hiphop
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
Why don?t they just fuckin shoot us all.
23 year old American Rachel killed by Israeli Army Bulldozer
- Thread starter Klaus
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Amna
The Fly
Honestly, I just pray, pray that this doesn't get any worst..... I am inspired by Rachel's devotion to the suffering people of the West Bank... Some people think that it was stupid for her to be infront of the bull dozer... Well, the problem is, there are to few people who are infront of that bull dozer, we have to many people who think to much of themselves and very few that understand the passion of peace.. I really would love to go to the West Bank myself and get a reality check that everyone here wouldn't understand fully untill u witness it.... Children and innocent people are killed every day in the West Bank... All are deprived of education and water... While we sit on our healthy asses, thousends are being slowly killed in the west Bank... And we wonder, why are there so many terrorists?
hmmmm...
hmmmm...
OP
OP
Klaus
Refugee
The German Foreign minister Joschka Fischer traveled to Israel to talk to Sharon and ask him to support Abbas a and give his democratic reforms a chance.
Klaus
Klaus
ouizy
Rock n' Roll Doggie
This thread is a piece of crap.
I am thinking about starting threads about how many Israelis, no let me change that, how many AMERICANS have been killed by Palestinian suicide bombers as all I see in FYM is how evil Israel is.
The bottom line is that Israel has a policy for bulldozing houses that they can justify as having to do with terrorism or against any of its other laws.
Period.
The Israelis know this, the Palestinians know this, and yes, the Americans know this (the reason why these "human-shields" are there.)
Whether you agree with this policy or not, if you are in full knowledge of Israel's policy, and you know they are going to demolish the house, you do not kneel in front of the bulldozer without understanding that you are willing to give your life for your action.
This girl did know the policy, did know what the outcome would be, was willing to give her life for her cause, and DID kneel in front of the bulldozer.
She gave her life for her cause.
Remember, the driver did not see her:
She should have moved out of the way.
To me, this is not news, and this is not debatable.
I am thinking about starting threads about how many Israelis, no let me change that, how many AMERICANS have been killed by Palestinian suicide bombers as all I see in FYM is how evil Israel is.
The bottom line is that Israel has a policy for bulldozing houses that they can justify as having to do with terrorism or against any of its other laws.
Period.
The Israelis know this, the Palestinians know this, and yes, the Americans know this (the reason why these "human-shields" are there.)
Whether you agree with this policy or not, if you are in full knowledge of Israel's policy, and you know they are going to demolish the house, you do not kneel in front of the bulldozer without understanding that you are willing to give your life for your action.
This girl did know the policy, did know what the outcome would be, was willing to give her life for her cause, and DID kneel in front of the bulldozer.
She gave her life for her cause.
Remember, the driver did not see her:
She should have moved out of the way.
To me, this is not news, and this is not debatable.
hiphop
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
ouizy said:
Your reply is a piece of crap.
OP
OP
Klaus
Refugee
ouzi:
>This thread is a piece of crap.
you don't have to read it if you can't stand facts we are discussing here.
>...how many Israelis, ...AMERICANS
>have been killed by Palestinian
>suicide bombers ...
My point in this as in many other conflicts was:
Suicide attacks are crimes, no excuses for such a behaviour.
But suicide attacks can't be a excuse for a government to violate human rights and even punish innocent civilians.
If a government starts to kill innocent people on a regulare base there's something going wrong - verry wrong.
And i don't give a *** if this is a country i like or not, if the government dosn't respect human life anymore we have to care about that.
>The bottom line is that Israel has a
>policy for bulldozing houses that they
>can justify as having to do with
>terrorism or against any of its other
>laws.
Just because a government dosn't violate the laws it wrote down itself dosn't mean that they are doing a fine job! There are a lot of countries who abuse the word terrorism to terrorize civilians (not only the country we are talking about here)
"Period."
jes, period
"The Israelis know this, the Palestinians know this, and yes, the Americans know this (the reason why these "human-shields" are there.)"
Rachel was willing to give her life away for her ideals - i respect this in the same manner that i respect a soldier who is willing to give his live away to protect his country.
"Whether you agree with this policy or not, if you are in full knowledge of Israel's policy, and you know they are going to demolish the house, you do not kneel in front of the bulldozer without understanding that you are willing to give your life for your action."
It's like "if you know Saddams policy, simply respect his will and you won't be punished! (No i don't compare these to governments, i just want to show you who could use this argument too)
There's allways a way that you won't get hurt (or at least you can reduce the chance of being hurt). But i have deep respect for people who change the world to a better place and are willing
to even pay with their life.
"This girl did know the policy, did know what the outcome would be, was willing to give her life for her cause, and DID kneel in front of the bulldozer.
"
These guys and girls are called idealists. They are the ones who actually chance the world. That's the spirit who was with the people who stopped absolutism, who stoped slavery....
Klaus
>This thread is a piece of crap.
you don't have to read it if you can't stand facts we are discussing here.
>...how many Israelis, ...AMERICANS
>have been killed by Palestinian
>suicide bombers ...
My point in this as in many other conflicts was:
Suicide attacks are crimes, no excuses for such a behaviour.
But suicide attacks can't be a excuse for a government to violate human rights and even punish innocent civilians.
If a government starts to kill innocent people on a regulare base there's something going wrong - verry wrong.
And i don't give a *** if this is a country i like or not, if the government dosn't respect human life anymore we have to care about that.
>The bottom line is that Israel has a
>policy for bulldozing houses that they
>can justify as having to do with
>terrorism or against any of its other
>laws.
Just because a government dosn't violate the laws it wrote down itself dosn't mean that they are doing a fine job! There are a lot of countries who abuse the word terrorism to terrorize civilians (not only the country we are talking about here)
"Period."
jes, period
"The Israelis know this, the Palestinians know this, and yes, the Americans know this (the reason why these "human-shields" are there.)"
Rachel was willing to give her life away for her ideals - i respect this in the same manner that i respect a soldier who is willing to give his live away to protect his country.
"Whether you agree with this policy or not, if you are in full knowledge of Israel's policy, and you know they are going to demolish the house, you do not kneel in front of the bulldozer without understanding that you are willing to give your life for your action."
It's like "if you know Saddams policy, simply respect his will and you won't be punished! (No i don't compare these to governments, i just want to show you who could use this argument too)
There's allways a way that you won't get hurt (or at least you can reduce the chance of being hurt). But i have deep respect for people who change the world to a better place and are willing
to even pay with their life.
