Why was 17-year-old Muhammad killed?

[azurnoir]

Muhammad Ziad Awad Salaymah from Hebron celebrated his 17th birthday yesterday. His mother sent him to buy a cake for the planned party, and when he left his home on his way to the bakery he was stopped at an army checkpoint, where he was shot to death by an officer from the Border Police unit. These are the facts. From here, each side has a different version.

The border policewoman, whose name was published yesterday and is censored today, claims Muhammad took a pistol out of his pocket, grabbed one of the soldiers standing next to her and put the gun to his head. Without hesitation, she shot him while he was still holding the soldier. First a single shot, then another one, and only in the third shot did Muhammad let go of the soldier and the gun. As his dead body lay on the ground, it turned out the weapon was a toy gun – one which none of those who knew Muhammad had ever seen.

A Palestinian doctor who happened to be in the area heard the shots (witnesses claim there were six of them) and ran towards the Ibrahimi Mosque, where he saw a Palestinian woman arguing with the soldiers. The woman asked them to let her approach the wounded teenager. By the time the doctor was allowed to reach Muhammad, it was too late. Citizens who arrived on the scene, among them a volunteer from the Israeli human rights organization B’Tselem, reported that police officers took their cameras or deleted their photos without explaining why.

..........................................

I don’t know what happened at the checkpoint in Hebron and I don’t intend to judge any of the people involved. I can just say that the story of the Border Police officer sounds strange, to say the least. Luckily, the checkpoints in Hebron are monitored by Israeli security cameras, and I am sure that if her story is true, the IDF will release the video, showing a 17-year-old teen taking out a toy gun and holding it to the head of a soldier while the Border Police officer managed to shoot his body – not his head – no less than three times, despite the fact that according to her version, Muhammad’s body was hidden behind the captive soldier.

http://972mag.com/why-was-17-years-old-muhammad-killed/61950/

[patrice]

1. I really hate supporting this kind of behavior! I think we do have a right to know much

more about it than we ever do. That's wrong. We pay taxes that give Israel more support than we give the entire continent of Africa and then these murders just go on and on and on and no one ever gives the tax payers enough information to understand what is happening well enough to make responsible moral decisions about it and about our political and financial support for what is happening.

[shira]

26. Now you know what happened. See video below. n/t

[holdencaufield]

2. First tell me why ...

This boy ...



... 16-year old Daniel Viflic was killed?

[azurnoir]

3. another quick look over there post eh?

well when you decide to post something OT let us know unless of course you are saying that an incident that took place 1 3/4 years ago justifies this ?

[holdencaufield]

4. Off Topic?

Not sure how. Balance is never off topic. The topic is about juveniles who are harmed by a pointless conflict. So, unless, as you would be correct to point out, there is a huge difference in that young Daniel's crime was riding a bus to school and not pulling a gun (fake or otherwise) on an armed security officer.

I know that "blood-thirsty" is the new and approved moniker for all Israelis now but it's worth noting that children's blood is being spilled on both sides. Yes, that event did happen last year -- there are others more recent, shall we go through them all -- but does that make his murder any less heinous?

[azurnoir]

5. Balance? no off topic look over there

just for 'balance' what about the 200+ Palestinians that have dies at Israeli hands in the unseeing 20 months?

should it be taken that in ypour mind that is balance?

[holdencaufield]

6. Any disparity is easy to understand...

... given that Israelis place a priority on protecting civilian lives as opposed to Hamas. In Israel, bomb shelters are for civilians and not only the militant elite. In Israel, military facilities are isolated away from civilian areas and not in the middle of heavily populated residential sectors. All of these measure limit, but don't eliminate Israeli civilian casualties.

However, some prefer to screech about disparity as "proof" of the blood-thirsty nature of Israelis.

[azurnoir]

7. ah so now you change to Hamas but unfortunately it was IDF who killed the Palestinians

not Hamas no matter how much you stamp your feet and point your finger it was IDF not Hamas that is responsible for those deaths

[holdencaufield]

8. I never stamp my feet ...

... it ruins your shoes and you know how cheap we can be.

And I agree with you -- if only Israel were moral enough never to shoot back when Jewish civilians are attacked and killed then Palestinians would only have to be worried about being killed by Hamas gunmen.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/20/hamas-kills-suspected-col_n_2165236.html


I guess Israelis are just too blood-thirsty.

