The Messiah’s Donkey: Settlers fire on Palestinian villagers as the Israeli military watches

Israel/Palestine
on 254 Comments

From B’tselem:

On Saturday, 19.5.2012, around four thirty in the afternoon, a large group of settlers descended on the eastern outskirts of the village ‘Asira al-Qibliya, from the settlement Yitzhar. B’Tselem volunteer photographers filmed the events from two angles. The video shows the settlers, some of whom were masked and armed, throwing stones at Palestinian homes, and fires beginning to burn. One of the masked settlers was armed with a “Tavor” rifle which is only used by infantry soldiers, raising the suspicion that he is a soldier on leave. . .

The video footage raises grave suspicions that the soldiers present did not act to prevent the settlers from throwing stones and firing live ammunition at the Palestinians. The soldiers did not try to remove the settlers and in fact are seen standing by settlers while they are shooting and stone throwing.

The fanatical settler’s from Yitzhar went on another of their rampages last Saturday in the village of Asira al-Qibliya near Nablus. Soldiers guarded and protected them as they shot one of the villagers in the head.

I viewed the attack in a different light this time from past settler attacks. Last week in one of the discussions here about the extremists settlers a commenter, Elliot, in conversation with Shunra about the extremist settlers, mentioned “attacking Palestinians on the Sabbath a religious requirement”. This seemed very extraordinary to me and I inquired about it. Here is his explanation:

You may have seen clips of settlers in white shirts attacking Palestinian olive farmers. The settlers wear white shirts on the Sabbath and religious holidays.
Rabbinic Judaism developed the concept of Sabbath to the point where it supersedes a whole list of Biblical commandments.
The settlers reading of Judaism is regressive. They promote “The Land” to supremacy. The settlers have revived a defunct Talmudic law that states: if non-Jews are encroaching on Jewish property in the Land of Israel, you are required to violate the Sabbath and take up arms to fight them off. Palestinian olive farmers, who insist on continuing to grow their olive trees right next to Jewish settlements, fit the bill.
The scandal involving Israeli rabbis who publicly banned the sale and rental of Jewish-owned apartments to Palestinians is a similar case.

This recent Yitzhar settler attack took place on Saturday, the sabbath.

Shunra and Elliot were discussing Sefi Rachlevsky’s book, Hamoro Shel Mashiach (The Messiah’s Donkey).

I’m familiar with the term Hamoro Shel Mashiach (The Messiah’s Donkey) from Kook theology which fuels ideological settlers on the West Bank. 100 years ago, “the Messiah’s donkey” was a stratagem of the devoutly religious to explain how come the Jewish Age of the Messiah was led not by the devout but by atheists. The donkey provided a solution; the atheists are the donkey that heralds the Messiah. The atheists will build the roads and towns. And then, the religious, will infuse that “body” with spirit.
From the way Israel is going, the plan seems to be working.
The Messiah is taking over from the donkey.

Here is part of Wiki‘s report about the Messiah’s Donkey:

In Israel, the phrase “the Messia’s Donkey” can also refer to the controversial political-religious doctrine ascribed to the teachings of Rabbi Avraham Yitzhak Kook which claims that secular Jews, which represent the material world, are an instrument in the hands of God whose purpose it was to establish the State of Israel and begin the process of redemption, but upon its establishment they would be required to step aside and allow the Religious-Haredi public to govern the state. According to this analogy, the secular Jewish public are the “donkey”, while the Religious-Haredi public who would take their place represent a collective quasi-Messianic body. A book called ‘The Messiah’s Donkey’, which focuses on this issue, was published in 1998 by Seffi Rachlevsky and caused widespread controversy among the Jewish-Israeli public; according to Hassidic teaching the donkey is a symbol of the fact that the Messiah and Messianic age will not oppose the material world, but rather harness it for sacred purposes. Thus, the act of riding upon the donkey is a symbol of the sovereignty of the Messiah over the material world (represented by the donkey).[3]

When I saw the soldiers protecting the settlers I wondered if they were not playing the part of Rabbi Kook’s version of the Messiah’s Donkey? If so, would not the government of Israel also be in the role of the Messiah’s Donkey? If not, why wouldn’t the government be prepared for these events every Saturday?

Watch as the settlers first approach the village. Why can’t they just stay home on the sabbath?

About Annie Robbins

Annie Robbins is Editor at Large for Mondoweiss, a mother, a human rights activist and a ceramic artist. She lives in the SF bay area. Follow her on Twitter @anniefofani

Other posts by .


Posted In:

254 Responses

  1. dimadok
    May 21, 2012, 10:41 am

    The video shows fires being extinguished at the background by the settlers and Palestinians attacking them. It also shows active defensive actions, including aiming and shooting by the member of security forces (IDF and civil security teams), protecting civilians trying to extinguish fires. It also shows a significant number of Palestinian civilians, all men, throwing stones. Welcome to the real world.

    • Woody Tanaka
      May 21, 2012, 11:51 am

      “protecting civilians”

      There are no civilians here. They’re all settlers and, therefore, part of the occupying force and are all, therefore, legitimate targets for resistence.

      • OlegR
        May 21, 2012, 11:57 am

        Children as well ?

      • Woody Tanaka
        May 21, 2012, 12:07 pm

        “Children as well ?”

        Any who remain beyond the age of majority are legitimate targets.

      • American
        May 21, 2012, 12:13 pm

        OlegR says:
        May 21, 2012 at 11:57 am

        Children as well ?””

        Well Oleg when you love your children more than you hate Arabs (and want to steal their land) you won’t have to worry about your children.
        But as we see, you do hate Palestines more than you love your children.

      • Blake
        May 21, 2012, 2:48 pm

        The children of course, are innocent. The parents are not.

        Speaking of children:
        An Israeli soldier tries to arrest a Palestinian boy at gun point in Jerusalem and a female activist intervenes
        http://anoncentral.tumblr.com/post/23490038436/an-israeli-soldier-tries-to-arrest-a-palestinian

      • Fredblogs
        May 21, 2012, 6:33 pm

        @Woody Tanaka
        Then so are all adult Palestinians (non-Citizens) who go into Israel.

      • Elisabeth
        May 22, 2012, 2:35 am

        OlegR:
        “i have very little sympathy to German civilian casualties in WW2
        And yes i am quite aware that the same phrase can be applied to Israel.”

      • ColinWright
        July 12, 2012, 4:42 am

        To take a leaf out of the Israelis’ book, any children would be ‘human shields’ and should any be hurt, it would be cause to denounce the vile Israelis for attempting to employ their children in such a despicable manner.

        To take another angle on it, in 1943, the Nazis dispossessed several hundred Polish families and installed German settlers around the town of Zamosc.

        The Polish Home Army stormed the settlements and killed as many of the settlers as they could — yes, including women and children.

        They don’t seem to be proud of it — but I don’t recall anyone condemning them either.

        The settlers, incidentally, went away.

      • ColinWright
        July 12, 2012, 4:43 am

        To Fredblogs:

        “Then so are all adult Palestinians (non-Citizens) who go into Israel.”

        Sure. As soon as they forcibly seize some land, you let me know.

      • ColinWright
        July 12, 2012, 4:53 am

        ““Children as well ?”

        Any who remain beyond the age of majority are legitimate targets.”

        I’m not sure it’s really necessary to rationalize attacks on settlers.

        A people has a right to repel an invader — and if that invader chooses to bring his women and children with them, then they become targets for attack as well. We used to be horrified at the attacks of Plains Indians — but we never expected them to scrupulously take on only troops of US Cavalry and just let the settlers keep coming.

        It’s not pretty — but then no one ever said war was — and this sort of war least of all.

        The Israelis decided who would be the combatants. The Palestinians are hardly obliged to hobble themselves by playing by a set of rules where the Israelis win.

        If the Palestinians kill enough settlers, the settlers will leave. Therefore, killing settlers is a valid response to the invasion.

        Whatever works, as they say. If the Israelis object, the Palestinians can give them their knives and rocks, and take the Israelis’ Merkavas and F-16’s instead.

        Somewhat ironically, that wouldn’t do much to limit the Palestinians’ options at all. Just handle each settlement like the Israelis handled Deir Yassin, or Kfar Kassem, or Chantilla and Sabra, or Gaza. The Palestinians can even ‘investigate’ afterwards. I’m sure it’ll turn out everything they did was just fine.

      • Samuel T
        May 23, 2012, 2:51 am

        Woody Tanaka,

        Are you certain that you aren’t confusing “civilians” with “citizens”?

        Also you reframe circumstances to fit your own dogma, A big steaming hot pile of dogma. “They’re all settlers and therefore…” You know if you keep repeating something often enough it may be easier to remember but it doesn’t make it True.

        dimadok was observant enough to make a distinction between offensive and defensive actions. You blindly support your “home team” and justify their violent actions BUT condemn anyone else that resists or defends their own lives or property.

      • MTd2
        May 23, 2012, 11:54 am

        He is constantly repeating the same thing not to make it true but because you have trouble to learn. It is like repeating the same thing over and over at an special education classroom.

        And settlers in question are armed and they are enemies, who stole land. They do not own anything and the regard for their lives is a moot point.

      • eljay
        May 23, 2012, 12:43 pm

        >> You know if you keep repeating something often enough it may be easier to remember but it doesn’t make it True.

        You might want to point that out to Zio-supremacists. They appear not to have learned that lesson yet.

      • ColinWright
        July 12, 2012, 4:56 am

        “Woody Tanaka…You blindly support your “home team” and justify their violent actions BUT condemn anyone else that resists or defends their own lives or property.”

        I can’t speak for Woody, but I have never condemned any Jew anywhere for defending his property.

        However, the Zionists have no property in Palestine (or very little). Virtually all of it has been seized by force from the rightful owners. You might as well steal my car — then object if I find you and yank you out of it.

        Perhaps Woody has condemned someone for defending property they lawfully acquired. Could you point me to an example?

      • Woody Tanaka
        July 12, 2012, 8:32 am

        “Are you certain that you aren’t confusing ‘civilians’ with ‘citizens’?”

        Any settler over the age of majority who remains beyond the green line is a legitimate target. They are not civilians, but unarmed combatants in the role of an occupying force and attacking them is no different than attacking the SS in Paris in 1942.