"This girl did know the policy, did know what the outcome would be, was willing to give her life for her cause, and DID kneel in front of the bulldozer.
"
These guys and girls are called idealists. They are the ones who actually chance the world. That's the spirit who was with the people who stopped absolutism, who stoped slavery....
Klaus
FizzingWhizzbees
ONE love, blood, life
ouizy said:
Actually, if you look at how many Palestinians and Israelis have died since September 2000 (the beginning of the current intifada) the number of Palestinians killed by the IDF far outweighs the number of Israelis killed in suicide bombings. Of course it's horrible to think just in "numbers" and we shouldn't ever forget that every one of those people, both Israeli and Palestinian is a real person, not just a statistic.
Also, I don't think it's fair to dismiss the replies to this thread as just about "how evil Israel is" - I think people have a right to be disgusted at some of the actions of the IDF, and to express disagreement with those actions or the actions of the Israeli state certainly isn't to claim that Israel is "evil".
ouizy
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Thank you very much, I knew that from the outset.
Klaus, understand me, I respect the article and even the topic you posted here. I even understand your wanting the story not to go away because we are fighting a war in Iraq, but when I read replies like:
The subject immediately turns to crap for me simply because she conscioulsy decided to kneel in front of a moving bulldozer she knew would tear down that house.
1. I call that suicide and not murder
2. US citizen or not, that has no weight.
3. Where are the troops??? (Israel is and should be one of our allies.)
4. Invade Israel... (simple ignorance.)
You cannot bring about your own death and blame others simply because you do not agree with their policy.
No one asked her to go there, she was compelled to, no one asked her to sit down in fron of a multiple-ton earth moving machine.
No one asks others to commit suicide, they just do.
hiphop
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
I think I wasn?t the one to post your third quote, ouizy, but I do agree with the poster in the sense that
1) It is murder, not suicide. Say I?d decide to protest on an American highway against a skyscraper your company builds, you would pass along with a car, see me and knock me down and I would die, it would be near to murder too - you could maybe mask it as an accident and get away though. Or the other way round, I?d be in front of your friends house with a bulldozer and you would stand there to stop me, and I would drive you down - to call that suicide would not help me in court.
2) US citizen or not shouldn?t have any weight, but in real life it has.
3) and 4) your point taken
5) If the same thing happened in Iraq (before of the war) what would the U.S. administration do? They?d tell the media to pump it up and use it to tell the public that?s another reason to invade. If the same thing happened in a European country, there would be an official sorry from the government, if not there?d be diplomatic difficulties at the very least. But, if it happens in Israel, it is labelled an accident, and the American President neither cares to mention the tragic event.
However, I find it very strange to define it as suicide. Suicide is when you stab yourself, shoot yourself or whatever - not when you stand or kneel in front of a bulldozer. Following your logic, the 4,000 students at Tienanmen in China all committed suicide. Great point of view. Or could you please explain the difference.
You completely left out the point of Klaus about idealism, too.
1) It is murder, not suicide. Say I?d decide to protest on an American highway against a skyscraper your company builds, you would pass along with a car, see me and knock me down and I would die, it would be near to murder too - you could maybe mask it as an accident and get away though. Or the other way round, I?d be in front of your friends house with a bulldozer and you would stand there to stop me, and I would drive you down - to call that suicide would not help me in court.
2) US citizen or not shouldn?t have any weight, but in real life it has.
3) and 4) your point taken
5) If the same thing happened in Iraq (before of the war) what would the U.S. administration do? They?d tell the media to pump it up and use it to tell the public that?s another reason to invade. If the same thing happened in a European country, there would be an official sorry from the government, if not there?d be diplomatic difficulties at the very least. But, if it happens in Israel, it is labelled an accident, and the American President neither cares to mention the tragic event.
However, I find it very strange to define it as suicide. Suicide is when you stab yourself, shoot yourself or whatever - not when you stand or kneel in front of a bulldozer. Following your logic, the 4,000 students at Tienanmen in China all committed suicide. Great point of view. Or could you please explain the difference.
You completely left out the point of Klaus about idealism, too.
Last edited:
Man Inside The Child
The Fly
To kill a protester with an American made bulldozer is should not be considered suicide it should be considered murder by the Israeli government .... Such murder happens on a daily basis to Palestinians fighting to keep their land, homes, stores, olive fields, farms etc.... The only reason such a senerio has come to our attention is because the person who was murdered was an American. A brave American fighting for a just cause. An American truly fighting for the freedom of others. "Suicide"... No, Rachel Corrie was a freedom fighter... and the Israeli army driver ran over her not only once, but rolled back on her once again displaying the typically sick and inhumane operations of the Israel's government and army.
Many Internationals have fought against the unjust and terrorizing 50 year occupation of Palestine... They bravely use their bodies to protect civilians, farmers, olive trees, wells, houses, and other civilian infrastructure. Such daily murders and ETHNIC CLEANSING of Palestinians and now freedom fighters in favour of Israeli settlements can only increase animosity towards Israel and the United States. Palestinians see a U.S. government which they know from direct experience is not interested in human rights, democracy, or eliminating the real roots of terrorism. Because this is where it comes from. Terrorism that is. The U.S. support of an inhumane regime that continues to repress Palestinians and sieze what little remains of their land. The U.S. remains the only country that constantly supports Israel, irregardless of the over 100 broken U.N. resolutions against them. Why??? Jewish lobbyists in the U.S. influencing governent and secondly the strategic location of Israel, a so-called democratic country in the midst of all that OIL.
Of course there should be troops in Palestine/Israel... fighting for freedom and democracy... But unlike Iraq, Palestine is does not have oil, nor the support of Jewish lobbyists in the United States.
Rachel Corrie at the very least opened the eyes of some of those whose eyes were closed, and are now only learning about the inhumane injustice towards Palestinieans. For now though Palestinian community activists, resistance fighters, and ordinary civilians are being shot, tortured, rocketed, bulldozed, stoned, deported, imprisoned, humiliated, assassinated, and summarily executed on a routine basis by Israeli occupation forces and so-called ?settlers??
How many children need to be murdered in their own homes, shot while walking to school, or blown up by rockets from the sky, before the international community holds Israel accountable for war crimes? How long will America support such horrorible crimes against humanity? How long, how long must we sing this song?????????????
