Israel returns the remains of Palestinian bodies

[Eugene]

Source: BBC

31 May 2012 Last updated at 13:48 GMT

Israel returns the remains of Palestinian bodies

Israel has handed over to the Palestinian Authority the remains of 91 Palestinians who died carrying out attacks against Israel.

The remains include suicide bombers and militants who died in operations as far back as 1975.

The repatriation of the bodies forms part of a deal to end a mass hunger strike by hundreds of Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails.

Israeli officials say the transfer is a confidence-building gesture.

[font size=1]-snip-[/font]

Read more: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-18276354

[Harmony Blue]

1. This is indeed a good gesture

I doubt anyone would disagree with that.

[azurnoir]

2. wll that is certainly nice of Israel

what was the reason Israel was holding bodies in cases for more than 30 years?

up next the shock and outrage at Palestinians honoring dead terrorists

[shira]

3. shock and outrage @ Palestinians honoring dead terrorists?

what do you mean by that?

[Ruby the Liberal]

4. Naming streets/towns after them

creating shrines and stuff.

Thats what I got out of it anyway.

[azurnoir]

5. no funerals families mourning the dead perhaps politicians giving speechs

I remember 'someone' once making an outraged post about a Palestinian child 'honoring' a dead terrorist who was her Grandfather at 5 or 6 she should have known to condemn him doncha' know

[Ruby the Liberal]

7. Did you miss the whole part about "carrying out attacks"

in the article?

These were the remains of suicide bombers who targeted families, children. Brave "warriors" that they were.

[azurnoir]

8. yes I did however some of them no matter how much you may want to ignore this fact

also have families and parents and children who will miss them and even though it makes for wondrous antiPalestinian propaganda for some did and still do love them, but I know it's not like when IDF kills Palestinian children and families is it, no one says oops or collateral damage its to be expected on the behalf of these Palestinian terrorists, but I doubt those Palestinians affected by the "World's most moral army" feel the loss any less .

[Ruby the Liberal]

9. Az, if a relation of mine blew himself the fuck up

with the sole intent of taking out families and children, yeah, I might miss the asshole, but I damn sure am not about to erect a shrine and worship his remains.

It is what differentiates humans from not-humans - the concepts of dignity and empathy. You can miss someone without putting them (and their actions) on a pedestal.

[azurnoir]

10. that is your choice, but if IDF or the US army for that matter thinks of taking out the enemy

no matter who gets killed in the process because they are wearing a uniform, and that is okay?

[BudT]

13. I see you have 18,000 + comments and . .

. . I'll bet most of them were in this forum. Yet, you seem to not grasp the most fundamental fact about this conflict. That is, one side is the obvious aggressor who's leaders admit every day that its mission in life and reason for existence is to rid the ME of the state of Israel.

They have been attacking and maiming and killing Israeli civilians for 64 years now for this purpose. When its fighters are successful their video tapes affirm again that they believe it is completely justified and praiseworthy for them to murder as many Jews as possible. They teach their children that to die attempting to murder Jews is the highest calling of Allah.

The Israelis want to live in peace yet are forced to defend themselves from those attacks. Certainly you don't believe that if the Palestinians decided to stop attacking Jews one day - that Israel, even if they no longer had to defend themselves, would decide to become the aggressor and take up murdering Palestinians, do you?

And so, to help you see what is so confounding for me about your comment is that you see no moral difference at all between the two sides. Because if you did recognize that huge difference - the sides are polar opposites morally based on their intentions - then you would see that it is rather grotesque lamenting the loss in war of those who chose to go to war simply to get what they want - not because they were being attacked.

It is even more grotesque IMO lamenting that "no one says oops or collateral damage its to be expected on the behalf of these Palestinian terrorists". Have you considered that the reason is that the deaths caused by the Palestinian terrorists were specifically the result of their choice to cause them - to go out and murder Israeli civilians. They chose to murder innocent people. That's why when they succeed, no-one who has any sense of morality in them, is going to say oops, collateral damage. It's because that would be absurd. For a Palestinian terrorist "collateral damage" simply means that they were able to murder more Jews than they had hoped to.