        Also you reframe circumstances to fit your own dogma, A big steaming hot

        “dimadok was observant enough to make a distinction between offensive and defensive actions. You blindly support your ‘home team’ and justify their violent actions BUT condemn anyone else that resists or defends their own lives or property.”

        Wrong. It’s not their property; it’s the Palestinians’ property. Therefore, nothing they do is defensive, regardless of the fantasy world you and dimadok want to live in.

      • Woody Tanaka
        July 12, 2012, 8:33 am

        ColinWright,

        You are correct. The settlers are living on stolen land, so nothing they do is legitimate. They are an occupation force and, as such, are all legitimate targets (excepting those who are below the age of majority who have been brought into the war zone by their parents… which should be sufficient to have the state take the kids away for their own good.)

      • Woody Tanaka
        July 12, 2012, 9:53 am

        “They are not civilians, but unarmed combatants ”

        That shoudl have read:

        “They are not civilians, but non-uniformed combatants…”

    • Annie Robbins
      May 21, 2012, 12:25 pm

      did you watch the final video dimadok? the post has been updated.

      Watch as the settlers first approach the village

      what do you think the settlers were doing approaching the village on saturday morning to begin with? there were no fires in the hills prior to their arrival. what brought them there? surely you do not think they approached on a defensive rescue mission of some sort?

      • Annie Robbins
        May 21, 2012, 2:17 pm

        hmm, dimdock seems to have disappeared at the moment. oleg too. i wonder if the appearance of the second video took the wind out of their sails.

        or was it the insertion of the kook version of the messiah’s donkey into the discussion that threw them off?

      • dimadok
        May 21, 2012, 3:01 pm

        What made me ignore your comment-it was your notion of why the settlers were walking by/approaching the village? Otherwise it is quite obvious to everyone here that Jews and settlers should stay home an do not provoke peaceful Palestinians, who ,God forbid, may get so frustrated that they start throwing stones. But why to judge them, since there are just human, while evil settlers were walking in their eyesight, plotting more land grab and to steal the water.
        Sarcasm aside, I do not see either party setting fires, however in the first video I do see one party (settlers) trying to extinguish it, while being stoned by the large group of Palestinians. My first comment stands.

      • Annie Robbins
        May 21, 2012, 3:17 pm

        notion of why the settlers were walking by/approaching the village? Otherwise it is quite obvious to everyone here that Jews and settlers should stay home an do not provoke peaceful Palestinians, who ,God forbid, may get so frustrated that they start throwing stones.

        excuse me? where is the raging fire when the settlers approach? you said they were a fire crew come to put out a fire. what fire? they arrived with guns. why? there was no fire at that time, as the earliest (at the bottom of the post) video makes clear.

        Sarcasm aside, I do not see either party setting fires, however in the first video I do see one party (settlers) trying to extinguish it,

        thank you, you have no evidence palestinians set the fire and every bit of evidence you need to understand guns, as opposed to rocks..do in fact start fires.

        anyway, heading out. i hope others hear continue to decimate your lame arguments and ask for some evidence of these allegations over the last 3 sabbaths.

        phff

      • Woody Tanaka
        May 21, 2012, 3:19 pm

        “Jews and settlers should stay home”

        The problem is that they are not at home. They invaded someone else’s land and are squatting on it, as zionist have been doing for 150 years. Go back to Europe. Go back to America. Go back behind the green line. Leave the Palestinians in peace in their land. You people have done enough evil for 100 lifetimes.

      • dimadok
        May 21, 2012, 3:22 pm

        Except when you shoot the fire starts in front of you not BEHIND you, Annie.
        Have an awesome day.

      • OlegR
        May 21, 2012, 4:52 pm

        Annie i do have a life you know.

        Well this expectantly turned into the usual brawl.

        Regarding the incident i am not saying that i hold the ultimate truth
        to what happened there.
        What i am saying that these videos were filmed and edited by
        an interested party.
        And that the videos show a much more complex picture of reality then what
        that interested party was trying to convey.
        Being an intelligent person i am sure you have already noticed it yourself .

        Your add on about Messiah’s Donkey though interesting from an anthropological point of view (and we can talk about somewhere else )does not reinforce your original argument in my mind.
        I am leaving it at that.

      • Woody Tanaka
        May 21, 2012, 5:09 pm

        OlegR: “Annie i do have a life you know.”

        Yeah, Annie, there are millions of Palestinians for Oleg to oppress and only so many hours in the day!!!

      • OlegR
        May 21, 2012, 5:36 pm

        A small add on.
        It would be interesting to read a transcript
        of the women’s conversations in the videos.
        Have a good day Annie.

      • Hostage
        May 21, 2012, 5:57 pm

        “Jews and settlers should stay home”

        Yes stay at home. That would be my advice to observant Jews who want to avoid carrying things, like guns, around in the public domain on the Sabbath.

      • Fredblogs
        May 21, 2012, 6:36 pm

        Actually, contrary to the movies, real bullets don’t spark when they hit.

      • Shingo
        May 21, 2012, 7:58 pm

        And that the videos show a much more complex picture of reality then what that interested party was trying to convey.

        What complexity is the video shoewing that we are missing?

      • OlegR
        May 22, 2012, 3:41 am

        פיקוח נפש דוחה שבת

        look it up Hostage.

      • Hostage
        May 22, 2012, 9:35 am

        פיקוח נפש דוחה שבת . . . look it up Hostage.

        If you mean that the soldiers had an obligation to protect the lives of Palestinian civilians on the Sabbath, then you are correct. The B’Tselem volunteers were obviously not in any mortal danger from these same Palestinian civilians. It’s doubtful that there were any Jewish lives in danger until these kippah-wearing asshats left their homes carrying weapons on the Sabbath. It’s obvious to any reasonable person that they came looking for trouble and were spoiling for a fight.

      • Blake
        May 22, 2012, 8:05 pm

        Settlements (read squatter camps) are there as provocation and the Palestinians are not protected by the Occupation force either. In fact just the opposite.

      • ColinWright
        July 12, 2012, 5:04 am

        “My first comment stands.”

        And this one condemns you as a shameless hypocrite. You are actually attempting to argue that the good settlers were merely trying to put out a fire burning in a Palestinian field that they came across while out innocently walking.

        I can’t believe anyone can actually sink to such conscious dishonesty. At a minimum, you should recognize that it’s really lousy hasbara. It only drives me to a white heat of rage and makes me that much more determined to effectively oppose you and everything you stand for.

    • Darcha
      May 24, 2012, 11:40 pm

      The video shows the first curls of smoke coming from behind the line of thugs far from any colony land and villagers meeting an attack. The fact that the religious fanatics carry props means nothing. Welcome to the real world.

  2. pabelmont
    May 21, 2012, 10:50 am

    The good justification for the Fourth Geneva Convention’s “no settlers” policy could not be better demonstrated. Where is the world community?

  3. OlegR
    May 21, 2012, 10:53 am

    Once more into the lions den (figuratively speaking )
    Here is the other side of the equation by Haaretz:

    “The IDF Spokesperson said in response that the shooting took place during clashes between settlers of Itzhar and the Palestinian residents of Asira al-Qibliya, in which both sides threw stones. “Upon receiving the report of the incident, security forces arrived at the scene in an effort to separate the sides,” the statement said. “There was a shooting during the incident and the matter is being investigated… but on the surface, the video that was released does not seem to represent the whole incident.”

    The Itzhar settlers said that “the settlement’s security squad and volunteer firefighting crew were called to the scene to extinguish a series of fires set by the Arabs from the town.” They said that “this is the third Saturday in a row that Arabs have been setting fires in an attempt to damage Itzhar’s western neighborhood.”

    The settlement spokesman Abraham Benjamin said the video clearly depicts the shower of stones the security squad received as they shielded the firefighting crew with their bodies, after two of them were hurt beforehand.

    “It can be plainly seen that the use of weapons by the IDF or the security team was warranted by a real danger to life. The security forces will investigate the incident,” Benjamin added.”

    For anyone with doubts check out the other videos on Betzelm site
    the clearly shows that the armed settlers and soldiers stand between the Arab population and a group of settlers in the distance that are putting out fires
    with tools.
    You can see such a tool in the hands of one of the settlers in the video presented here as well.

    A second video on Betzelm site clearly shows that the youth that was shot
    was not an innocent bystander but he was actively throwing stones when he was
    hit.

    The question as to whether the use of lethal force in such circumstances is not for
    me to decide from a legal point of view.
    I can state that if i were in those settlers place without the proper body armor
    and a helmet on my head i would definitely feel in danger for my life.
    Getting hit by a large rock on the head even when you are wearing a helmet is
    not a pleasant experience.

    • Woody Tanaka
      May 21, 2012, 11:49 am

      “Getting hit by a large rock on the head even when you are wearing a helmet is
      not a pleasant experience.”

      Then maybe the solution is for the Jews to go back on the other side of the green line and not steal Palestinian land where someone might want to throw a rock on their heads.

      • OlegR
        May 21, 2012, 11:55 am

        One of many possible solutions thank you for your
        input.But until then ,
        Trying to burn down neighborhoods and then preventing those fires from being extinguished by throwing rocks
        at armed men that protect fire brigades might get people hurt.

      • Woody Tanaka
        May 21, 2012, 12:11 pm

        No, comrade. What is getting people hurt is foreign Jews invading and stealing the Palestinians’ lands. If that cancer of zionist theft is abated and those settler pigs go back behind the green line, then people will stop getting hurt.

      • eljay
        May 21, 2012, 12:29 pm

        Typical Zio-supremacist apologetics: It’s not up to the rapist to stop raping the victim and punching her in the face, it’s up to the victim to stop attacking the rapist as he continues to rape her and then complaining when he punches her in the face.

      • Annie Robbins
        May 21, 2012, 1:03 pm

        oleg, Trying to burn down neighborhoods

        the videos are taken by palestinians from their village, so this is very much their own neighborhood. why would the palestinians burn their own neighborhood, and why would they do it after what you describe as fire crews show up? that just doesn’t make sense oleg.

        the settlers come from the other side of the hill. if the fire started over there doesn’t it make sense the fire crews would be putting out the fire threatening their homes before coming over the hill where it is clear there is no fire as they approach? you can see them approaching..there’s no fire then. so where does the fire come from?