Many Internationals have fought against the unjust and terrorizing 50 year occupation of Palestine... They bravely use their bodies to protect civilians, farmers, olive trees, wells, houses, and other civilian infrastructure. Such daily murders and ETHNIC CLEANSING of Palestinians and now freedom fighters in favour of Israeli settlements can only increase animosity towards Israel and the United States. Palestinians see a U.S. government which they know from direct experience is not interested in human rights, democracy, or eliminating the real roots of terrorism. Because this is where it comes from. Terrorism that is. The U.S. support of an inhumane regime that continues to repress Palestinians and sieze what little remains of their land. The U.S. remains the only country that constantly supports Israel, irregardless of the over 100 broken U.N. resolutions against them. Why??? Jewish lobbyists in the U.S. influencing governent and secondly the strategic location of Israel, a so-called democratic country in the midst of all that OIL.
Of course there should be troops in Palestine/Israel... fighting for freedom and democracy... But unlike Iraq, Palestine is does not have oil, nor the support of Jewish lobbyists in the United States.
Rachel Corrie at the very least opened the eyes of some of those whose eyes were closed, and are now only learning about the inhumane injustice towards Palestinieans. For now though Palestinian community activists, resistance fighters, and ordinary civilians are being shot, tortured, rocketed, bulldozed, stoned, deported, imprisoned, humiliated, assassinated, and summarily executed on a routine basis by Israeli occupation forces and so-called ?settlers??
How many children need to be murdered in their own homes, shot while walking to school, or blown up by rockets from the sky, before the international community holds Israel accountable for war crimes? How long will America support such horrorible crimes against humanity? How long, how long must we sing this song?????????????
Last edited:
Basstrap
ONE love, blood, life
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2000
- Messages
- 10,726
Next to the ultimate point of this thread,
I find Gabriels angry replies most disturbing. Talking about..."They should be the next target for us"
I'm glad that he is not in power, otherwise the world would be a bloody mess
I find Gabriels angry replies most disturbing. Talking about..."They should be the next target for us"
I'm glad that he is not in power, otherwise the world would be a bloody mess
OP
OP
Klaus
Refugee
I'd stil like to continue this thread and i think it would be wonderful if we could remember Rachel until there is a diplomatic solution for Palestina.
(Ok, i'm dreaming - don't wake me up
)
Gabriel's discussion was overheated and because of that he's taking his timeout, it would be beautiful if we could discuss problems of government violence of Israel here.
ouizy: ok, i got that wrong because you posted emediately after my post thanks for helping me to understand you.
Klaus
(Ok, i'm dreaming - don't wake me up
)Gabriel's discussion was overheated and because of that he's taking his timeout, it would be beautiful if we could discuss problems of government violence of Israel here.
ouizy: ok, i got that wrong because you posted emediately after my post
thanks for helping me to understand you.Klaus
MiniFly
War Child
I don't venture in here much, so I'm late as usual
This is pretty disgusting. It's that sort of state-violence that makes terrorists out of regular people. Those houses house normal people who turn into terrorists. That's the way Isreal justifies this.
The world is upside down right now. I think I'd rather remember the sacrifice that young woman made.
This is pretty disgusting. It's that sort of state-violence that makes terrorists out of regular people. Those houses house normal people who turn into terrorists. That's the way Isreal justifies this.
The world is upside down right now. I think I'd rather remember the sacrifice that young woman made.
MadelynIris
Refugee
1) Why does Isreal hold the west bank?
2) Exactly where is Palestine? Does it also include the current boundaries of the state of Israel?
Mark
ouizy
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Klaus, I too would like to keep this thread going.
I would also like to know the answer to #2 of MadelynIris' post.
Let's start with:
Israel
I do not understand this quote. Why do these people turn into terrorists, and are you saying that because they are terrorists Israel can justify this, or are you saying that they are houses full of innocent people that Israel are labelling terrorists?
What can I possibly say? I will try to withhold my emotions about this one and say something as clear as I can.
Your Jewish lobbyist theory (in my mind) does not truly hold up as most of the US government (whether you want to admit it or not) are Christian and are from states with very low percentages of Jewish citizens.
If there were troops fighting for freedom in as you call it Palestine/Israel, what exactly would they be fighting for, or should I say whom?
It seems to me your two sentences contradict each other when you say the Jewish lobbyists are bhind support for Israel due to all that OIL, but then you say Palestine does not have oil, or the support of these lobbyists, so what exactly are these numerous Jewish lobbyists lobbying for exactly?
Your argument confuses me.
If I were asked how to resolve the Israeli/Palestinian conflict in one year's time, here is what I would suggest:
--The lands that the two groups hold would immediately be frozen (until negotions scheduled for after nine month's time.)
--A coalition of allied nations send limited troops <25,000 to be sent for peacekeeping posts only. The US would obviously lead this.
--A nine month moratorium on the demolition of Palestinian homes and businesses would be put into effect.
--All holy sites would have permanent guards.
--Israeli settlers would be allowed to remain where they lived, but no further settlements could be expanded or created.
--After the nine months go by, there would be a three month negotiation period in which a peace/land plan would have to be negotiated with the knowledge that there would be no further aid for either side, economically, humanitarian, or otherwise.
--There would also be the knowledge that troops will pull out after one year, and if there is conflict, troops would fight on the side of their allies.
--If either leader in the year's time is proven to be ineffective, troops will pull out and aid will be stopped until new leadership is in place.
Checkpoints would be set up and everyone moving in either direction would be stopped. There would be no one-way traffic for work or otherwise.
If during the time troops are in the area there is any kind of revolt, uprising or any kind of terrorist activity, the side that initiates it would have military cerfews and repurcussions.
This conflict has gone on for too long due to ineffective leadership and conflict breeds conflict.
Every bomb the Palestinians ignite causes the Israelis to take action.
Every home the Israelis demolish brings about action by the Palestinians.
It is a vicsious cycle and one that won't stop until both sides stop.
Only a third party can stop this with control and force (against both sides.)
The time is now for this to happen, and hey our troops ARE in the area...
I would also like to know the answer to #2 of MadelynIris' post.
Let's start with:
Israel
I do not understand this quote. Why do these people turn into terrorists, and are you saying that because they are terrorists Israel can justify this, or are you saying that they are houses full of innocent people that Israel are labelling terrorists?
What can I possibly say? I will try to withhold my emotions about this one and say something as clear as I can.
Your Jewish lobbyist theory (in my mind) does not truly hold up as most of the US government (whether you want to admit it or not) are Christian and are from states with very low percentages of Jewish citizens.
If there were troops fighting for freedom in as you call it Palestine/Israel, what exactly would they be fighting for, or should I say whom?
