotte gives the total number of refugees as 300.000 Arabs and 7.000 Jews. Some word about the 5 million "Palestinian refugees" of today. A "PAlestinian refugee" according to UNRWA is:“persons whose normal place of residence was Palestine during the period 1 June 1946 to 15 May 1948, and who lost both home and means of livelihood as a result of the 1948 conflict.” This is in accordance with the 1951 UN Convention relating to the Status of Refugees. Including the descendants is an UNWRA rule that does not comply with the 1951 UN Refugee Convention.


Occupation (liberation)

Israel doesn't occupy anything. Israel is a result of an UN resolution. The Arabs refused their part. The eastern border of Israel borders the western border of the Arab part which does not excist because they refused, that's why there is defacto no official Israeli eastern border.(UN resolution 181 : "The eastern frontier of the Jewish State follows the boundary described in respect of the Arab State." and the green line is not a border but a cease fire line) In 1948 Jordan invaded and occupied (and illegaly annexed) the part the Arabs refused, just like the Nazis did with Belgium and other countries in WWII. In 1967 Israel liberated the occupied territory just like the allies liberated Belgium and other countries that were occupied by the Nazis. Israel rules the unallocated land according to international rule of law AKA civilian government.

The reason why the "Palestinians" want the green line as their border is because then the Temple Mount would be theirs.


Ethnic cleansing

"Ethnic cleansing is the systematic forced removal of ethnic or religious groups from a given territory with the intent of creating a territory inhabited by people of a homogeneous or pure ethnicity, religion, culture, and history."
Israel : in 1949 there were 159.000 Arabs, in 2014 2.488.000. In 2003 there were 363 mosques (now approx 400) in Israel exluding hundreds of masjids.
Palestinian territories : all Jews were expelled from East Jerusalem and Judea in 1948. That's ethnic cleansing. All but one synagogue were destroyed. The ancient Jewish cemetery on Mount of Olives was destroyed. In May 1967, the Temple Mount became a military base for the Jordanian National Guard.

 

[senojekips]

Ethnic cleansing

"Ethnic cleansing is the systematic forced removal of ethnic or religious groups from a given territory with the intent of creating a territory inhabited by people of a homogeneous or pure ethnicity, religion, culture, and history."
Israel : in 1949 there were 159.000 Arabs, in 2014 2.488.000. In 2003 there were 363 mosques (now approx 400) in Israel exluding hundreds of masjids.
Palestinian territories : all Jews were expelled from East Jerusalem and Judea in 1948. That's ethnic cleansing.

So,... the driving of over 700,000 Palestinians from their homes into neighbouring countries, killing many of those who resisted, so THEIR land and possesions can be stolen by illegal immigrants of one religious ethnicity is not Ethnic cleansing?[/quote]

FAIL!!!...

It would appear that your retraining was a dismal failure.

 

[VDKMS]

So,... the driving of over 700,000 Palestinians from their homes into neighbouring countries, killing many of those who resisted, so THEIR land and possesions can be stolen by illegal immigrants of one religious ethnicity is not Ethnic cleansing?

FAIL!!!...

It would appear that your retraining was a dismal failure.

Israel did not start those wars that caused the refugee problem. There were also 820.000 Jews expelled from Arab countries. They had nowhere to go but Israel and 200.000 went to Europe and North America. Their possesions and property confiscated, bank accounts blocked and robbed. Many tortured as "spies".

One example: a well respectected Iraqi Jew from Basra (familiy lived there for generations, didn't speak Herbrew only Arabic) was arrested for spying for Israel. He denied all allegations (he was no spy). One day they brought his wife to a room with mirrorglass and told him that if he didn't admit he was a spy they would rape his wife and cut her into pieces before his eyes. He then said he was a spy and was hanged in public. Kurds helped his wife and children flee the country. One of his children became an expert in tracking down terrorists. She wrote a book about it.

At the second annual gathering of Jewish refugees from Arab countries on Thursday, Nov. 21 2013, in a conference room at UN headquarters in New York:

“It has been 65 years and the Arab countries have never been held accountable for the crimes that they committed. In six and a half decades, they have never taken responsibility for creating the Jewish refugees.”​

The illegal immigrants were the Arabs not the Jews. In the mandate of Palestine Arabs were prohibited from immigrating into the future Jewish homeland. Jewish immigration was legal. The land created for the Arabs in the mandate was called Transjordan where the Jews were not allowed to immigrate to.

 

[senojekips]

Israel did not start those wars that caused the refugee problem. There were also 820.000 Jews expelled from Arab countries. They had nowhere to go but Israel and 200.000 went to Europe and North America. Their possesions and property confiscated, bank accounts blocked and robbed. Many tortured as "spies".

Was this done by the Palestinians? No,.... so why do you present this as evidence that the Zionist occupation of Palestine is some how justified by this?

The illegal immigrants were the Arabs not the Jews. In the mandate of Palestine Arabs were prohibited from immigrating into the future Jewish homeland. Jewish immigration was legal. The land created for the Arabs in the mandate was called Transjordan where the Jews were not allowed to immigrate to.

Bullsh!t,... Jewish occupation was never legal, in fact legally the state of Israel has never legally existed. The British administrators of PALESTINE (not Israel) were only able to recommend the setting up of a jewish homeland in the event that the Palestinians allowed it, which they did not. It was when the Zionists discovered that there was no legal way that they could have a homeland in Palestine that the Zionist terror groups attacked the legal Administration and drove them out, after which they attacked the Palestinians and drove them into neighbouring countries where they remain until this day.

You cannot be an illegal immigrant into a land that is promised to you. Any Arabs were migrating to the promised Pan ARAB State as promised by the Brits. in 1917.

All of this has been previously covered and you know it, so let's get back to where we left off and you can explain your lies.

You still have not shown your much quoted Frame 633 that you allege enables you to see the victim's uninjured foot inside his shoe and told us how you reached this miraculous conclusion. Another of your lies made up (poorly) on the run.

Neither have you posted any evidence to support your claim that the view of the hole in the sole of the shoe shows it is pushed inwards. Another lie

Also you have never explained how the material you posted, allegedly from Forensic Architecture states clearly the victim was shot in the foot from a range of 1.5 metres and yet their supposedly forensically accurate drawing clearly shows the victim to be 4 metres away. Like you they make up their excuses (very poorly) on the run.

You have never explained how Nahum Sharaf's Official Affidavit denies the findings of the Israeli High Court that Abu Rameh WAS shot in the foot, To many lies for them to keep track of, eh?

You still have not been able to produce this mysterious "uncut" video showing the projectile hitting the ground 6m behind the victim and having this alleged "conversation" on it. So far there is absolutely no evidence that this conversation ever took place, and the only mention that can be found of it is on a Hasbara site run by Rivka Shpak Lissak, an Israeli born Hasbarat, quoting Jonathan D. Halevi an ex Lt Col. in the IDF, now employed by The Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs (A recognised Hasbara site). Liar!

You also stated that Abu Rameh was not a protester, however it was stated in the court proceedings that he was, He is also clearly visible protesting in the opening scenes of the video. Another Lie on your behalf