      • Fredblogs
        May 21, 2012, 3:24 pm

        Why ask “why would they”, when it is clear from videos that they were attacking the fire crews trying to put it out. The appropriate question is “why did they”.

        The fires were closer to the Jewish side. The settlers came over to the source of the attacks on their firefighters.

      • Woody Tanaka
        May 21, 2012, 4:32 pm

        “The fires were closer to the Jewish side.”

        There is no “Jewish” side. The Jewish side is on the other side of the green zone. The Jews should go there and leave the Palestinians alone.

      • maggielorraine
        May 21, 2012, 4:43 pm

        Jewish side of what? It is an illegal settlement. They are squatters. settlers. criminals. occupiers. oppressors. What world do you live in?

      • Fredblogs
        May 22, 2012, 1:55 pm

        The world in which even illegal squatters don’t want to be burned to death in their homes. What world do you live in?

      • Woody Tanaka
        May 22, 2012, 2:06 pm

        “The world in which even illegal squatters don’t want to be burned to death in their homes.”

        Their homes are west of the green line or in europe or america. They should go there if they’re afraid that their crimes put them in danger in Palestine.

      • Hostage
        May 22, 2012, 8:50 pm

        The world in which even illegal squatters don’t want to be burned to death in their homes. What world do you live in?

        I don’t know, let’s try and use “justifiable homicide”, “private or real property rights”, and “armed home invasion” in a sentence with “illegal settlers” and see who ends up dead first here in the US. I’m betting against the team wearing the white jerseys and kippahs.

      • Fredblogs
        May 23, 2012, 11:41 am

        OK, one of your residents of the Arab village in this story went up a few years ago to burn down the homes of the “illegal settlers”, and stabbed a 9 year old child. Mr.Stabby committed “armed home invasion” and Killing Mr.Stabby would be “justifiable homicide” regardless of your opinion of his “private or real property rights”. Happy?

      • Hostage
        May 23, 2012, 2:57 pm

        OK, one of your residents of the Arab village in this story went up a few years ago to burn down the homes of the “illegal settlers”, and stabbed a 9 year old child. . . . . Killing Mr.Stabby would be “justifiable homicide” regardless of your opinion of his “private or real property rights”. Happy?

        Not really. Can you supply a link to a reliable source which proves that the attacker was from Asira al-Qabaliya? I can supply you with a couple of links which establish that the illegal settlers already conducted a pogrom against the village in retaliation.

        The reports at the time indicated that the suspected perpetrator had made a clean getaway, e.g. http://www.haaretz.com/news/west-bank-villager-settlers-went-from-house-to-house-firing-at-random-1.253734

        You also forgot to mention that the settlers had been conducting price tag operations before the attack in which crops and orchards all over the West Bank had been burned. After the boy was injured, the settlers went on a three hour rampage shooting-up Asira al-Qabaliya, overturning cars, breaking windows in several homes, and shooting eight Palestinians for good measure. According to the New York Times report they weren’t even interested in finding the perpetrator, because they were only interested in deterrence and were at war with the whole nation.

        Haaretz reported that the fire was set in an “abandoned building” in the illegal West Bank outpost of Shalhevet and that the 9 year old received minor injuries in the attack when he tried to alert the other settlers.

        The New York Times and Prime Minister Olmert characterized the actions of the settlers as a pogrom:

        Hard-core right-wing settlers have responded to limited army operations in recent weeks by blocking roads, rioting spontaneously, throwing stones at Palestinian vehicles and burning Palestinian orchards and fields all over the West Bank, a territory that Israel has occupied since 1967. They have also vandalized Israeli Army positions, equipment and cars.

        In Jewish settlements like Yitzhar, an extremist bastion on the hilltops commanding the Palestinian city of Nablus in the northern West Bank, a local war is already being waged. One Saturday in mid-September a Palestinian from the neighboring village of Asira al Qibliya climbed the hill to Shalhevet, a neighborhood of Yitzhar, set fire to a house whose occupants were away for the weekend and stabbed a 9-year-old settler boy, the Israeli Army said.

        Hours later, scores of men from Yitzhar rampaged through the Palestinian village, hurling rocks and firing guns, in what the prime minister of Israel, Ehud Olmert, described as a “pogrom.” Several Palestinians were hospitalized with gunshot wounds.

        “The army was complaining that we were bothering them in their efforts to catch the terrorist,” said Ephraim Ben Shochat, 21, a resident of Shalhevet Ya, an illegal outpost consisting of three permanent houses and a trailer halfway down the slope between Yitzhar and Asira al Qibliya.

        “To us, deterrence is more important than catching the specific terrorist. We’re fighting against a nation,” Mr. Ben Shochat said.

        See Radical Settlers Take On Israel
        http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/26/world/middleeast/26settlers.html?pagewanted=all

      • Annie Robbins
        May 23, 2012, 3:21 pm

        In Jewish settlements like Yitzhar, an extremist bastion on the hilltops commanding the Palestinian city of Nablus in the northern West Bank

        yesterday i went on a youtube search looking for other videos of Yitzhar offensives, specifically with this village..lots of them. i was even thinking of a post with just video after video after video. it’s so damning.

    • Shmuel
      May 21, 2012, 12:21 pm

      “this is the third Saturday in a row that Arabs have been setting fires in an attempt to damage Itzhar’s western neighborhood.”

      Just so we all know what we are talking about, what the settlers refer to as “Itzhar’s western neighborhood” is in fact the outpost of Shalhevet – illegal even according to Israeli law, but actively supported and protected by successive Israeli governments. Of course Yitzhar itself (or at least the 35% of it that sits on privately-owned Palestinian land, according to Israel’s own, warped definitions) is also illegal according to Israeli law.

      http://peacenow.org.il/eng/content/shalhevet-farm-yitzhar-west
      http://peacenow.org.il/eng/sites/default/files/Breaking_The_Law_formal%20data_March07Eng.pdf

      • OlegR
        May 21, 2012, 5:01 pm

        That does not mean that people who tried to set it on fire
        and gotten hurt in the process should be portrayed as innocent victims
        as we see in this publication.

      • Shmuel
        May 21, 2012, 5:23 pm

        That does not mean that people who tried to set it on fire
        and gotten hurt in the process should be portrayed as innocent victims
        as we see in this publication.

        What it means is that the very presence of the settlers there is an ongoing act of violence, perpetrated with the support and protection of the Israeli government and the IDF. What it means is that Palestinian life and property are forfeit in Yeshaland. What it means is that an Israeli settler can shoot a Palestinian with impunity. What it means is that the distinction between criminals and victims here is clear, whether you choose to recognise it or not.

      • Woody Tanaka
        May 21, 2012, 5:34 pm

        “should be portrayed as innocent victims”

        The are innocent victims. Innocent victims of the cancer of zionism. When you people learn to stay behind the green line, then progress might come. Or go the hell back to Russia where you belong, squatter.

      • OlegR
        May 22, 2012, 3:38 am

        Oh finally Shmuel you got to the root of the problem.
        Do Jews have the right to settle in Eretz Israel or don’t they ?
        An answer to that question gives rationalization to everything else.

      • Shmuel
        May 22, 2012, 3:54 am

        Do Jews have the right to settle in Eretz Israel or don’t they ?
        An answer to that question gives rationalization to everything else.

        Do they have a right according to Israeli law to settle on private Palestinian land? No. Do they have a right according to Israeli law to establish unauthorised “outposts”? No. Do they have a right according to international law to settle in the occupied West Bank? No.

        You are right however that the answer to that question gives rationalisation to everything else. If the answer is yes – even when doing so violates international and even Israeli law – then there is no such thing as Palestinian private property and Palestinian life is worthless.

        As Yossi Gurvitz points out (see Annie’s link), the only legal justification for Israel’s presence in the OT is as an occupation force and, as an occupation force, its primary obligation is to protect the occupied population, not the Israeli citizens it has illegally settled there. In this incident and just about every other incident in the past 45 years, it has failed miserably (well, not exactly failed, because it has never tried to live up to its obligations).

      • thankgodimatheist
        May 22, 2012, 3:56 am

        “Do Jews have the right to settle in Eretz Israel or don’t they ?”

        There’s no legal entity called Eretz Israel. It a biblical name, Eretz Yisrael, but if you think otherwise please tell us why should Jews be allowed to settle outside what the international community recognises as Israel. Personally I don’t think they have the right to settle illegally anywhere for that matter.

      • thankgodimatheist
        May 22, 2012, 4:26 am

        According to the maps in Wiki, Eretz Israel also includes Lebanon in one and Syria and Lebanon in another. Do you think they have the right to settle there too? Answer please.
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_of_Israel

      • seafoid
        May 22, 2012, 4:31 am

        “Do Jews have the right to settle in Eretz Israel or don’t they ?”

        No. I think it is a bad idea.
        Otherwise if you insist, Palestinians should have the right of return to Eretz Falastin.

      • Shmuel
        May 22, 2012, 5:09 am

        Do Jews have the right to settle in Eretz Israel or don’t they ?
        An answer to that question gives rationalization to everything else.

        The real question, when it comes to the ideology and actions of the settlers of Yitzhar, is whether non-Jews have the right to live in Eretz Yisrael. For answers to that question see e.g. Torat ha-Melekh by Yitzhar’s very own Rabbi Yitzhak Shapira, or the following exposition (Hebrew), by Rabbi Eliezer Melamed of the neighbouring settlement of Har Bracha, on the religious obligation to expel all of the Arabs from Eretz Yisrael: http://www.yeshiva.org.il/midrash/shiur.asp?id=4031#2b

      • OlegR
        May 22, 2012, 5:44 am

        /The real question, when it comes to the ideology and actions of the settlers of Yitzhar, is whether non-Jews have the right to live in Eretz Yisrael./

        The fact that some settlers in Itzhar hold radical views is still not an excuse
        for violence Shmuel . If you justify it than we have no common ground for dialog.Because when violence is on the table i will side with Itzhar as matter of pure reflex.
        We have been down that road and it leads nowhere.