It seems to me your two sentences contradict each other when you say the Jewish lobbyists are bhind support for Israel due to all that OIL, but then you say Palestine does not have oil, or the support of these lobbyists, so what exactly are these numerous Jewish lobbyists lobbying for exactly?
Your argument confuses me.
If I were asked how to resolve the Israeli/Palestinian conflict in one year's time, here is what I would suggest:
--The lands that the two groups hold would immediately be frozen (until negotions scheduled for after nine month's time.)
--A coalition of allied nations send limited troops <25,000 to be sent for peacekeeping posts only. The US would obviously lead this.
--A nine month moratorium on the demolition of Palestinian homes and businesses would be put into effect.
--All holy sites would have permanent guards.
--Israeli settlers would be allowed to remain where they lived, but no further settlements could be expanded or created.
--After the nine months go by, there would be a three month negotiation period in which a peace/land plan would have to be negotiated with the knowledge that there would be no further aid for either side, economically, humanitarian, or otherwise.
--There would also be the knowledge that troops will pull out after one year, and if there is conflict, troops would fight on the side of their allies.
--If either leader in the year's time is proven to be ineffective, troops will pull out and aid will be stopped until new leadership is in place.
Checkpoints would be set up and everyone moving in either direction would be stopped. There would be no one-way traffic for work or otherwise.
If during the time troops are in the area there is any kind of revolt, uprising or any kind of terrorist activity, the side that initiates it would have military cerfews and repurcussions.
This conflict has gone on for too long due to ineffective leadership and conflict breeds conflict.
Every bomb the Palestinians ignite causes the Israelis to take action.
Every home the Israelis demolish brings about action by the Palestinians.
It is a vicsious cycle and one that won't stop until both sides stop.
Only a third party can stop this with control and force (against both sides.)
The time is now for this to happen, and hey our troops ARE in the area...
OP
OP
Klaus
Refugee
ouizy:
Please tell whom you qoted otherwise it looks like i said this
Klaus
Please tell whom you qoted otherwise it looks like i said this
Klaus
Man Inside The Child
The Fly
ouizy said:
Hi Ouizy,
Let me try to clear up my argument. First of all, I think your idea for a peace plan is very well thought out and hopefully, one day, peace would come from such a process. Anyways, to clear up my opinions on Jewish lobbyists and their influence in the U.S.
Jewish lobbyists have massive power over American policy... They include the American Pro-Israel Commitee, along with the American Jewish Committee, the American Defense League, the United Jewish Communities, the National Jewish Democratic Council, and the Republican Jewish Coalition. It is traced to the power of the collective Jewish or pro-Israeli lobby, a well-organized, well-funded, extremely active, and extraordinarily connected group, according to many political analysts. These lobbyists donate millions of dollars to campaigners, and when elected, these elected politicians become Israeli biased when it comes to mid-east policy. That's a fact. It is truly disturbing to see American elected officials falling over themselves in an unseemly attempt to 'pledge allegiance' to a foreign government and its domestic lobby. AIPAC is one of the most powerful pro-Israeli lobbyists in the U.S. and have been known to donate up to $500,000 per candidate. So what does this mean for America????
It means that decisions about every region on the planet (not only the most volatile) will be made on the basis of AIPAC influence.
It means that the United States will continue to fund the repression and murder of Palestinians.
It means that our media will, by-and-large, debase truth and objectivity for the benefit of Israeli blessings.
It means that we can continue to expect candidates like Jesse Jackson to be savagely labelled "anti-Semitic" for suggesting fairness in America's Middle East policy.
To further my argument, here's a quote from WRMEA.com (which is a great site btw) "The lobby that Israel and its supporters have built in the United States to make all this aid happen, and to ban discussion of it from the national dialogue, goes far beyond AIPAC, with its $15 million budget, its 150 employees, and its five or six registered lobbyists who manage to visit every member of Congress individually once or twice a year.
AIPAC, in turn, can draw upon the resources of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, a roof group set up solely to coordinate the efforts of some 52 national Jewish organizations on behalf of Israel.
Among them are Hadassah, the Zionist women's organization, which organizes a steady stream of American Jewish visitors to Israel; the American Jewish Congress, which mobilizes support for Israel among members of the traditionally left-of-center Jewish mainstream; and the American Jewish Committee, which plays the same role within the growing middle-of-the-road and right-of-center Jewish community. The American Jewish Committee also publishes Commentary,one of the Israel lobby's principal national publications.
Ouizy "It seems to me your two sentences contradict each other when you say the Jewish lobbyists are bhind support for Israel due to all that OIL, but then you say Palestine does not have oil, or the support of these lobbyists, so what exactly are these numerous Jewish lobbyists lobbying for exactly?"
The lobbyists are lobbying to protect Israel from its biggest threat to its existence... In Iraq........ Saddam Hussein's military, Saddam Hussein's support of the Palestinian cause. Furthermore, from what I've recently heard through my brother in law who is with Bloomberg news(just a rumour), the Israili's are planning on building a pipeline from Israel to Iraq... Oil once again at the center of issues.... Hmmmm...
In Palestine/Israel... the lobbyists push the U.S. to continue support of Israel and it's murderous, repressive, aggressive, and unjustified occupation of Palestine. Oh, and they're also paying off or lobbying congressmen to push for the continued donation of $10 billion dollars of U.S. tax payers money to Israel.
In addition, what about Congressmen Jim Moran who told the truth and said that the United States wouldn't be going to war if it wasn't for Jewish lobbyists.... He was forced to resign by pressure from Jewish lobbyists for those very comments... Moran was a politician who spoke the truth, went against the grain, risked his political career.... and in turn was labelled an anti-semite and was forced to resign. Sad.
Anyways, I gotta get back to the books.
You can read up on all this stuff in government books and all over the net.
Later
Last edited:
It has nothing to do with being pro-Jewish. Jerry Falwell encourages support for Israel, because it is his belief that it will cause a war that will kill 2/3 of the Jews and the other 1/3 will convert to Christianity. "A win-win situation," in his words.
Considering some of the fanatics in Bush's circle of influence...
Melon
Considering some of the fanatics in Bush's circle of influence...
Melon
OP
OP
Klaus
Refugee
melon said:
Huh, that's the most horrible things i've heared about motives why the US supports Israel - can you tell me when he said that?
And do you think anyone listens to this religious fanatic?
Klaus
Klaus said:
He said it during a "60 Minutes II" (U.S. TV newsmagazine) interview and unapologetically.