[azurnoir]

16. well I have grasped this much in my 6-1/2 years posting here

and that is ProIsrael posters such as yourself will quite frequently post things such as the windy post you just made posts that always justify and sweep under the rug the fact that while you will cry victim it is the Palestinians who suffer the vast bulk of death, destruction, maimings, injury, and yes someone will always cry but we did not mean too, yet at what point does this all to common missive begin to beggar belief ? How are deaths at least half perhaps more of which were civilian accidental? How is herding an entire Palestinian family women children and adults then bombing the place killing 10's of people including children all to kill 1 person an accident?

When 2 sides are morally opposite in their intentions? really are we to forget the background to all of this, comments such as yours would have us believe all of this happens in a vacuum, but it does not does it?

However what comments such as yours and a couple others here do demonstrate all too well is the ease with which one side dismisses the humanity of the other with the claim of moral superiority and such dehumanizing the other is what makes all of possible both sides do it and both sides claim the same superiority so thanks to you and at least one other for providing such an eloquent example of what I've been saying here

[BudT]

17. Thanks for you sincere reply

The perplexing thing about this is that I believe we are all here concerned with morality and questions of right and wrong - which should result in a better world with less killing and suffering and greater happiness in the world if our concerns are well though out. I think my point is that if we make a mistake in our moral judgments about these things then we could end up causing the opposite to happen. We could be responsible for making the world a worse place.

But here is something that has been said many times and in so many ways that it has almost become a cliche; If the Palestinians laid down their guns there would be no more war - if the Israelis laid down their guns there would be no more Israel. Despite attempts by Israel's enemies in the West to dismiss that truth as a simplistic slogan it is actually the one element of essential truth that underlies the whole conflict.

And because it is so absolutely true, it becomes IMO the only compass one can trust to answer the most basic moral question. If one side chooses to murder civilians of the other side to get what they want, how is that moral? If one side only responds with violence when necessary to defend themselves how is that immoral? After all the hype and hot air is blown away the one basic truth remains - without Palestinian attacks against Israelis there would be no war and no-one would by dieing from it.

I realize that your view includes your belief that the establishment of the state of Israel was a terrible crime against the Palestinians. But changes in sovereignty over territory have been occurring since the first human tribes wandered the earth and staked out areas where they could exert exclusive control. It's one way humans provide security for themselves. And for just as long there have been disputes over that sovereignty. In this whole human history you will not find another example where a state was established by a more moral and legal means; where a state went to an international body established to reduce armed conflict and asked permission to establish their state and agreed to abide by the decisions of that body.

And so we're left with one side believing that their pride has been hurt when that body decided to divide up the sovereignty of that territory about equally rather than give them the complete control of it. And to to set things right and assuage their "honor" they have carried out a 64 year long unsuccessful war of choice, a war of aggression, that has caused immense misery, unhappiness and suffering. But no matter how one wishes things had turned out in 1947, from 1948 onwards there has been a clear choice between right and wrong. You can apologize for and encourage those who choose to murder others to get what they want - or you can stand on the side of those who wish to live in peace and only use violence when necessary to defend themselves. For me it's not a difficult choice and I hope you can see that my very liberal goal is to help create a happier and safer world for our children with less war and destruction - not more of it.