        /You are right however that the answer to that question gives rationalization to everything else. If the answer is yes – even when doing so violates international and even Israeli law – then there is no such thing as Palestinian private property and Palestinian life is worthless./

        I agree with the answer but i deny the conclusion
        Palestinian life is not and shouldn’t be worthless but neither is a Jewish life.

      • Sumud
        May 22, 2012, 6:07 am

        The fact that some settlers in Itzhar hold radical views is still not an excuse for violence Shmuel .

        The view of the settlers are irrelevant Oleg – legally, Palestinians have the right to use militant force against the occupiers of their territory.

        They don’t need an “excuse” and they don’t need your approval or permission.

        While I think Palestinians are best served by employing non-violent tactics I won’t condemn rock throwing.

        Shmuel is right, the responsibility of the IDF under the Geneva Conventions is to protect Palestinians, not settlers who should not be there in the first place.

      • Shmuel
        May 22, 2012, 6:08 am

        Because when violence is on the table i will side with Itzhar as matter of pure reflex.

        Violence is always on the table – the violence perpetrated by the settlers of Yitzhar (the religious ideology of dehumanisation is central) and by the government of Israel and the IDF on their behalf. Palestinians have no recourse against this ongoing violence – theft, vandalism, intimidation and physical harm. Yet you “will side with Itzhar as matter of pure reflex”? How do you reconcile this approach with your pretty closing statement? “Palestinian life is not and shouldn’t be worthless but neither is a Jewish life.”

        We can argue which way the wind was blowing until the cows come home, but the context is clearly one of overwhelming and unrelenting violence against the Palestinian villagers – despite some acts of justified and unjustified violence on the part of some Palestinians (note: contrary to the settlers, the villagers presence, in and of itself, is not an act of violence).

      • Sumud
        May 22, 2012, 6:08 am

        Because when violence is on the table i will side with Itzhar as matter of pure reflex.

        Spoken like a true war criminal.

      • Shingo
        May 22, 2012, 6:22 am

        The fact that some settlers in Itzhar hold radical views is still not an excuse
        for violence Shmuel .

        Oh really? How do you think those settlers got there?

        If you justify it than we have no common ground for dialog.Because when violence is on the table i will side with Itzhar as matter of pure reflex.

        Then there is no common ground for dialog, because you will only accept dialogue on your terms. You’re no different that Bibbi in that regard. Talking peace while stealing land. In your case, talking peace while your side continus acts fo violence and thuggery, but turning your back on peace when the favour is returned.

      • OlegR
        May 22, 2012, 6:41 am

        / How do you reconcile this approach with your pretty closing statement? “Palestinian life is not and shouldn’t be worthless but neither is a Jewish life.”/

        Simple, the Palestinians should adopt en mass non violent protests approach (and they haven’t so far as we can see in this case) and they should go back to the negotiation table.
        This in my opinion is the only thing that will serve them if they want to reach peace.
        I refuse to look at the settlement of Jews in their historic homeland as an immoral/illegal/violent act and this is axiomatic for me.

        If settlers in Yitzhar act in unlawful manner against the Palestinians
        then they should be prosecuted.
        The wisdom of them being there is also in question, but not in principle,
        Jews have the right to live in Eretz Israel.

        BTW i am not denying the Palestinians their right to resist even in violence
        and obviously not when it’s directed against soldiers.
        But violence will be met with violence.

      • OlegR
        May 22, 2012, 6:44 am

        /While I think Palestinians are best served by employing non-violent tactics I won’t condemn rock throwing./

        I don’t condemn them either, neither do i condemn attacks on soldiers.
        But once violence erupts the lines are drawn very clearly
        and i am on the other side.

      • Shmuel
        May 22, 2012, 7:05 am

        I refuse to look at the settlement of Jews in their historic homeland as an immoral/illegal/violent act and this is axiomatic for me.

        So you reject Israel’s obligations under the Geneva Convention. No surprise there. Presumably, you also accept all of Pliah Albeck’s tricks regarding “State” and “Survey” land, and the use of such land exclusively for the benefit of Jews. That would not come as a surprise either. But what about the 35% of Yitzhar that sits on private Palestinian land even according to Israeli records? Is that also part of “the settlement of Jews in their historic homeland” that you refuse to see as “immoral/illegal/violent”?

        Furthermore, the reality is that the settlers steal from and attack Palestinians with impunity (and Yitzhar is a particularly egregious case). At some point (assuming you are sincere about your respect for Palestinian life, limb and property), you have to question the enterprise itself, that recognises only Jewish rights (as you see them, of course). If the Yitzharites cannot exercise their own “rights” without violating the rights of Palestinians, maybe they should not be able to exercise those rights (the old “your right to swing your fist” argument, if you will). You say “they should be prosecuted” but you know that they are not. Nor is “the negotiating table” any more than a fig leaf when it comes to theft and violence against individual Palestinians. The failure of the negotiations (wherever you may believe blame lies) can hardly excuse current “unlawful” actions.

        You may want this to be about “the right of Jews to settle in Eretz Yisrael”, but this goes way beyond that – unless, like the Yitzhar settlers, you think that right trumps all Palestinian rights.

      • Shingo
        May 22, 2012, 7:06 am

        But once violence erupts the lines are drawn very clearly and i am on the other side.

        You’re so oblivious to the status quo that it doesn’t occur to you that violence has already broken out.  For Palestinians live with it every day.  For you are your cultist tribe, it’s just sport.

        So when you refer to violence breaking out, you’re referring to violence coming the other way.  

      • Shingo
        May 22, 2012, 7:22 am

        Simple, the Palestinians should adopt en mass non violent protests approach (and they haven’t so far as we can see in this case) and they should go back to the negotiation table.

        What for? The Israelis are dishonest lying thieves. They don’t honor the agreements they sign and ratify (see Road Map), so what do they hope to gain by reaching yet another far worse agreement that Israel won’t honor anyway.
         
        Unless you mean peace to be submission to Israeli dominance.

        I refuse to look at the settlement of Jews in their historic homeland as an immoral/illegal/violent act and this is axiomatic for me.

        Then simply put, you’re part of the problem, not the solution.  Talking to you is as futile as talking to Bibbi.

      • OlegR
        May 22, 2012, 7:31 am

        Please don’t put words in my mouth Shmuel.
        all that Presumably you don’t…

        And we are talking about the basic principles of the conflict right now not just Yitzhar.

        /You may want this to be about “the right of Jews to settle in Eretz Yisrael”, but this goes way beyond that – unless, like the Yitzhar settlers, you think that right trumps all Palestinian rights./

        Ultimately it is about that, for me at least.
        If Jews have not rights then the Palestinians have no rights either
        and then might is right.
        But this is not a zero sum game i refuse to look at it as such.
        What stems from that is an attempt to round the square (Our rights against their rights) which you have given up upon and chose their side
        and i haven’t.

      • Shmuel
        May 22, 2012, 7:53 am

        What stems from that is an attempt to round the square (Our rights against their rights) which you have given up upon and chose their side
        and i haven’t.

        On the contrary. I try to apply universal standards when it comes to rights (and ethics). It is you who have chosen a side.

      • Shingo
        May 22, 2012, 8:16 am

        If Jews have not rights then the Palestinians have no rights either

        Unless you’re proposing one democratic secualr state in Palestine, then you’re simply a facist supremacist. You want Israel to be Jewish, but the territories to be shared.

        But this is not a zero sum game i refuse to look at it as such.

        Sticking your head in the sand is not going to make reality go away. You simply regard Jews are more deserving and havign more rights than Palestinians. Unless you’re advocating opening the borders and allowing Palestinians and Jews in all of Palestine to move about freely within all of Palestine, then you are one and the same with the Yitzhar settlers.

      • Shingo
        May 22, 2012, 8:18 am

        On the contrary. I try to apply universal standards when it comes to rights (and ethics). It is you who have chosen a side.

        Very true Shmuel and what’s most saddistic, is that Oleg doesn’t even realize it. Jews get to have their cake, while eating the cake of the Palestinians, and he thinks that’s humanism.

      • Talkback
        May 22, 2012, 8:36 am

        OlegR:
        “If Jews have not rights then the Palestinians have no rights either
        and then might is right.”

        OlegR teaches us today:
        Palestinians have a right to “return” to their “historic homeland” and settle everywhere, especially in the disputed territory called “Israel”.

      • Annie Robbins
        May 22, 2012, 8:57 am

        Because when violence is on the table i will side with Itzhar as matter of pure reflex.

        Spoken like a true war criminal.

        spoken like a true nutjob. oleg has really revealed his duplicity in this thread. to review the passage:

        The fact that some settlers in Itzhar hold radical views is still not an excuse for violence Shmuel . If you justify it than we have no common ground for dialog.Because when violence is on the table i will side with Itzhar as matter of pure reflex.

        note what he continually excuses, denies or defends settler violence, so the only violence is does not excuse is that of palestinians, nor does he recognize any right of defense, for palestinians. and he will find no common ground with anyone who recognizes a right of palestinians to defend themselves, even with rocks.

        when violence is on the table (settler violence) he will side with Itzhar as matter of pure reflex.

        we have one of them amongst us. he’s a freak.

      • Hostage
        May 22, 2012, 9:04 am

        Do Jews have the right to settle in Eretz Israel or don’t they ?

        Why do you bother to ask, when you don’t intend to listen to the answer? The problem with Zionists is that they don’t have a decent respect for the opinions of mankind or the rights of others.

        The current Israeli regime is composed of Zionist disciples of Ze’ev Jabotinsky, who wrote that “Zionist colonization, even the most restricted, must either be terminated or carried out in defiance of the will of the native population. This colonization can, therefore, continue and develop only under the protection of a force independent of the local population – an iron wall which the native population cannot break through. This is, in toto, our policy towards the Arabs. To formulate it any other way would only be hypocrisy. Not only must this be so, it is so whether we admit it or not.”

        The Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples outlawed the practices described by Jabotinsky in 1960. If you insist on behaving like criminals, stop asking for our approval and complaining about being delegitimized when we give you our opinions.

      • Annie Robbins
        May 22, 2012, 9:08 am

        BTW i am not denying the Palestinians their right to resist even in violence…..But once violence erupts[note he makes no distinction regarding who starts the violence] the lines are drawn very clearly
        and i am on the other side….when violence is on the table i will side with Itzhar as matter of pure reflex.

        excuses excuses excuses..pure reflex eh.