I would like to think "no," but considering the kinds of "Christians" that have been popping up everywhere from AIDS committees to FDA appointments, I have to question it. Of course, Bush would never admit it openly.
Melon
ouizy
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Man Inside the Child,
Your post was clear and to the point, and albeit biased displayed the skeleton behind the US support for Israel.
As you see it as wrong, I see it as a group of people who have been segregated, persecuted, and killed for too many years not to put forth their best effort in this country.
I can gurantee you you that in due time, through the peace process there too will be numerous Palestinian lobbyists in the US, but they will only be recognized when the terrorism stops.
As much as I understand your side of the argument, I have a problem reading many pro-Palestinian posts because they generally do not ever mention the terror that group of people has displayed in Israel.
Statements like:
It is hard to debate people with the same beliefs as you because many of us do not believe there ever was a Palestine, and the idea that the Palestinian group of people "deserve" anything due to a claim on land that was never theirs is null.
As far as the pipeline, I have a very hard time believeing any of this. I am not saying your family memeber made anything up - I am sure the rumour is out there (I can only guess who propagated it..) but I have to say there is no way any free country on this planet including the US would ever allow Israel to ever tap into Iraq's oil supply until a free Iraq agreed to it.
If this were to happen surreptitiously, the state of Israel as we know it would cease to exist as its neighbors (who already despise) them would squash them.
As far as Jerry Falwell is concerned whoever listens to him should be ashamed of themselves, especially if they are the "leader of the free world."
Klaus, sorry - I sometimes do not always say who I am quoting - just throw out some recent quotes and respond to them, sorry if it seemed like you said something you did not say...
Your post was clear and to the point, and albeit biased displayed the skeleton behind the US support for Israel.
As you see it as wrong, I see it as a group of people who have been segregated, persecuted, and killed for too many years not to put forth their best effort in this country.
I can gurantee you you that in due time, through the peace process there too will be numerous Palestinian lobbyists in the US, but they will only be recognized when the terrorism stops.
As much as I understand your side of the argument, I have a problem reading many pro-Palestinian posts because they generally do not ever mention the terror that group of people has displayed in Israel.
Statements like:
It is hard to debate people with the same beliefs as you because many of us do not believe there ever was a Palestine, and the idea that the Palestinian group of people "deserve" anything due to a claim on land that was never theirs is null.
As far as the pipeline, I have a very hard time believeing any of this. I am not saying your family memeber made anything up - I am sure the rumour is out there (I can only guess who propagated it..) but I have to say there is no way any free country on this planet including the US would ever allow Israel to ever tap into Iraq's oil supply until a free Iraq agreed to it.
If this were to happen surreptitiously, the state of Israel as we know it would cease to exist as its neighbors (who already despise) them would squash them.
As far as Jerry Falwell is concerned whoever listens to him should be ashamed of themselves, especially if they are the "leader of the free world."
Klaus, sorry - I sometimes do not always say who I am quoting - just throw out some recent quotes and respond to them, sorry if it seemed like you said something you did not say...
Scarletwine
New Yorker
This is an article by Eric Alterman in this weeks nation. I think it is an interesting slant on the issue.
STOP THE PRESSES by Eric Alterman
Can We Talk?
.L. Sulzberger would not have liked this war. Back in 1937, New York Times Washington bureau chief Arthur Krock was hoping to be named editorial page editor. As Gay Talese tells it in The Kingdom and the Power, Sulzberger would not even discuss it. He explained to Krock, "It's a Jewish paper and we have a number of Jewish reporters working for us. But in all the years I've been here, we have never put a Jew in the showcase."
This war has put Jews in the showcase as never before. Its primary intellectual architects--Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle and Douglas Feith--are all Jewish neoconservatives. So, too, are many of its prominent media cheerleaders, including William Kristol, Charles Krauthammer and Marty Peretz. Joe Lieberman, the nation's most conspicuous Jewish politician, has been an avid booster, going so far as to rebuke his former partner Al Gore and much of his own party.
Then there's the "Jews control the media" problem. It's probably not particularly relevant that the families who own the Times and the Washington Post are Jewish, but let's not pretend this is so in the case of the Jewish editors of, say, U.S. News & World Report and The New Republic. Mortimer Zuckerman is head of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, and Peretz is unofficial chair of the American Arab Defamation Committee. Neither is shy about filling his magazine with news Jews can use.
To make matters worse, many of these Jewish hard-liners--"Likudniks" in the current parlance--appear, at least from a distance, to be behaving in accordance with traditional anti-Jewish stereotypes. Much to the delight of genuine anti-Semites of the left and right, the idea of a new war to remove Saddam was partially conceived at the behest of Likud politician Benjamin Netanyahu in a document written expressly for him by Perle, Feith and others in 1996. Some, like Perle, apparently see the influence they wield as an opportunity to get rich. What's more, many of these same Jews joined Rumsfeld and Cheney in underselling the difficulty of the war, in what may have been a ruse designed to embroil America in a broad military conflagration that would help smite Israel's enemies. Did Perle, for instance, genuinely believe "support for Saddam, including within his military organization, will collapse at the first whiff of gunpowder"? Is Wolfowitz really so ignorant of history as to believe the Iraqis would welcome us as "their hoped-for liberators"?
The character of this Administration, unfortunately, adds further fuel to the stereotypical fire. Unlike, say, Tony Blair, George W. Bush does not readily give the impression of having a geopolitical clue. Hence, he appears rather easily manipulated by the smart fellows with their fancy concepts and Ivy League degrees who surround him. (Yes, I know about Bush's degrees, but they're never part of the story.) Rapidly shifting conventional wisdom has already begun to blame Bush advisers' "bum advice," according to one Washington Post report, for the war's decidedly not-so-cakewalk-like character. A really good conspiracy theorist would begin to wonder if the Jews are being set up to take the fall when things go badly.
A big part of the problem in addressing the "Jewish war" conspiracy thesis is the reticence of almost all sides to broach the issue of Israeli and American Jewish influence on US foreign policy. A few writers, most notably Stanley Hoffmann, Robert Kaiser and Mickey Kaus, have raised the question gingerly. But writing on the Washington Post op-ed page, New Republic editor Lawrence Kaplan insists that even raising "the specter of dual loyalty" is "toxic." Kaus noted accurately in Slate that the dual loyalty taboo is "quite openly designed to stop people from raising the Likudnik issue." And it works.