[azurnoir]

9. "it ruins your shoes and you know how cheap we can be." what are you talking about?

and the attack from Gaza came in answer to a murder committed by Israel the murder called assassinationm for political purposes of the man who reputed helped the negotiate the cease fire that was in place at the time he was killed

[holdencaufield]

10. Rocket fire started a month ago?!

Well, forgive me then. Those crafty Israeli propagandists led me to believe that attacks from Gaza started back in 2001.

Thanks for setting me straight.

[azurnoir]

11. so now you want to go back a decade? just a decade though?

but thanks for that in fact thanks for everything you've said here albeit could appear to be an attempt to justify the death of a Palestinian teenager

[holdencaufield]

12. And you can continue ignoring the death of Jewish teenagers...

... since they don't fit the narrative.

[azurnoir]

13. the only thing being ignored is the subject of the thread

which you are attempting to divert from

[holdencaufield]

14. No diversion at all

The subject line of the OP is the question "Why was Mohammed killed?" If that is a legitimate question to ask then why can't I ask why a Jewish teenager was killed as part of the same conflict. Or, is it only acceptable to speak of dead kids when they can be blamed on Jews?

At least the Jewish kid in question didn't pull a gun on an armed security guard -- which, to answer the question, is why he was killed. Believe it or not -- Israelis aren't the only people on this planet who are so blood-thirsty they would fire on a young adult brandishing a weapon. It happens every other week in our own country. On the other hand, young Daniel didn't pull a gun on anyone -- he was riding a bus to school when it was attacked by a Palestinian firing a rocket propelled grenade.

[azurnoir]

18. First off it was claimed that it was a toy gun

however the circumstances make that claim rather questionable

[holdencaufield]

20. Let's say it was a toy gun ...

... and the armed security officer is supposed to know that how? The 17-year old boy -- hardly a child -- didn't know there are consequences of pointing a gun -- fake or otherwise -- at an armed security officer? The same thing would have happened in any city in the US -- even if the security officer wasn't of a certain ethnic group.

As an experiment -- start pointing fake guns at police in Chicago or Detroit and let me know how that works out for you.

From the OP -- "First a single shot, then another one, and only in the third shot did Muhammad let go of the soldier and the gun."

He was shot TWICE and still didn't put down the fake gun -- does that sound like a "child" innocently playing with a gun and ruthlessly murdered by a blood-thirsty Israeli who has no concern for Palestinian life?

[Violet_Crumble]

15. Why are you fixated on whether someone's Jewish or not?

That's a really ugly and clumsy tool to use in yr quest to try to talk about anything else but the death of a Palestinian. I'm surprised you didn't dive straight in with a touring justification for the death.

[Ken Burch]

30. nobody here but YOU was using the term "blood thirsty" to describe Israelis.

Don't put antisemitic words in the mouths of those you know perfectly well never say them. And don't imply that those thoughts have ever been in our heads, either.

[delrem]

35. You're likening KB to ...

... to what? To some ambiguous "good German" citizen of 70-80 yrs ago, who was a nazi enabler because he didn't say what?

Who is calling whom a "nazi", in your post?
Let me guess: you don't have a clue.

[pelsar]

38. interpret my post as you like.....

whatever excuse/explanation you like, that makes you feel good.

my interpretation as being called a "blood-thirsty" zionist ....still stands.

[Ken Burch]

37. How do you know I was silent?

I don't remember Israelis AS A GROUP being called bloodthirsty in I/P. If you were, in this forum, that was wrong and it shouldn't have been said. I don't spend 24 hours a day monitoring every post in I/P. Israelis are NOT bloodthirsty. Neither is the IDF. There are other things that can be said, but that particular phrase is beyond the pale and you perfectly well I disagree with its usage.

And I've never been silent when Jews(as opposed to Israelis) were called "bloodthirsty". You have no call to ever even imply that I would go along with any form of antisemitic expression(especially with anything that sounded like "bloodthirsty", a phrase that carries echoes of the Blood Libel).

On every occasion when I've seen anyone say anything antisemitic in the I/P group, I've alerted on it, or joined others in alerting on it.

Nothing about my participation here has anything in common with those who enabled Hitler. Don't ever make such a vile accusation against me again. It's very close to a TOS violation.

I'm not antisemitic...I'm not even antizionist...it's just that I don't defer to your views on what is necessary for Israeli "security". A lot of Israelis don't agree with you either, for that matter.