      • Annie Robbins
        May 22, 2012, 9:15 am

        But what about the 35% of Yitzhar that sits on private Palestinian land even according to Israeli records?

        shmuel, you ask this of someone who says he REFUSES to look at settlers in eretz israel as illegal. as far as i know there is no understanding of ‘private palestinian land’ in eretz israel. not if one believes god gave all of it to jews.

      • OlegR
        May 22, 2012, 9:15 am

        /On the contrary. I try to apply universal standards when it comes to rights (and ethics). It is you who have chosen a side./

        Of cause i chose a side .
        And i think you are deluding yourself there.
        There is nothing wrong about picking a side, but you should be honest about it.

      • OlegR
        May 22, 2012, 9:17 am

        Thank you Annie always so nice to speak with you.
        Anything else you would like to call me ?

      • OlegR
        May 22, 2012, 9:23 am

        / REFUSES to look at settlers in eretz israel as illegal/
        Yes, because from a moral perspective there is no difference between
        the West Bank settlement or Dgania Alef or Tel Aviv.
        The fact that the world recognizes 1948 but not 1967 is not based on moral
        principles but on politics.

        But this is a matter of principle.Finkelstein makes the same argument in favor of ROR.
        What goes on ,on the ground is a matter of debate and political wisdom.

      • Annie Robbins
        May 22, 2012, 9:28 am

        If Jews have not rights then the Palestinians have no rights either

        i think the ‘rights’ oleg is referencing is the ‘right’ afforded to jews in the bible by god, allegedly. if non jews do not recognize those ‘rights’ they have no right to live there, according to the translation of shmuel’s link.

      • thankgodimatheist
        May 22, 2012, 9:28 am

        “eretz israel.”

        But where is this frigging eretz Israel he keeps talking of? Where does he (Oleg) draw the lines and borders, I asked him but he didn’t respond! Do Jews have the right to settle in Lebanon, Jordan an Syria? Since they too seem to be part of this bat-shit crazy mythical eretz israel as featured in the Wiki article!

      • Annie Robbins
        May 22, 2012, 9:31 am

        i wasn’t speaking to you oleg, i was speaking about you. as shingo pointed out simply put, you’re part of the problem, not the solution. Talking to you is as futile as talking to Bibbi.

        wrt the discussion in this thread your contributions are only interesting to me at this pt as a matter of observation.

      • Shmuel
        May 22, 2012, 9:40 am

        There is nothing wrong about picking a side

        That depends on the criteria on which your choice is based.

        but you should be honest about it

        When you condemn “violence” or cite “rights”, you give the impression of universality, when you really mean “Palestinian violence” and “Jewish rights”. That is dishonest.

        In fact you have no common ground for discussion with anyone who does not share your moral relativism (in the sense of ‘whatever’s good for my relatives is moral’), yet you pretend to engage in dialogue here – to the point of falsely asserting that there would indeed be common ground, if only others would condemn violence (against your side). I don’t think you are deluding yourself; I think you are trying to delude others.

      • seafoid
        May 22, 2012, 9:53 am

        “Yes, because from a moral perspective there is no difference between
        the West Bank settlement or Dgania Alef or Tel Aviv.”

        both drenched in blood
        Ethnic cleansing is always wrong.
        One day Israelis will realise that Europe didn’t solve anything by passing on its “Jewish problem” to the Middle East

      • OlegR
        May 22, 2012, 9:57 am

        I am sorry please do go on.
        You might as well attribute to me a few others things that i haven’t said while you are at it.

      • OlegR
        May 22, 2012, 10:18 am

        /When you condemn “violence” or cite “rights”, you give the impression of universality, when you really mean “Palestinian violence” and “Jewish rights”. That is dishonest./

        I am not a universalist and i stated that on multiple occasions.
        I also never said that Jewish violence is always justified and that all Jewish rights have absolute priority overother people rights and should be achieved by any means.So don’t try and attribute it to me.

        /In fact you have no common ground for discussion with anyone who does not share your moral relativism /
        Let’s try again.

        Do you Shmuel believe that Jews as a nation have the right to their own
        country on the territory/part of the territory of what they call Eretz Israel?

        Do you Shmuel believe that Palestinians as a nation have the right to their own country on the territory/part of the territory of what they call Palestine ?

        I am asking about principles now, not about political feasibility.

      • Woody Tanaka
        May 22, 2012, 10:20 am

        “Yes, because from a moral perspective there is no difference between
        the West Bank settlement or Dgania Alef or Tel Aviv.”

        Yes, they are all settlements which should be evacuated of foreign invaders and the land returned to its rightful Palestinian owners. Pack it up, comrade and head back to the Rodina!

        Or you could simply create a land between the sea and the Jordan where all people have full equality and equal rights regardless of nationality, religion, etc. But you wouldn’t go for that. For you, the Arabs have to be an underclass otherwise how could your judeo-supremecism work. Right, comrade?

      • Woody Tanaka
        May 22, 2012, 10:38 am

        “I am not a universalist and i stated that on multiple occasions.”

        No kidding, comrade. You’re a judeo-supremacist and you’ve shown that on a number of occassions.

        But what you haven’t told us is whether you ever checked with your family to see if your grandfather should have been hung for crimes against the Polish people or for raping all those German women. So, how ’bout it… Inquiring minds want to know…

      • Shmuel
        May 22, 2012, 10:45 am

        Oleg,

        You may feel more comfortable with a discussion of national rights, but the incident at Yitzhar pertains first and foremost to individual rights. Yitzhar sits on stolen private land, and constantly aspires to steal more. The settlers of Yitzhar also regularly use violence to protect what they have stolen and terrorise their Palestinian neighbours (what they call “deterrence”). They do so with impunity and the active collaboration of the IDF. Even the incorrect assertion that Jews have the legal “right” to settle in occupied territory, does not give them the right to steal private land and impose a reign of terror.

        Concerning your digression, I believe the Zionist movement to be a fundamentally colonialist movement, with no national rights anywhere in Israel/Palestine. Israeli Jews have the right to coexist with Palestinians in I/P as equals, not colonial masters.

      • Woody Tanaka
        May 22, 2012, 10:47 am

        “I am asking about principles now, not about political feasibility.”

        How about these principles, rather than the nonsensical “right” of “nations” crapola:

        Do you believe that the people who are Jews have the unrestricted right to live in peace anywhere between the Jordan and the Med. that they wish and have an absolute right to full equality and human rights in the government which controls their lives (i.e., the Israeli state)?

        Do you believe that the people who are Palestinians have the unrestricted right to live in peace anywhere between the Jordan and the Med. and have an absolute right to full equality and human rights in the government which controls their lives (i.e., the Israeli state)?

        If you cannot answer “yes” to both questions, then you are the enemy.

      • OlegR
        May 22, 2012, 11:08 am

        /You may feel more comfortable with a discussion of national rights, but the incident at Yitzhar pertains first and foremost to individual rights/
        It pertains to both.

        /Concerning your digression, I believe the Zionist movement to be a fundamentally colonialist movement, with no national rights anywhere in Israel/Palestine./

        Jews have no rights to a country of their own in I/P.

        Unless you claim that Palestinians neither have no national rights in the I/P only the right to coexist with Israeli Jews as equals then you Shmuel
        can’t say you haven’t picked a side.

        Are you in fact claiming that the Palestinians have no national rights in the
        I/P only the right to coexist with Israeli Jews as equals ?

      • OlegR
        May 22, 2012, 11:12 am

        The answer is Yes to both questions Woody as matter of principle.

        As a matter of political feasibility the Utopian 1SS that
        you all support is not an achievable goal and
        will cause more harm the good.

      • seanmcbride
        May 22, 2012, 11:45 am

        OlegR,

        Haven’t you figured out yet that the more that pro-Israel activists argue about Israeli politics with the world at large — and especially with Americans and Europeans — the more they turn the world off Israel? Stand back and look at the big picture.

        If Israel had developed into a normal nation, as Theodor Herzl envisioned, you wouldn’t be bogged down in these self-defeating arguments. But Israel is a highly abnormal nation, by choice, and becomes increasingly more abnormal every day.

        What political issues do you care about more than or as much as your narrow ethnic nationalism?

        What ethnic nationalist movements around the world do you support other than your own?

      • Woody Tanaka
        May 22, 2012, 11:56 am

        If, as you say, it is your principle to support full and absolute equality between the Jews and all of the Palestinians, what have you done to move your state in that direction? What politicians have you supported who would end the occupation and extend full freedom, equality and citizenship to the Palestinians in the West Bank, Gaza, and Arab East Jerusalem? What programs have you supported to end the notion that Israel is a “Jewish” state, but, rather, a state of all its citizens? How much money have you given to organizations supporting the Palestinian people and stopping the seizure of their lands?

        Or is you agreement “in principle” nothing more than a lullaby that you pretend to sing to yourself so that your conscience will let you sleep at night?

        Because if you aren’t willing to take action and to accept the logical result of your supposed principles, then you don’t actually have them.

      • MTd2
        May 22, 2012, 11:58 am

        OlegR, what are you suggesting, then? A 2SS where Jews are 2nd rate citizens in Palestinian territories?

      • Shmuel
        May 22, 2012, 12:06 pm

        Jews have no rights to a country of their own in I/P

        Correct. Although coloniser and colonised are not equal, both Israeli Jews and Palestinians have national rights in I/P to be achieved and reconciled preferably through negotiation. Neither Palestinians nor Israeli Jews have the right to establish (or maintain, in Israel’s case) an ethnocratic or otherwise discriminatory regime.

        I have never claimed not to have “picked a side”, merely that I constantly do so on the basis of universal criteria rather than ethnicity or personal preference.

      • Hostage
        May 22, 2012, 4:00 pm

        I refuse to look at the settlement of Jews in their historic homeland as an immoral/illegal/violent act and this is axiomatic for me.

        There’s plenty of Eretz Yisroel on the other side of the Green Line where the IDF can expel these nutcases using administrative restraining orders – and they’ve done that in the past. It’s axiomatic to me that the shooters should be provided with accommodations on Israeli state-owned land, in a prison cell.