This is all very confusing to your nice Jewish columnist. My own dual loyalties--there, I admitted it--were drilled into me by my parents, my grandparents, my Hebrew school teachers and my rabbis, not to mention Israeli teen-tour leaders and AIPAC college representatives. It was just about the only thing they all agreed upon. Yet this milk- (and honey-) fed loyalty to Israel as the primary component of American Jewish identity--always taught in the context of the Holocaust--inspires a certain confusion in its adherents, namely: Whose interests come first, America's or Israel's? Leftist landsmen are certain that an end to the occupation and a peaceful and prosperous Palestinian state are the best ways to secure both Israeli security and American interests. Likudniks think it's best for both Israel and the United States to beat the crap out of as many Arabs as possible, as "force is the only thing these people understand."
But we ought to be honest enough to at least imagine a hypothetical clash between American and Israeli interests. Here, I feel pretty lonely admitting that, every once in a while, I'm going to go with what's best for Israel. As I was lectured over and over while growing up, America can make a million mistakes and nobody is going to take away our country and murder us. Israel is nowhere near as vulnerable as many would have us believe, but it remains a tiny Jewish island surrounded by a sea of largely hostile Arabs. Perhaps it was a strategic mistake for America to rush to Israel's aid in 1973, but given the alternative, I really don't care. As Moshe Dayan told Golda Meir at the time, the "third temple" was crumbling. Tough luck if it meant higher gasoline prices at home.
I can't profess to speak for the motivations of others, and by the numbers, American Jews seem no more prowar than the US population, and maybe even a little less. But I'd be surprised if the Administration's hawkish Likudniks were immune to the emotional pull of defending Dayan's "third temple." Our inability to engage the question only forces the discussion into subterranean and sometimes anti-Semitic territory. If the Likudniks played an unsavory role in fomenting this war (and future wars), and further discussion will help illuminate this unhappy fact, then I say, "Let there be light." If something is "toxic" merely to talk about, the problem is probably not in the talking, but in the doing.
STOP THE PRESSES by Eric Alterman
Can We Talk?
.L. Sulzberger would not have liked this war. Back in 1937, New York Times Washington bureau chief Arthur Krock was hoping to be named editorial page editor. As Gay Talese tells it in The Kingdom and the Power, Sulzberger would not even discuss it. He explained to Krock, "It's a Jewish paper and we have a number of Jewish reporters working for us. But in all the years I've been here, we have never put a Jew in the showcase."
This war has put Jews in the showcase as never before. Its primary intellectual architects--Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle and Douglas Feith--are all Jewish neoconservatives. So, too, are many of its prominent media cheerleaders, including William Kristol, Charles Krauthammer and Marty Peretz. Joe Lieberman, the nation's most conspicuous Jewish politician, has been an avid booster, going so far as to rebuke his former partner Al Gore and much of his own party.
Then there's the "Jews control the media" problem. It's probably not particularly relevant that the families who own the Times and the Washington Post are Jewish, but let's not pretend this is so in the case of the Jewish editors of, say, U.S. News & World Report and The New Republic. Mortimer Zuckerman is head of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, and Peretz is unofficial chair of the American Arab Defamation Committee. Neither is shy about filling his magazine with news Jews can use.
To make matters worse, many of these Jewish hard-liners--"Likudniks" in the current parlance--appear, at least from a distance, to be behaving in accordance with traditional anti-Jewish stereotypes. Much to the delight of genuine anti-Semites of the left and right, the idea of a new war to remove Saddam was partially conceived at the behest of Likud politician Benjamin Netanyahu in a document written expressly for him by Perle, Feith and others in 1996. Some, like Perle, apparently see the influence they wield as an opportunity to get rich. What's more, many of these same Jews joined Rumsfeld and Cheney in underselling the difficulty of the war, in what may have been a ruse designed to embroil America in a broad military conflagration that would help smite Israel's enemies. Did Perle, for instance, genuinely believe "support for Saddam, including within his military organization, will collapse at the first whiff of gunpowder"? Is Wolfowitz really so ignorant of history as to believe the Iraqis would welcome us as "their hoped-for liberators"?
The character of this Administration, unfortunately, adds further fuel to the stereotypical fire. Unlike, say, Tony Blair, George W. Bush does not readily give the impression of having a geopolitical clue. Hence, he appears rather easily manipulated by the smart fellows with their fancy concepts and Ivy League degrees who surround him. (Yes, I know about Bush's degrees, but they're never part of the story.) Rapidly shifting conventional wisdom has already begun to blame Bush advisers' "bum advice," according to one Washington Post report, for the war's decidedly not-so-cakewalk-like character. A really good conspiracy theorist would begin to wonder if the Jews are being set up to take the fall when things go badly.
A big part of the problem in addressing the "Jewish war" conspiracy thesis is the reticence of almost all sides to broach the issue of Israeli and American Jewish influence on US foreign policy. A few writers, most notably Stanley Hoffmann, Robert Kaiser and Mickey Kaus, have raised the question gingerly. But writing on the Washington Post op-ed page, New Republic editor Lawrence Kaplan insists that even raising "the specter of dual loyalty" is "toxic." Kaus noted accurately in Slate that the dual loyalty taboo is "quite openly designed to stop people from raising the Likudnik issue." And it works.
This is all very confusing to your nice Jewish columnist. My own dual loyalties--there, I admitted it--were drilled into me by my parents, my grandparents, my Hebrew school teachers and my rabbis, not to mention Israeli teen-tour leaders and AIPAC college representatives. It was just about the only thing they all agreed upon. Yet this milk- (and honey-) fed loyalty to Israel as the primary component of American Jewish identity--always taught in the context of the Holocaust--inspires a certain confusion in its adherents, namely: Whose interests come first, America's or Israel's? Leftist landsmen are certain that an end to the occupation and a peaceful and prosperous Palestinian state are the best ways to secure both Israeli security and American interests. Likudniks think it's best for both Israel and the United States to beat the crap out of as many Arabs as possible, as "force is the only thing these people understand."
But we ought to be honest enough to at least imagine a hypothetical clash between American and Israeli interests. Here, I feel pretty lonely admitting that, every once in a while, I'm going to go with what's best for Israel. As I was lectured over and over while growing up, America can make a million mistakes and nobody is going to take away our country and murder us. Israel is nowhere near as vulnerable as many would have us believe, but it remains a tiny Jewish island surrounded by a sea of largely hostile Arabs. Perhaps it was a strategic mistake for America to rush to Israel's aid in 1973, but given the alternative, I really don't care. As Moshe Dayan told Golda Meir at the time, the "third temple" was crumbling. Tough luck if it meant higher gasoline prices at home.