And again, you've turned your response to me into a personal attack when I have never, EVER personally attacked you. All I've ever done is to make comments about the IDF and the Israeli government that you took. Questioning the actions of the government and the military are NEVER the same thing as personally denigrating everyone in the country ruled by that government and ostensibly defended by that military. It's a hallmark of democratic values that you must always make a clear distinction between the power structure, whatever it is, and the people.

[pelsar]

39. did you "speak up"...did you write in the forum publicly for the girl STFU?

Last edited Wed Dec 19, 2012, 02:32 AM - Edit history (1)

she wrote it, clarified it, stood by her words...... "Blood thirsty zionists"

I consider what she wrote an attack upon me, my family, etc...
I have never, EVER personally attacked you.

yea, well being called "blood-thirsty" is rather personal, i'm just clarifying her support group here.

Israelis are NOT bloodthirsty. Neither is the IDF
so since she wrote "Blood thirsty zionists - and yet you wrote nothing to contradict her, I assume you agree with her, that its just us `zionists' that are blood-thirsty" and are no different from hamas

guess we got that cleared up, didnt we.

____

a footnote, just as blacks have the right to call others n@ggers, or crackers, whereas whites dont have that same right, and Palestinians can call us jews/israelis nazis, us zionist/jewish/israelis have that same right to call others "capos" or nazi enablers- thats how it works....being called a nazi (or nazi-like, etc), gives me the right to call out others as "enablers" as i see it.

[Ken Burch]

40. OK...this is about Kimono Girl.

I supposed in her case I assumed she was so absurdly out-of-control that she'd get herself tombstoned before long(which turned out to be the case). She was odious, but she wasn't an actual thread to anyone. And she's gone and I'm glad she's gone.

That said, I still didn't deserve to be called an enabler of Naziism-It's hardly likely that Kimono Girl was going to cause a pogrom with her posts here...she was too ludicrous to influence much of anyone. I could have been more attentive to what she was writing...but that doesn't make me the moral equivalent of the people living next to Dachau who said "we didn't know".

You know me better than that. I am NOT part of Kimono Girl's "support group". Don't you dare imply that I'm allied with her twisted ideas. I was against her and was actually just about to alert on her posts when she was tombstoned. I disagree with Israeli security policies, that is true, but that's a hell of a long way from supporting any of her "viewpoints".

I'm not sure, btw, that she was even real. Her posts were so bizarre and self-destructive that she struck me as a propaganda creation, designed to discredit legitimate critics by planting her over-the-top hate posts.

[pelsar]

41. thats how it starts...ideas that are accepted.....

she's too ludicrous to influence much of anyone
when the Nazis started....when the civil rights groups got started....all ideas that perhaps at first were not accepted, but slowly the word spread, and her views are accepted in many circles.

would you like a long long long list of "ludicrous ideas" that ended up killing millions?, not hard to find.

she has not discredited herself at all, her views were only protested by a very few and they were by self identified at 'blood thirsty zionists". You were visibly absent, you didnt even call her out at all: ZiPPO, NADA, ZILCH!

that silence is pretty loud....so come clean, why didnt you write something? embarrassed, thought it wasn't worth the effort, couldn't possibly write anything that implied a defense of the zionist ideology?

clearly you read the post and made a decision NOT TO COMMENT!, the question is why?

[Ken Burch]

42. I could have jumped in and I'm sorry I didn't...but it was just slowness to react, NOT support.

I honestly just assumed she'd be tombstoned almost instantly. Fine, I should have said something...but this does not equate to being silent about Hitler and you damn well know it. And you know I oppose everything she stood for in her posts here. My past posting history should have shown to you that I'm an absolute opponent of the things she stood for here.

Also, if this came to a head last week, I had arthroscopic knee surgery and was under the influence of strong painkillers for a good part of the time, so my mental alertness level wasn't at its highest. I'm truly sorry for not interceding earlier, but while I do sincerely apologize for that, it's still not fair to equate my lack of response in this instance to aquiescence in her agenda...it was an oversight. Please accept that that's all it was. On every OTHER occasion when I've seen antisemitism in the I/P group, I DID speak out. And I will continue to do so.

If she's speaking to mass rallies under whatever her real name is(assuming she actually exists) I will be a part of organized opposition to her in that situation(as will most people who have taken critical stances about the actions of the Israeli government, because the vast majority of those people are humanist internationalist progressives who stand in solidarity with all groups under attack from hatred). Her emergence her happened quickly and she was gone quickly.