        Nor is “the negotiating table” any more than a fig leaf

        Israel’s Disengagement Plan said that it was based upon the consideration that:

        it is clear that in the West Bank, there are areas which will be part of the State of Israel, including cities, towns and villages, security areas and installations, and other places of special interest to Israel.

        Israel has undertaken a number of commitments regarding the dismantling of unauthorized outposts, limitations on settlement growth, etc. In the framework of the negotiations with the Americans, all of Israel’s past commitments on these issues vis-à-vis the American administration, have been included in the letter by the Chief of the Prime Minister’s Bureau to the U.S. National Security Adviser.

        http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Peace+Process/Reference+Documents/Disengagement+Plan+-+General+Outline.htm

        Israel has defaulted on its commitments to remove the outposts and it refuses to even provide a map of these areas that clearly will be part of Israel, including cities, towns and villages, security areas and installations, and other places of special interest.

        Unless the removal of Yitzhar is clearly negotiable, I would recommend they try to resolve the issue through upgraded observer status at the UN; accession to the statutes of the ICJ and ICC; and through the deployment of an international peacekeeping force.

      • Hostage
        May 22, 2012, 4:24 pm

        excuses excuses excuses..pure reflex eh.

        Shooting and crying is more of a stereotropic response of the eyes and trigger fingers. It happens to Zionists implanted in disputed territory when they come into physical contact with a firearm on the Sabbath, i.e. stereotropism /ster·e·ot·ro·pism/ (ster″e-ot´rah-pizm) tropism (reaction, growth, or turning movement of a sessile biological organism) in response to contact with a solid or rigid surface;-)

      • Hostage
        May 22, 2012, 6:01 pm

        The fact that the world recognizes 1948 but not 1967 is not based on moral principles but on politics.

        It’s actually based upon the very moral principle of international law that the fruits of aggression will not be recognized. For example, The Act of Chapultepec, March 6, 1945 explained “The American states have been incorporating in their international law, since 1890, by means of conventions, resolutions and declarations, the following principles:

        a) The proscription of territorial conquest and the non-recognition of all acquisitions made by force (First International Conference of American States, 1890);”

        The scriptures illustrate the same principle in the story of Naboth.

        That principle is also part of “the Law of the UN Charter” that has been accepted by all member states. Another essential moral law of the Charter is that signatories agree to be bound by the decisions of the Security Council. It endorsed the armistice agreements as a provisional measure and directed the parties to observe and apply them pending a final negotiated settlement. In both instances, resolutions 62 and 73, it was acting under the auspices of its Chapter VII powers. Treaty law and the Torah both say that agreements must be kept (pacta sunt servanda) and that covenant-breakers have no moral legitimacy.

      • Annie Robbins
        May 22, 2012, 6:23 pm

        you made a joke hostage, very funny ;)

        i looked up the word @ webster, my favorite dictionary. i wasn’t sure if you were completely pulling my leg and inventing the word altogether.

        they asked me

        This word doesn’t usually appear in our free dictionary, but the definition from our premium Unabridged Dictionary is offered here on a limited basis. Note that some information is displayed differently in the Unabridged.

        What made you want to look up stereotropism? Please tell us where you read or heard it (including the quote, if possible).

        so i sent them your joke with a brief explanation of the context.

      • Annie Robbins
        May 22, 2012, 6:29 pm

        Haven’t you figured out yet that the more that pro-Israel activists argue about Israeli politics with the world at large — and especially with Americans and Europeans — the more they turn the world off Israel? Stand back and look at the big picture.

        something tells me oleg thinks the more people here this logic the more rational it may seem. hahahahaha! au contraire!

      • Annie Robbins
        May 22, 2012, 6:32 pm

        The fact that the world recognizes 1948 but not 1967 is not based on moral principles but on politics.

        it’s politics that prevent people from grasping the times have changed. recall the video in the ny deli, a couple people expressing the zionists ‘won’ jerusalem in a war and once you win a war you get the land. that’s so retro. it’s as if they cannot incorporate they are living in the past, a mental block..based on their politics.

      • Djinn
        May 23, 2012, 12:57 am

        Do I have a right to live in Eretz Australia? personally I’m quite partial to the climate of our northern neighbours so what do you say Oleg should I be able to set up a town in Bali, have it ringeed with protection provided by the ADF and have all my infrsttructure provided at Australian standards paid for by taxpayers actually living in Australia? Should I be able to arm my teenaged sons to the teeth to defend “my” property? If any Balinese present ANY kind of protest to this should I be able to call on Australian soldiers to spray them with skunk water, drown them in tear gas and shoot them point blank with lethal gas canisters?

        Conversely, if you think it’s OK for Israeli law to extend beyond it’s recognised borders is that fair play for the justice systems of others? Would it be OK for Lebanese police to storm into a TA home, arrest all the men (including those barely into their teens) and then detain them indefinitely?

        Or is it only Israeli zionists who get to act this way? If so why?

      • Samuel T
        May 23, 2012, 3:15 am

        Shmuel,
        “the very presence of the settlers there is an ongoing act of violence, ”

        Someones presence is an act of violence? Really! Wow. Does that concept work for all people regardless of their political views or is it just a self serving, one-sided, myopic, bigoted justification of inflicting violence towards a specific people group which in your narrowest of views appears to be them Jews.

      • Shmuel
        May 23, 2012, 3:22 am

        Samuel T,

        Are you really accusing me of anti-Semitism? LOL

        If someone forces their way into your flat, takes up residence in your living room and refuses to leave, their presence is an act of violence.

      • Sumud
        May 23, 2012, 3:44 am

        I refuse to look at the settlement of Jews in their historic homeland as an immoral/illegal/violent act and this is axiomatic for me.

        That phrase is hasbara; “historic homeland” has no legal meaning. Property rights, on the other hand…

        The settler’s presence in occupied Palestine is a violation of the Geneva Convention. End of story.

        More than likely their “historic homeland” is Brooklyn, or Eastern Europe –or Iraq.

        There’s nothing special about jews that means a few hundred years in Palestine a few thousand years gives all their descendants perpetual claims on the land, and to suggest there is, is absurd.

      • Sumud
        May 23, 2012, 4:03 am

        Someones presence is an act of violence? Really! Wow.

        Don’t play dumb Samuel T.

        If Egypt invaded Israel and started settling hundreds of thousands of Egyptians all over Israel, after driving Israeli jews into the sea at gunpoint (like the zionists did to Palestinians in Jaffa in 1948) I think you’d get it pretty fast.

        The settlement and occupation of the West Bank and Gaza is maintained by Israel’s military forces. The West Bank by troops on the ground, Gaza by troops on the border, in the air, and on the seas.

        It is a m-i-l-i-t-a-r-y o-c-c-u-p-a-t-i-o-n.

        It is the presence of the military – who use force and the threat of force (i.e. violence) that makes the presence of the illegal settlers possible.

      • seafoid
        May 23, 2012, 4:10 am

        Historic homeland is a load of crap . Are the Hungarians entitled to claim the steppes of Russia ? Do the people of Brazil have a right to Portugal ?

      • OlegR
        May 23, 2012, 4:29 am

        /f Egypt invaded Israel and started settling hundreds of thousands of Egyptians all over Israel,/

        I thinks that’s why there are so many “indigenous” Palestinians
        with the last name El Matzri right Sumud ?

      • Woody Tanaka
        May 23, 2012, 7:14 am

        So, because a few Middle Eastern people have Middle Eastern names which linguistically reference a bordering land (also Middle Eastern), the obvious conclusion is that we should give the land to a bunch of people who spell their Russian-style patronym in the Cyrillic alphabet. Is that right, comrade

      • Hostage
        May 23, 2012, 7:26 am

        I thinks that’s why there are so many “indigenous” Palestinians
        with the last name El Matzri right Sumud ?

        Do you really need to use scare quotes on the term indigenous comrade? After all, many of the Israelites of David and Solomon’s era were supposedly “indigenous” people who were descended from Joseph’s half-Egyptian children or Solomon’s half-Egyptian children from Pharaohs daughter. All of the Israelites were supposedly descended from migrants who came to the land of Canaan by way of Egypt. For all we know, you might be some sort of a modern-day Rooskey xenophobe who’s only claim to the historical homeland is based upon your mythical ancestor’s Egyptian descent.

        It was the “Jewish” Patriarchs, Abram and Jacob, who supposedly went to Egypt during times of famine. The two largest tribes among their returning descendants were the assimilated half-Egyptian children of Joseph, Ephraim and Manasseh. You Zionists love to talk about the “continuous presence” of “Jews” in Palestine. If you want to compare ancient territorial claims to Palestine and evidence of continuous presence there, then the historical and archeological records establish that the Egyptians beat the Hebrews hands-down in that department.

        The whole area was part of an ancient Egyptian sphere of influence and the people of the region were vassals of Egypt. The Egyptians had mining operations and forts along the trade routes, like the Kings Highway and the Way of the Philistines (aka Via Maris), and there were Egyptian administrative centers in places like Gaza, Joppa, Megiddo and Beth Shan. The Egyptian Sinai was one of the provinces of Arabia from the Golden Age onwards to the modern era. So both Palestine and Egypt were part of natural and cultural Arabia. Even after the Golden Age, the Ottomans called the whole region Arabistan, because it was the homeland of the Arab people. So you might want to cut the local Egyptians some slack, you are probably distant relatives.

      • Sumud
        May 23, 2012, 7:50 am

        I thinks that’s why there are so many “indigenous” Palestinians with the last name El Matzri right Sumud ?

        Is that you Joan Peters?

        I know of El Masris here in Australia and they hail from Lebanon not Egypt.

        Do you really want to go down that route – with a PM whose *real* name is Benjamin Mileikowsky, a Deputy PM and FM imported from a nightclub in Soviet Russia, Kadima’s new leader born in Iran and Eli Yishai’s parents born in Tunisia…?

        Oleg – that doesn’t sound very middle eastern does it…?

      • Hostage
        May 23, 2012, 8:25 am

        the obvious conclusion is that we should give the land to a bunch of people who spell their Russian-style patronym in the Cyrillic alphabet.