I can't profess to speak for the motivations of others, and by the numbers, American Jews seem no more prowar than the US population, and maybe even a little less. But I'd be surprised if the Administration's hawkish Likudniks were immune to the emotional pull of defending Dayan's "third temple." Our inability to engage the question only forces the discussion into subterranean and sometimes anti-Semitic territory. If the Likudniks played an unsavory role in fomenting this war (and future wars), and further discussion will help illuminate this unhappy fact, then I say, "Let there be light." If something is "toxic" merely to talk about, the problem is probably not in the talking, but in the doing.
Man Inside The Child
The Fly
Hi Ouizy,
I agree with everything you said and I do respect your opinion... There has been unnecessary life lost on the Israeli side of things and that saddens me as well. My question has always been why such terror occurs and what has spurred such terror.
Anyways, you mentioned:
"As you see it as wrong, I see it as a group of people who have been segregated, persecuted, and killed for too many years not to put forth their best effort in this country. "
You're right, the Jews have suffered over the centuries, especially this one... But having suffered all those years, how can they now turn around and segregate, persecute, and kill Palestinians? Let's face it in the first instance, many Jews were the victims of tyranny. In the second instance, many Jews are now the tyrants.
As far as the history of the region goes, you mentioned "It is hard to debate people with the same beliefs as you because many of us do not believe there ever was a Palestine, and the idea that the Palestinian group of people "deserve" anything due to a claim on land that was never theirs is null. " But really, the Canaanites, the original Palestinians had inhabited Palestine well before (as early as 3000 bc)... it was not until 1400 bc that the Hebrews conquered the Canaanites... Just a little history.
The Palestinian people had originally occupied the land and were part of the land, its culture, and its history until today. At times, yes, they did not self-govern, like during the Ottoman Empire... but the Ottoman's ran most of Europe.
Later
I agree with everything you said and I do respect your opinion... There has been unnecessary life lost on the Israeli side of things and that saddens me as well. My question has always been why such terror occurs and what has spurred such terror.
Anyways, you mentioned:
"As you see it as wrong, I see it as a group of people who have been segregated, persecuted, and killed for too many years not to put forth their best effort in this country. "
You're right, the Jews have suffered over the centuries, especially this one... But having suffered all those years, how can they now turn around and segregate, persecute, and kill Palestinians? Let's face it in the first instance, many Jews were the victims of tyranny. In the second instance, many Jews are now the tyrants.
As far as the history of the region goes, you mentioned "It is hard to debate people with the same beliefs as you because many of us do not believe there ever was a Palestine, and the idea that the Palestinian group of people "deserve" anything due to a claim on land that was never theirs is null. " But really, the Canaanites, the original Palestinians had inhabited Palestine well before (as early as 3000 bc)... it was not until 1400 bc that the Hebrews conquered the Canaanites... Just a little history.
The Palestinian people had originally occupied the land and were part of the land, its culture, and its history until today. At times, yes, they did not self-govern, like during the Ottoman Empire... but the Ottoman's ran most of Europe.
Later
Last edited:
Man Inside The Child
The Fly
ouizy said:
Here's a recent article discussing the rumour (which is now pretty close to fact from what I hear) of a pipeline running from Iraq to Israel....
Israel Already Talks Of
Reopening Iraq-Haifa Oil Pipeline
4-1-3
BERLIN (IRNA) -- Israel is seriously considering an old plan to restart the Iraq-Haifa oil pipeline which used to run from the north Iraqi city of Mosul to Israel's northern port of Haifa, DPA quoted the Israeli daily Ha'aretz on Monday.
Israel's National Infrastructure Minister Yosef Paritzky has requested an assessment of the state of the oil pipeline which ceased operations in 1948.
Paritzky hoped the flow of oil from Iraq to Haifa could be renewed, if an Israel-friendly regime was set up in Iraq after the war. The minister said that resurrecting the old pipeline could save Israel the high cost of shipping oil from Russia.
He also thought the United States would react favorably to the idea, since the pipeline would bring oil directly from Iraq to the Mediterranean. Israel had made one attempt to renew the oil flow to Haifa during the Iraqi imposed war in the 1980s, however Syria blocked the flow of Iraqi oil to the Mediterranean.
Reuters also reports on this story....
pub crawler
New Yorker
I don't read The Nation and I'm not familiar with Eric Alterman, although with a quick Google-ing I discovered that he's somewhat of a controversial pundit and has a few enemies out in cyberspace. Nevertheless, putting all his conjecture aside, if it's true that Perle and Wolfowitz are "Jewish neoconservatives," I mean, this alone is troubling for me.
Scarletwine
New Yorker
Another peace activist was killed yesterday at the West Bank. I hope the UK looks into this better than the US did.
British activist shot in head by Israeli troops
Student peace worker suffers suspected brain damage in attack while protecting Palestinian family in Gaza Strip
Conal Urquhart in Jerusalem
Saturday April 12, 2003
The Guardian
A British peace activist was shot in the head yesterday as he tried to help a Palestinian woman and her children flee Israeli gunfire.
Tom Hurndall was shot as he moved towards the family in Rafah in the southern Gaza Strip. He was wearing a fluorescent orange vest, and witnesses say that there had been no exchange of fire between the Israeli army and Palestinian gunmen that day.
According to doctors at Rafah Hospital, he is believed to have suffered brain damage.
Alice Coy, 27, a peace activist from London, said that their group had been on their way to pitch a tent by a mosque yesterday afternoon.
They planned to try to prevent an Israeli tank repeating its nightly routine of taking position at the mosque and firing down the street.
"As we approached the mosque, several shots landed in the street around us," she said. "We took cover behind a mound of earth.
"Most of the Palestinians around us had run away, but there was a woman with her two children stuck in front of us. I looked up and Tom was moving towards them in his orange vest.
"I imagine he was trying to take them to safety. Then he was shot in the head by a single bullet, I believe from an Israeli watchtower."
The Israeli army said that it could not comment because the incident was still under investigation.
Last month a US activist, Rachel Corrie, 23, was crushed to death by an Israeli army bulldozer.
She too was wearing an orange vest when she knelt in front of the vehicle, but it kept going. The Israeli army is still investigating.
Last week, Brian Avery, 24, another activist from New Mexico, was shot in the face by Israeli soldiers in Jenin.
A spokesman for the International Solidarity Movement - the group which had trained Mr Hurndall in non-violent resistance - alleged that the Israeli army had embarked on a campaign against its activists.
"It now seems like it is open season on international peace activists," he said. "They just want us out so they can get on with their business without international observation."