[azurnoir]

18. apparently you 'realize' quite imagitively

as this shows

I realize that your view includes your belief that the establishment of the state of Israel was a terrible crime against the Palestinians. But changes in sovereignty over territory have been occurring since the first human tribes wandered the earth and staked out areas where they could exert exclusive control. It's one way humans provide security for themselves. And for just as long there have been disputes over that sovereignty. In this whole human history you will not find another example where a state was established by a more moral and legal means; where a state went to an international body established to reduce armed conflict and asked permission to establish their state and agreed to abide by the decisions of that body.

it's 2012 not 1948 times have changed and no the existence of Israel is not a problem at all the existence of Israel's expansionism is however a problem, we have heard how the Palestinians are planning a total take over of Israel, but we're never told just how this would be accomplished seeing that Israel has the most powerful military in the region but we are to ignore statements such as this from Ben Gurion

We will make a great and awful mistake if we fail to settle Hebron, neighbor and predecessor of Jerusalem, with a large Jewish settlement, constantly growing and expanding, very soon. This will also be a blessing to the Arab neighbors. Hebron is worthy to be Jerusalem's sister.

http://www.hebron.com/english/article.php?id=223

This page was last modified on 22 April 2012, at 17:25.

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/David_Ben-Gurion

the expansionism has a long history and nothing can change that, attempts to obfuscate it not withstanding, so no IMO there is absolutely no problem with the existence of Israel within the green line and to state otherwise is one of two things completely fraudulent and a possible accusation of antisemitism or an admission that in the minds of some Israel is inclusive of West Bank or as it is preferred by those so minded Judea and Samaria

[azurnoir]

11. I have a question for you concerning this conversation

does understanding a family wanting to honor a relative who as you put it "blew himself the fuck up with the sole intent of taking out families and children" albeit that may not have been the case in every instance here of those whose children fathers mothers sister brothers blew up your family, mother , father , children ect equate to supporting the acts themselves? Is that what is attempting to be established here? Because it's a fail I do not support those acts at all but I do have empathy for those who lose family members on both sides

[Ruby the Liberal]

12. I have a line between empathy and martyrdom.

Sure, empathy for those who lost a loved one, but dust to dust, ashes to ashes. The person is gone once they stop drawing a breath. IMO, put the body parts in a landfill - they aren't coming back for them. What purpose do they serve other than to hold a burial? If someone died 20 years ago, what do their remains bring to the table (so to speak) that the death didn't?

I am not into caskets and funeral displays either. The remains are but a shell of what used to be a human.

Just my weird take on the world, I know. I am in the teeny tiny minority on this.

[azurnoir]

14. however the religious tenants are different for some religions

ask yourself why was Israel willing to go to the lengths it was to get bodies of some IDF soldiers back? While I may agree with you about bodies ect and I do believe me, others have different requirements and those should be honored too

[Ruby the Liberal]

15. It isn't just Israelis/Judaism

I was blown away by Christians (Catholics?) when I visited a shrine in Israel built to honor Mary. Nothing in it was a given, just "period pieces" that she "may have possibly touched". People were out they minds nuts over it all. Crying, prostrate, kissing stuff...

I know in Judaism that there is a tenet that all pieces of the remains need to be buried together (and within 24 hours if possible).

Difference between gathering remains and worshipping them - and it isn't specific to any religion.

You may have seen in LBN the other day - some guy is selling a vial of Ronald Reagan's dried blood in a test tube from when he was shot 30 years ago.

I have the same problem with that as I do with this topic (martyrdom) only in this case, the deceased are deceased by their own hand - and for the sole intent of taking others with them. That is not something to celebrate - no matter what being you pray to.

[azurnoir]

19. well it is the Holy Land

so it is kind of given to that kind of religious zealotry or over reaction, did you know that enough "wood from the cross" has been sold over the years to supposedly build a city?

now as to the concept of martyrdom as I have understood it in this conflict the term martyr is applied by Palestinians to anyone who dies as a result of Israeli actions whether it be a suicide bomber or a toddler but the Western concept takes over and the assumptions are made

[Ruby the Liberal]

20. Oh have mercy.

I don't know whether to be appalled that someone did that, that people actually bought it, or that someone thought of it before I did.

[shira]

6. What I got out of it is that the Palestinians can't help but turn to terror....

...and glorify murdering Jews, on account of the policies of the GOI.