        Theodore Herzl wanted to establish a Jewish colony in the Wadi el Arish. His advisors and experts claimed it was part of the ancient Jewish homeland. Oleg still doesn’t consider the people living 31 miles away, in Rafah, to be “indigenous” if their ancestors lived for hundreds of years in nearby El Arish. Nonetheless, he probably doesn’t see anything illegal, immoral, or illogical about calling Jews born in the very same region of Egypt, Yamit, “indigenous Israelis” – even though their ancestors may have hailed from Russia or Poland and lived there for hundreds of years. There may be a motive for this madness, but it certainly isn’t very logical if you ask me.

      • gamal
        May 23, 2012, 11:17 am

        “El Matzri” what are they unleavened or something, Masr’ egypt Masri Egyptian, but it isnt it weird Palestine is part of the middle east and there you find middle easterners, part of my Arab family comes from Nablus, Palestine was on planet earth at one time and many of her people have connections to other earthlings and part of it is from Egypt, what of it?

        what is the difference between thugs like oleg and dissimulators like tokyo “jews are a natural part of the ME” BK. both purvey studied ignorance at every opportunity.

      • Philip Weiss
        May 23, 2012, 11:27 am

        but jews have a long history in middle east

      • OlegR
        May 23, 2012, 11:37 am

        With the rare exception of Australian aboriginals
        Indigenous should always be read as the Latest Conquerers.

      • gamal
        May 23, 2012, 12:36 pm

        who is denying that of course Judaism comes from the middle east, middle eastern jews have a long history but to confuse that history with the extraordinary privileges zionists grant themselves is stretching the point beyond any sense. Jews have long histories in the balkans in southern europe in central asia, meaning what exactly?

        all the peoples of the region including the Palestinians have a long continuous and ongoing history in the region, the rooting of current political arrangements in the region based on largely mythic, rather than the real history of region is one problem the notion of basing rights to nationality, freedom of movement etc on these histories is absurd, the middle east is like the rest of the planet in the 21st century, native americans have long a history on the amercian continent which means that……perhaps you could complete that sentence for me.

        as if the people of the region dont know this my own tribe the ‘Awf were at one time both Hejazi and of the Jewish faith what rights can i derive from that fact, it is an evation and condescending at best, we know our history, of course it could be argued that italians have a long history in the region greeks also…which means what? should the Greeks get Ugarit, where Greece learned to read and write.

        so what are you actually saying? what has this to do with zionist settler colonialism, it doesnt make it any more acceptable, well not to me though of course luminaries such as Nadine Gordimer thought that at least Zionists had a claim on the land they stole in contra-distinction to the Boers, who had at least been resident for a century or two in the site of their crimes, i am puzzled by this, though grateful that you want to teach us our history how selfless of you and its not even like you have anything to gain, so often when trying to discuss this matter with Europeans one is left with the impression of talking to utterly irrational ideologues, the people of the region will ultimately decide what they will accept, as is their right, conversations about the historical connections of Judaism to the region are at best irrelevant, like the indigenes have no history , as if, i am not really impressed by the depth of historical knowledge displayed by Europeans when it comes to the middle east. It is the history of the Palestinians, relabeled like hummus, as Israeli or Jewish, like a conjuring trick, Arab Jews have a long history in the region, this gives no rights to Jews hailing from outside, they are foreigners despite their Arab Manque habits. We know our history, thanks for asking, it provides no basis for or mitigation of Zionism.

      • American
        May 23, 2012, 12:41 pm

        But violence will be met with violence”….Oleg

        Just remember that when you eventually end up on the receiving end.
        But you won’t will you?……you will cry totally innocent victims being victimized.

      • American
        May 23, 2012, 12:47 pm

        Do Jews have the right to settle in Eretz Israel or don’t they ?” Oleg

        No, they don’t.

      • gamal
        May 23, 2012, 12:59 pm

        mankind originated in Australia? so Levantine history is not your only area of expertise. but the rest of this brief comment is just the most astonishing historical ignorance history says our man from Slavonia its been zionism all the way back to the beginning, i think oleg is a crappy little Turing machine probably made in Korea. All colonialists end up with a despairing version of human history which is all slaughter and pillage, except there is no record of such a “history”.

      • American
        May 23, 2012, 1:18 pm

        Do you Shmuel believe that Jews as a nation have the right to their own
        country on the territory/part of the territory of what they call Eretz Israel?…Oleg

        No. What makes you think that outside European Jews, the Jews who weren’t and arent’ native to Palestine, have any right to settle Palestine?
        Your bible babble cock or your ‘peoplehood’ babble cock, your holocaust entitlement and all that cult crap?
        The Jews and Israel were a tiny grain of sand in the whole of ME and Palestine history.
        If I was into all the religious mumbo jumbo that goes on about Israel I’d probably join the Jewish religious sect that says God never meant for Jews to have any nation state because it replaces Judaism and
        G-D with Israel.
        The first Israel failed thousands of years ago…now your second attempt is failing also. Is there a clue here?

      • Annie Robbins
        May 23, 2012, 1:27 pm

        but jews have a long history in middle east

        so do christians..however i wouldn’t go so far as to say the pope was indigenous to palestine.

        wrt this ‘continuous presence’ tho, the christians have that going too.

      • seanmcbride
        May 23, 2012, 1:30 pm

        OlegR is a member of a messianic ethnic cult. Members of messianic ethnic cults tend to be extremely self-involved and lack perspective on how cult outsiders view them. And this is why messianic ethnic cults always self-destruct: they systematically misread the world around them.

        OlegR needs to deprogram himself. But the indoctrination to which he has been subjected may be too much for him to overcome.

      • eljay
        May 23, 2012, 1:41 pm

        >> With the rare exception of Australian aboriginals
        >> Indigenous should always be read as the Latest Conquerers.

        In other words, people of the Jewish faith from countries around the world had – and have – no special claim on Levantine land. No right to “return” to it, because it was never theirs to “return” to. Good, glad you cleared that up.

      • Bumblebye
        May 23, 2012, 2:35 pm

        @OgleR
        “Indigenous should always be read as the Latest Conquerers”
        Sheer twaddle.
        ok, so you’re down with the antipodeans, how about the Maori? I’ve read/heard various estimates for inhabitation of NZ between 800 to 1000 years (ie, only up to twice as long as migration to Americas), so are they or the waves of euro/etc immigrants & descendants indigenous? You, for instance, are about as indigenous as a wallaby at the local zoo. That the faith of your forefathers was founded in the region does not make it your home, or give you any rights over it.

      • OlegR
        May 23, 2012, 2:42 pm

        Annie you recently gave such a nice lecture about Jewish dual identity
        as religion and ethnicity.I was very impressed by it.

      • Hostage
        May 23, 2012, 3:57 pm

        With the rare exception of Australian aboriginals Indigenous should always be read as the Latest Conquerers.

        That might be convenient for you, but that isn’t the meaning of indigenous in our dictionaries or in international law. The Arab conquest was accomplished by religious conversion or treaties and alliances with the indigenous populations, not by colonization. A 30,000 man Arab army with 10,000 or so horses didn’t colonize Northern Africa, Central Europe, and Central Asia.

        The most convincing evidence of a Middle Eastern origin for some Jews are the studies which reveal a shared genetic heritage with the Palestinians. Many studies of Palestinian Arab and Jewish haplotypes revealed a common pool for a large portion of Y chromosomes, suggesting a relatively recent common ancestry.

      • OlegR
        May 23, 2012, 5:16 pm

        Actually “American” Israel( Jewish state) failed twice before this is our third attempt.
        You should learn some history.

      • Annie Robbins
        May 23, 2012, 5:39 pm

        thank you..i did? not sure i would phrase it like that tho…religion being a part of ones ethnicity, unless one is not religious..

      • OlegR
        May 23, 2012, 5:50 pm

        Yes you were talking with German Lefty and he asked
        why Jews are considered an ethnic group and not Muslims or Christians.

      • Djinn
        May 23, 2012, 9:34 pm

        Oleg posts some insane stupidity but presumably was referring to the (mostly accepted) theory that the ancestors of Australia’s indigenous population were the first people to set foot on the land mass. They were not conquerors as there was no-one to conquer when they arrived.

        Of course it’s odd that this is acknowledged by someone who sees only Jews as being able to claim some kind of property rights based on previous waves of human migration.

      • Sumud
        May 24, 2012, 6:53 am

        but jews have a long history in middle east

        Of course ~ longer than any christians and muslims :-)

        It’s a stupid and pointless line of argument introduced by Oleg, and I responded in turn.

        I advocate for a single post-colonial state, with equal rights for all… Definitely not “the suitcase or the coffin”, but I do fear it will come to that if the growing madness (insanity, not anger) among zionists is not checked soon.

      • Rizla
        May 27, 2012, 11:23 pm

        “Haven’t you figured out yet that the more that pro-Israel activists argue about Israeli politics with the world at large — and especially with Americans and Europeans — the more they turn the world off Israel?”

        Bull’s eye, Sean; for any Goy that’s not completely brainwashed, it’s less of a turn-off than a total “Game Over”.

        The gloves are coming off the hardcore fanatics of Zionism, and what’s left is, increasingly, UGLY. Some people on MW try to reason with the specious, endless justifications and rationalizations, the ad hominem attacks (endless), and some brave souls will offer the Hasbarists olive branches (oh, the irony, with opponents who consider olive tree destruction an Olympic sport). I respect that, but it gets tiresome to hear repeated nastiness, and an obvious disrespect of anyone not blessed to live in a stolen, air-conditioned, USA-subsidized stucco box with a yarmulke and a million entitlements and grievances.

        The Settler Israeli, as a meme/concept/hero/role model, is a tough sell to anyone other than a complete sociopath! Sorry!

        Defending videos like the above… If one is a Hasbarist spewing octopus ink, maybe it made good sense ten years ago, a lot of people will yawn and change the channel, and I don’t see a sophist yellow brick road PR victory out of that one.

      • Rizla
        May 28, 2012, 3:04 am

        Gamal hits the nail on the head, bravo. Where’s the gefilte fish and matzoh balls? We’ll have “Israeli” falafel and hummus instead? Food Imperialism is a really neglected topic. Not to mention that the Romans appropriated Greek; we’re all still speaking Greek/Latin when we speak English, etc.. you’re right, this kind of history, what exactly does it have to do with Zionist colonialism, the subject at hand? And thanks a million for contrasting mythic history with agreed-upon-facts history. Anthropology 101, oh yeah. I also notice no one has said the word “Ashkenazi” yet… they are and were “foreigners”, by any definition of that term.