There really isn't anything I'm hiding here. And so now you can stop the interrogation. I have come clean on all points.

[pelsar]

43. her post wasnt antisemetic...not at all

it was just a broad generalization about all jews that see themselves as zionists...in all its many and varied forms. Remember, unlike the Palestinians and arabs, and bedouin, and druze we differentiate here between jews and zionists....

for many zionisn is terrorism and racism......just checking upon your opinion on that.

[Ken Burch]

44. I don't believe "zionism is terrorism"-I believe the Israeli government and military leadership

have made brutal and ultimately self-defeating choices. There's a huge difference between those two thoughts.

And I do believe her posts actually WERE antisemitic. I could kick myself for not speaking out in the group about them.

And most critics of Israel also differentiate between not only Zionists and Jews, but also between progressive and reactionary Zionists as well. I don't HATE Israel as a country...I just wish its leaders would stop making destructive choices, choices I believe are not only unjust to Palestinians but unjust to Israeli Jews as well, because those choices, as I see them, ultimately endanger Israel's security, and ultimately jeopardize the Zionist project far more than the path of negotiation, conciliation and compromise ever could.

[Violet_Crumble]

45. Don't even go there, pelsar. You've never spoken out about anti-Arab/Muslim bigotry...

So don't you dare turn around and attack Ken for being 'silent'.

And how utterly stupid it is to insist that someone agrees with someone because they didn't post something contradicting them. Do you really want to turn that light around and shine it on yrself? I don't think you would.

[Scootaloo]

16. Daniel was killed because a sadistic asshole fired an anti-tank missile at a schoolbus

That sadistic asshole was very likely not Muhammad Salaymah.

So are you making a point? Did Muhammed deserve to die because someone else killed Daniel last year? Should random Arabs die for the death of Jews? Should random Jews die for the deaths of Arabs?

or are you doing as Azurnoir says and just yelling "look over there!"?

[azurnoir]

17. seems to be quite a bit of that going around in these parts lately n/t

[holdencaufield]

19. No ... just using compare and contrast

The anti-Israel crowd is ever ready to martyr anyone who acts stupidly (brandishing a gun at a security guard or playing chicken with a two-story bulldozer) as long as an Israeli can be blamed. But, Israeli kids who are slaughtered on their way to school cannot be mentioned because they distract from the narrative of the blood-thirsty Israelis.

You never thought for a second that I was blaming Muhammed's death on Daniel's -- that is just your attempt at diversion. No, one didn't cause the other, but they share the same cause -- an insane conflict that could be stopped any time.

If you're going to bring up the deaths of Palestinian kids caused by an insane conflict, then it is only fair to mention that it's happening to children on the other side of the conflict as well.

But, I know you'd prefer to ignore it or say his death doesn't matter because he's not a Palestinian.

[Scootaloo]

21. You know that, huh?

But, I know you'd prefer to ignore it or say his death doesn't matter because he's not a Palestinian.

Know what I know? I know that you and I think very differently. 'Cause see, that line above? That's your idea. That's all from your head. That's you, dreaming up something, and convincing yourself that I'm the one who came up with it.

That's all you.

[azurnoir]

22. so everytime an Israeli is killed or wounded by a Palestinian we

should be pulling out the list of Palestinian victims? and once again the claim of a toy gun is quite questionable as the victim was supposedly holding it to the head of another police officer who was in front of the kid when he was shot 3 times all body hits strangely the other police officer was unharmed must be magic bullets or something

[Scootaloo]

23. What stood out to me was the confiscation of cameras and phones

Funny too, I thought those things were kryptonite...

[azurnoir]

24. well I guess cameras and phones are only kryptonite when they're pointed at IDF

maybe sort of a kryptonite ray or reverse kryptonite

[Ken Burch]

31. the conflict is BOTH sides' fault.

Stop pretending the responsibility lies solely with Palestinians. The fact is, a "Palestinian Gandhi" could emerge tomorrow and Netanyahu and his hate party would STILL expand the settlements, still encroach on Palestinian land, still press on with their immoral campaign to make Jerusalem Arabrein...because Israeli politics is now dominated by an ideology that has nothing to do with "security" and everything to do with a fixation on conquest, on taking land for the SAKE of taking land.

There's no way that THIS is what Herzl and Ben-Gurion wanted. I'm not even sure it's what Begin wanted.