Mr Hurndall, 21, from Tufnell Park, London, was studying photography at Manchester Metropolitan University. At the end of February he went to Iraq to join the human shields in Baghdad but left before the war.
He arrived in the West Bank on April 4 and completed a training course at ISM's headquarters near Bethlehem.
The ISM has activists operating all over the West Bank and Gaza who come to the region from around the world to try to act as a buffer between the Israeli army and settlers and Palestinians. Their activities range from protecting the olive harvest to escorting children to school. They often work with Israeli human rights groups.
Their presence is a source of annoyance to the Israeli army and they are often arrested and beaten up.
Last November an Irish activist, Ciaomhe Butterly, 23, was shot in the leg in Jenin after talking to soldiers. She was deported.
Palestinians are regularly killed by gunfire in Rafah. It is situated next to the Israeli-controlled border with Egypt, through which Palestinian smugglers attempt to tunnel to import goods and weapons. Hamas and Islamic Jihad are active in the town.
The Israeli army is widening the buffer zone between homes in Rafah and the security fence, a task that has involved the demolition of hundreds of homes.
According to Tom Wallace of the ISM, Mr Hurndall was part of a group of activists on their way to set up a tent by a mosque in the Jibna area of Rafah. On Thursday morning, two brothers aged 19 and 15 had been shot by Israeli soldiers as they approached the mosque.
Mr Wallace said the activists wanted to "challenge the army's nighttime terrorism". "In addition to preventing sporadic shooting, the activists hope to help the residents of Jibna to pray in peace," he said.
Raphael Cohen, 37, a computer programmer from London who lives in Cairo, said he had met Mr Hurndall recently.
"He is a fantastic person and a very passionate photographer," Mr Cohen said.
"He was documenting the daily life of Rafah, not just the bad stuff.
"He was very excited about being in Rafah. He came here to help people and that is what he was doing every day."
British activist shot in head by Israeli troops
Student peace worker suffers suspected brain damage in attack while protecting Palestinian family in Gaza Strip
Conal Urquhart in Jerusalem
Saturday April 12, 2003
The Guardian
A British peace activist was shot in the head yesterday as he tried to help a Palestinian woman and her children flee Israeli gunfire.
Tom Hurndall was shot as he moved towards the family in Rafah in the southern Gaza Strip. He was wearing a fluorescent orange vest, and witnesses say that there had been no exchange of fire between the Israeli army and Palestinian gunmen that day.
According to doctors at Rafah Hospital, he is believed to have suffered brain damage.
Alice Coy, 27, a peace activist from London, said that their group had been on their way to pitch a tent by a mosque yesterday afternoon.
They planned to try to prevent an Israeli tank repeating its nightly routine of taking position at the mosque and firing down the street.
"As we approached the mosque, several shots landed in the street around us," she said. "We took cover behind a mound of earth.
"Most of the Palestinians around us had run away, but there was a woman with her two children stuck in front of us. I looked up and Tom was moving towards them in his orange vest.
"I imagine he was trying to take them to safety. Then he was shot in the head by a single bullet, I believe from an Israeli watchtower."
The Israeli army said that it could not comment because the incident was still under investigation.
Last month a US activist, Rachel Corrie, 23, was crushed to death by an Israeli army bulldozer.
She too was wearing an orange vest when she knelt in front of the vehicle, but it kept going. The Israeli army is still investigating.
Last week, Brian Avery, 24, another activist from New Mexico, was shot in the face by Israeli soldiers in Jenin.
A spokesman for the International Solidarity Movement - the group which had trained Mr Hurndall in non-violent resistance - alleged that the Israeli army had embarked on a campaign against its activists.
"It now seems like it is open season on international peace activists," he said. "They just want us out so they can get on with their business without international observation."
Mr Hurndall, 21, from Tufnell Park, London, was studying photography at Manchester Metropolitan University. At the end of February he went to Iraq to join the human shields in Baghdad but left before the war.
He arrived in the West Bank on April 4 and completed a training course at ISM's headquarters near Bethlehem.
The ISM has activists operating all over the West Bank and Gaza who come to the region from around the world to try to act as a buffer between the Israeli army and settlers and Palestinians. Their activities range from protecting the olive harvest to escorting children to school. They often work with Israeli human rights groups.
Their presence is a source of annoyance to the Israeli army and they are often arrested and beaten up.
Last November an Irish activist, Ciaomhe Butterly, 23, was shot in the leg in Jenin after talking to soldiers. She was deported.
Palestinians are regularly killed by gunfire in Rafah. It is situated next to the Israeli-controlled border with Egypt, through which Palestinian smugglers attempt to tunnel to import goods and weapons. Hamas and Islamic Jihad are active in the town.
The Israeli army is widening the buffer zone between homes in Rafah and the security fence, a task that has involved the demolition of hundreds of homes.
According to Tom Wallace of the ISM, Mr Hurndall was part of a group of activists on their way to set up a tent by a mosque in the Jibna area of Rafah. On Thursday morning, two brothers aged 19 and 15 had been shot by Israeli soldiers as they approached the mosque.
Mr Wallace said the activists wanted to "challenge the army's nighttime terrorism". "In addition to preventing sporadic shooting, the activists hope to help the residents of Jibna to pray in peace," he said.
Raphael Cohen, 37, a computer programmer from London who lives in Cairo, said he had met Mr Hurndall recently.
"He is a fantastic person and a very passionate photographer," Mr Cohen said.
"He was documenting the daily life of Rafah, not just the bad stuff.
"He was very excited about being in Rafah. He came here to help people and that is what he was doing every day."
OP
OP
Klaus
Refugee
Sorry for reanimating that thread but today BBC news fits exactly to this thread:
While it sounded like a good idea to me to warn the people that they are in a unsafe area we can see that this can be easily abused to simply forbid all people who are not pro Sharon to enter that area.
Palestinensians are not alowed to go outside this territory without permission and foreigners aren't allowed to enter this area without governments permission - this getho building frightens me.
Klaus
While it sounded like a good idea to me to warn the people that they are in a unsafe area we can see that this can be easily abused to simply forbid all people who are not pro Sharon to enter that area.
Palestinensians are not alowed to go outside this territory without permission and foreigners aren't allowed to enter this area without governments permission - this getho building frightens me.
Klaus
FizzingWhizzbees
ONE love, blood, life
If the occupited territories aren't safe enough for foreigners to enter, how can anyone argue it's acceptable that the Palestinian people live under such conditions?
Similar threads