Nothing any Palestinians could do is likely to change it. If they all moved to Jordan tomorrow, the "we were supposed to get Jordan, TOO" crowd in Israeli politics would try to drive Palestinians out of there, as well-and after that, Israel's leaders would STILL act as if they had the right to ask for the Arab world to live with them in peace.

Israel was beautiful once...now the place is on the verge of turning into a bunch of American cowboys.

[shira]

47. "Israel was beautiful once". When was that, Ken? Never.

Here's Golda Meir shortly after the 1973 war:

"One day, weeks after the (Yom Kippur) war, I phoned Willy Brandt, who is much respected in the Socialist International, and said '...I need to know what possible meaning socialism can have when not a single socialist country in all of Europe was prepared to come to the aid of the only democratic nation in the Middle East. Is it possible that democracy and fraternity do not apply in our case? "

======

The democratic world remained neutral in the 1967 war as well.

Going back to 1948, democratic nations weren't helping Jews in their war of Independence either.

[Ken Burch]

48. Actually, the democratic world largely backed Israel in 1967.

As to West Germany, that country had a Christian Democratic chancellor in 1967, so the Social Democrats couldn't have sent German troops to that conflict. Socialists and social democrats championed Israel throughout the 1950's and 60's. They'd have been forced to become conservatives on all issues if they'd backed Israel holding the West Bank, Gaza and the Sinai once the Six Day War was over. Israel had the right to stop the Arab attack...it had no right to take territory and hold it on what became(in the West Bank's case) a permanent basis.

The center-left and left backed Israel where it most mattered...fighting for aid(especially economic aid) for it in the early years.

Also, in both 1967 AND 1973, the wars were over before it would even have been possible to get Western troops into the field there(as I assume you'd have wanted). Plus sending Western troops or even Western bombers would have brought the Soviet Union directly into those conflicts and caused World War III...something none of us could have survived. Did "the democratic world" owe it to Israel to make THAT happen? It could hardly have benefited Israel to have global nuclear omnicide take place.

The West Bank occupation and the settlement projects there are purely right-wing and have had nothing but right-wing results. How could you possibly expect socialists and social democrats to back that policy? And really, shira, THAT is what you are holding a grudge about...you actually think that, because of the antisemitic injustices of Europe's past, the socialists of Europe owed it to Israel to back it when it started committing injustices against the Palestinians, a people that bore no responsibility for what Hitler, the Tsar, Torquemada or Ceasar had done and who could never have prevented any of those monsters from doing what they did.

Finally, do you not realize that it's kind of weird that you're angrier at Willy Brandt, a figure who devoted years of his life to fighting Hitler as an underground guerrilla, than you are at Anwar Sadat, the guy who actually LAUNCHED the Yom Kippur War. It's Sadat's fault that that war happened-there's nothing whatsoever that Brandt could have done to prevent it. Sadat didn't CARE what Europe thought at that point-he hadn't decided to become a pretend peacemaker for short-term international gain yet.

[shira]

50. You're wrong. Golda Meir was right. Read this...

http://books.google.com/books?id=bf8b6xiaMGAC&pg=PA107&lpg=PA107&dq=%22only+democratic+nation+in+the+Middle+East.+Is+it+possible+that+democracy+and+fraternity+do+not+apply+in+our+case?+%22&source=bl&ots=137BdVsmoj&sig=_-Ws2__-ArVbHYSsrQpq6dvMy2w&hl=en&sa=X&ei=50zSUOmjB8bE0QHPzIH4Cw&ved=0CD4Q6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=%22only%20democratic%20nation%20in%20the%20Middle%20East.%20Is%20it%20possible%20that%20democracy%20and%20fraternity%20do%20not%20apply%20in%20our%20case%3F%20%22&f=false

That's where I lifted the Meir quote. Read a little before and past it by a few pages and you'll see why she was right.

Europe didn't back Israel, not in '67 or afterwards. Certainly not in '73 when only America helped out. Even in '73, America made it clear that Israel should not start it - otherwise America wouldn't back them. They didn't start it, and they paid for it in blood, which led to the end of Golda Meir's government. Even when Israel was attacked, Kissinger didn't want to send aid. Nixon, of all people, was the one who demanded it. And FTR, Johnson didn't want Israel to attack first in '67.

It's nice to think Socialist democracies backed a fellow Socialist democracy in Israel. That wasn't the case. They felt no obligation to help Israel before any perceived "injustices" were happening. They had OIL interests too, as Arab Oil accounted for 80-90% of what they were getting.

[Ken Burch]

51. It would have been reactionary for Israel to start either war.

And you can't seriously argue that it would have been socialist or in any way progressive to help Israel TAKE the West Bank, the Gaza, and Sinai. The insistence on actually taking those lands turned Israel from a socialist to a conservative country. It's never socialist to impose a military occupation on a non-European people. And clearly, what you're really bearing a grudge about is that the european Left didn't back the Occupation. How could they ever have backed and remained on the Left on anything else? Look how quickly the perpetuation of the Occupation drove Israeli politics itself to the extreme Right? It's exceedingly unlikely that Begin or Shamir or Netanyahu would ever have come to power if Israel had done the sensible thing and withdrawn its troops from the West Bank, Gaza, and the Sinai the moment the 1967 war was won.

Since perpetuating the Occupation and inventing the settlers movement had nothing at all to do with defending Israeli security, it was never legitimate to expect the European Left to back them.

And nothing would have been better if Israel had started those wars. The Six Day War would still have lasted as long as it did, and what if encouraging Israel to start that war, with active U.S. military involvement, had then led to Soviet military involvement on the Arab side? Did the world owe it to Israel to cause World War III, which is would any direct U.S.-Soviet military exchange would have to turn into? You do realize that limited war would have been impossible once the superpowers had their troops and then their missiles involved in the fighting against each other, don't you?

Also, if Israel had started the Yom Kippur War, you can assume that Sadat would never ever have bothered with his peace overture. It's not pleasant, but the truth is that his being able to do that kind of rested on his being able to say that he'd given the Israelis a serious challenge in '73(it might be the Mideast equivalent of the "only Nixon could go to China" thing.
.

[shira]

52. Nonsense.

Last edited Thu Dec 20, 2012, 07:26 AM - Edit history (1)

There's no way in 1967 any tiny country like Israel could've just just let all surrounding Arab forces attack first, with tanks, bombers, artillery, etc. But let's assume they did allow for that and a LOT more bloodshed (to appease world powers and oil interests - and let's face it, that's the side you're taking - big oil).

You're saying Israel should have defended against an Arab onslaught, eventually win but at an enormous cost, and the result would be no occupation and a draw. Take mass casualties, beat back the enemy, but allow for it to perpetually line up and surround Israel. Because inevitably, the Arab nations would have no reason NOT to attempt the same thing every few years since they'd have little to lose and everything to gain. After so much time, they pile on against Israel again and the most they lose are troops who could be easily replaced. You're applying a standard to pre-67' Israel that NO OTHER NATION could be expected to comply with - and that's an Israel which cannot defend its citizens - nor be allowed to do so. Israel should've therefore allowed for a 1967 war to take place anytime the Arabs wished. Israel should never initiate, just take the beating, and call it a draw each time. Rinse and repeat. One draw after another. Allow the Syrian, Jordan, Iraqi, Egyptian, and Saudi armies to just camp out on the other side of the green line, threatening to annihilate Israel. This is preferable to occupation:



But at least you see that socialist democrat nations didn't back Israel, neither in '67 or '73. And let's face it, NO ONE in Europe thought that in '73 it was preferable to let the Arabs just go at it against Israel in order to "look better" than in '67 so that there would be a peace agreement. Sure, allow for a war to save face and that of course would eventually lead to peace. Please.

No European nation abandoned Israel in 1973 for their "sin" of occupation and the start of settlements (which were insignificant at the time). Europe was acting like it was '67 again, before the occupation and settlements. No change in policy, just the status quo. No help for their "fellow" socialist democracy in the mideast. Let's face it, a Europe that advocates letting the Arab nations attack first - at a huge cost to Israeli lives - and then advocates for no better than a draw which allows Arab nations a do-over every few years - see cartoon above - is no friend to Israel. What's difficult about this?

And worse for those like yourself, there would be no Palestine in the cards. The PLO started in 1964 to do what exactly? They started in 1964 to avenge the '67 result?

In order for there to have been a Palestine w/o a post '67 occupation, that Palestine would have to replace Israel entirely - since there was no call by the PLO in 1964 to take over the WB and Gaza from Jordan and Egypt. They wanted all Israel for their own and they had their allies on the far fringe Left supporting the 1964 cause. I'm certain that like your fellow advocates prior to '67, you'd have been a sympathist for the 1964 Palestinian cause too. Your argument would have been that the tiny embattled Jewish state within the green lines should at least become one binational secular state voluntarily, or that Israel should carve out half of pre-67 land within the green line and give that to the PLO so that 'peace' would ensue.

Your position is complete nonsense, horseshit, illiberal, and regressive.

[Ken Burch]

53. in 1956, no European democratic country sent troops to fight the Soviets in Hungary

in 1968, the same thing again with Czechoslovakia. In both cases, it was because the cost to the world(nuclear immolation)would have been too high. There's no difference between the European reasoning on those situations and on the reasoning for not participating militarily in mideast wars of 1967 and 1973.

It wasn't about bigotry(since the European Left opposed Hitler before anybody else did and proved for all time that they weren't antisemites by joining that fight). So please stop insinuating that it was. They'd have made the same choices if Israel had been a European Christian or European athiest state in the Middle East facing Arab attack and possible Soviet nuclear involvement if they did join the fight.

Israel didn't have to hold all that territory for years and years to be secure. It had, as most have pointed out over and over, wiped out the Arab militaries in six days. That, by itself, was going to guarantee that most of them wouldn't try again for a long time(It's why only Egypt was involved in the Yom Kippur war, a war that Sadat probably didn't really even want to win, given the half-hearted way he carried it out).

And Israel did defend itself...with Western-supplied armaments...how much of a difference would Western military involvement possibly have made in a war that only lasted six days anyway('67)?
And, with the certainty that the Soviets would go in militarily if U.S. or Euro troops had gone in, can you really argue that the European democrats and the U.S. owed it to Israel to actually risk World War III? Did the world owe it to Israel to risk total immolation over the antisemitic past? Do you honestly think even most Israelis would believe such a thing?

Can you please, please, stop trying to turn everything into "EVERYBODY hates the Jews...and the only reason any country ever has issues with the Israeli government is antisemitism"? Most of the world doesn't hate the Jews. Most of the world(outside of Europe, North America and parts of the Arab world bears no responsibility at ALL for historic antisemitism. Asia bears none. Sub-Sahara Africa bears none. Latin America bears none. The world's nonwhite and indigenous peoples bear none. It's just that most of the world has no reason to obsess about Israeli security to the exclusion of everything else.

Jabotinsky and BenZion Netanyahu had it wrong, shira....it usually ISN'T about "hating the Jews". And you insult the real victims of antisemitism when you insist on making that the cause of everything that ever happens regarding Israel that you happen to disagree with. Israel has tensions with the Arab world these days, shira, almost entirely because of the situation with the Palestinians. If that dispute were to be resolved fairly and humanely, you WOULD see most of the Arab world move on and I also think you'd see a lot of animus towards Israel in Europe go away as well.

[Ken Burch]

29. No, first YOU tell me why you would ever assume

that the azurnoir wouldn't think it's horrible that Daniel Viflic was killed?

You have no reason to assume that azur would dismiss or trivialize Daniel's murder(a murder the young man we were discussing here obviously had nothing to do with)...yet you're obviously implying that she has done just that. Why on earth do you think it's legitimate for you to make such a despicable insinuation?

[azurnoir]

33. fwiw I did not take it that way at all

using Occam's Razor I took as simple thread hijacking

[Ken Burch]

36. Ok.

n/t.

[shira]

25. Video released showing boy attacking IDF officer...

[azurnoir]

27. Thank you shira for that IDF in Arabic video which shows NO gun toy or otherwise

and the FACT that if indeed this a video of the incident the kid had let go of the soldier and had stepped away when he was shot to death multiple times.

[shaayecanaan]

28. His first move was to throttle her with both his hands...

clearly, he couldn't have been holding anything in either hand.

You have to wonder about the toy gun though. Hopefully they were able to buy one from a 7-11, you'd hate to think that they actually had to rob a kid for it.

[azurnoir]

32. her? the only her we know of for sure was the shooter and he did not grab her at all

Last edited Tue Dec 18, 2012, 05:32 PM - Edit history (2)

the vid was too blurry for me to be able to see whether the soldier the kid grabbed was a her or a him, in any event the story we've been given does not match what's on that tape

[shira]

46. LOL. Of course you don't see anything in the video. n/t

[azurnoir]

49. ah that's not what I said is it?

And there you are,
Making it up but you're sure that it is a star,
And boy you'll see
It's an illusion shining down in front of me,