        Thanks for one of the best posts I’ve seen on MW, Gamal…

    • Annie Robbins
      May 21, 2012, 12:53 pm

      The Itzhar settlers said

      aside from taking their word for it, is their any evidence to back this up? surely they must have video..after 3 consecutive weekends. no? doesn’t the settlement’s ‘security squad’ monitor the area with video? it wouldn’t be that difficult?

      and where is the fire in the last video, which showed the settlers showing up? there are no fires in the first video. or did the settlers pre empt the ‘arab’ attack and show up before the ‘arabs’ allegedly set the fire?

      does it occur to you the itzhar settlers were lying?

    • Talkback
      May 21, 2012, 1:09 pm

      “I can state that if i were in those settlers place without the proper body armor
      and a helmet on my head i would definitely feel in danger for my life.”

      We allready know, OlegR. If a Jew feels stress, fear or has a high adrenaline level it’s understandable, if he shoots Palestinians.

      Universal moralist OlegR teaches us today:
      It’s also ok to shoot Jews when you feel like it.

    • justicewillprevail
      May 21, 2012, 1:25 pm

      So you unquestioningly and credulously accept the IDF and the settlers’ accounts, in spite of the evidence? I wonder why that would be, considering their track record. You believe what you want to believe, and have no interest in the rights of the people whose land it is, and have lived there for generations, whilst promoting the interest of a subsidised people who have no connection to the region and are protected by a foreign militia.

    • ColinWright
      July 12, 2012, 5:08 am

      “The Itzhar settlers said that “the settlement’s security squad and volunteer firefighting crew were called to the scene to extinguish a series of fires set by the Arabs from the town.” They said that “this is the third Saturday in a row that Arabs have been setting fires in an attempt to damage Itzhar’s western neighborhood.”

      Just for the sake of argument, let us suppose this is true. I don’t see why statements from Itzhar settlers should be believed, but just for the sake of argument, let’s pretend they are telling the truth.

      If so, good. Burning the settlers out sounds like a fine tactic. They have no legal right to be there in the first place.

  4. Woody Tanaka
    May 21, 2012, 11:07 am

    “The video footage raises grave suspicions that the soldiers present did not act to prevent the settlers from throwing stones and firing live ammunition at the Palestinians. The soldiers did not try to remove the settlers and in fact are seen standing by settlers while they are shooting and stone throwing.”

    Why would it “raise[] grave suspicions”? The thugs from the israeli state death squad and these terrorist settler pigs are one and the same.

  5. piotr
    May 21, 2012, 12:15 pm

    There is a sequence of events on two videos.

    The incident starts with a group running down the hill from the settlement to toward the village. They stop at a group of several trees.

    Then we see the Israeli group close to the village and fire behind them, while men of the village line next to the fences of their homes, and throw stones to repel the invading group. Riflemen in Israeli group start shooting in different directions.

    Some of the settlers swat at flames that approach them from behind.

    Question: why this group run toward to village with fire swatting rockets and guns before the fire, through empty fields? My conclusion is that they somehow anticipated the grass fire. For religious reasons they deny setting the fire, and their version stresses that they used rubber bullets which are classified as “less lethal”. Their explanations makes sense only if they were reacting to a fire on “their fields”, but they started the incident before the fire. I have a strong impression that what the settlers see is VERY different what any recording device would show.

    To compare, find the video of Lt. Col. Shalom Eisner. There is a moment when he has this glassy look and hesitates, while a Danish young man stands in front of him. [cut to the vision of Shalom Eisner, time rolls back 3000 years] Samson finds ass jawbone and meets a crowd of Philistines, raises the jawbone and smites the impure enemy left and right, while smacking Philistine girls brought to beguile him.
    [cut, contemporary vision restored] Lt. Col. Shalom Eisner sees bicyclist rolling in pain while he, mysteriously, has an acute pain in a finger.

  6. Dan Crowther
    May 21, 2012, 12:17 pm

    That kid got shot by the settler who knelt down and sighted in with his pistol….. wow, and right in front of the “soldiers” — this is unreal.

    • Woody Tanaka
      May 21, 2012, 12:36 pm

      “this is unreal.”

      Not to me. Does anyone expect a criminal band of fascist misfits and murderers like the I”D”F to do anything but stand by when their sibling band of fascist misfits and murderers — the settler pigs — commit their crimes?

      • Talkback
        May 21, 2012, 1:15 pm

        Now Woody that’s unfair! They don’t just stand by them, they protect them.

    • Shmuel
      May 21, 2012, 12:44 pm

      wow, and right in front of the “soldiers” — this is unreal

      An Israeli friend who sent me the video this morning, added the following comment:

      You can see a settler shooting a Palestinian in order to kill him (fortunately only managed to injure) and the soldiers right next to him are not doing anything.

      From my own experience this is everyday reality in the occupied territories. It reflects in a very precise way the relations between the state and the army, and the settlers

    • Annie Robbins
      May 21, 2012, 12:44 pm

      it is as if the settlers set out on a hunting expedition that day. they came looking for prey, and they knew just where to look too.

      • marc b.
        May 21, 2012, 1:16 pm

        it is as if the settlers set out on a hunting expedition that day. they came looking for prey, and they knew just where to look too.

        yes, that’s what it looks like, annie. their ‘god’ needs a blood sacrifice apparently. these people are criminally insane, along with the repulsive commenters here trying to explain that we didn’t just see the IDF and ‘settlers’ advancing on palestinians and then crying like babies about the threat of a thrown rock while they shoot live ammunition. i can just imagine the spittle flecked shrieks if a palestinian responded to a settler throwing rocks at him by squeezing off a few rounds from his automatic rifle. we’d be subject to wailing and gnashing of teeth worthy of a bible passage, the foreskins of their enemies piled high in revenge.

        Rabbinic Judaism developed the concept of Sabbath to the point where it supersedes a whole list of Biblical commandments.
        The settlers reading of Judaism is regressive. They promote “The Land” to supremacy. The settlers have revived a defunct Talmudic law that states: if non-Jews are encroaching on Jewish property in the Land of Israel, you are required to violate the Sabbath and take up arms to fight them off.

        so in effect they are not worshipping the word of god but are worshipping themselves. that explains quite a bit.

      • Annie Robbins
        May 21, 2012, 1:32 pm

        marc, elliot is not here at the moment. the link to the earlier thread is an interesting conversation between him and shunra. i noticed when i googled Sefi Rachlevsky’s book, Hamoro Shel Mashiach (The Messiah’s Donkey) there was lots written about it which confirms what shunra said about it in the earlier thread. anyway, i cannot confirm what elliot wrote here, that is one of the reasons i captured it in the text, so we can discuss it..because it was very new/interesting to me..this idea of the sabbath and the attacks. hopefully there will be others who know a lot more about this topic than myself who can comment on the text of elliot and shunra. including them of course, if they see this thread.

    • OlegR
      May 21, 2012, 5:30 pm

      No the kid was shot by another guy

    • ColinWright
      July 12, 2012, 5:12 am

      “That kid got shot by the settler who knelt down and sighted in with his pistol….. wow, and right in front of the “soldiers” — this is unreal.”

      Welcome to Planet Israel. ‘The bridge between the light and the dark.’

      Aside from everything else, religiously speaking it’s an abomination.

  7. ykohen
    May 21, 2012, 2:18 pm

    Here are the facts:

    1. The Arab village of Asira al-Qibliya is just west of the Jewish town of Yitzhar.

    2. The Arabs of Asira al-Qibliya set fires to fields in between them- for the 3rd Jewish Sabbath in a row.

    3. There is no doubt that it was the Arabs who set the fires because:

    a. Jews can be seen in the videos trying to put the fires out. Arabs are not. They are busy attacking those trying to put out the fires.

    b. The winds in Israel- especially in the later afternoon when the incident occurred, blow from west to east; FROM Asira al-Qibliya TOWARDS Yitzhar.

    c. The terrain where the fires were is UPHILL towards Yitzhar, whereas it is DOWNHILL towards Asira al-Qibliya, and as we all know, fire will rage uphill- especially with the wind blowing it; as we see in the videos.

    d. On the Jewish Sabbath, Jews light no fires; not even for cooking.

    e. Not even the Arabs claim that it was Jews who set the fires. For instance, Maan News, probably the most widely read “Palestinian” news (and I use the word “news” beyond its broadest sense) source, doesn’t even mention the fire:

    http://www.maannews.net/eng/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=487752

    f. B’Tzelem didn’t make that claim either.

    4. So Jews responded to the fire that the Arabs set. They were attacked by MANY Arabs. Evidently, three Jews were injured by the attacking at this stage. The videos show dozens of Arabs, and shows Arabs attacking the Jews.

    5. The Jews from Yitzhar’s rapid response team called the army and then raced to the scene to protect the Jews fighting the Arab arsonist-set fires. They too were attacked by Arab terrorists and responded.

    6. Had they wanted to kill the Arab terrorists, they certainly could have; but they didn’t. They did neutralize them though.

    7. The Arabs and B’Tselem then posted the videos that they took of ONE SMALL PORTION OF THE EVENT, but it was a self-goal. Anyone who sees the videos- and I recommend that everyone look at a map (or Google Earth) as well, will understand the logical chain of events as I posted above.

    These Arabs are like the guy who murders his parents and then cries for mercy from the court on the grounds of being an orphan.

    • Annie Robbins
      May 21, 2012, 2:29 pm

      d. On the Jewish Sabbath, Jews light no fires; not even for cooking.

      obviously they shoot guns. guns cause fires.

      a. Jews can be seen in the videos that riskpref brought trying to put the fires out. Arabs are not.

      what is “that riskpref brought” and what second in which video are you referencing?

      b. The winds in Israel- especially in the later afternoon when the incident occurred, blow from west to east; FROM Asira al-Qibliya TOWARDS Yitzhar.

      then what were the settlers doing coming to the village before you can see fire there, like in the first video?

      Maan News, probably the most widely read “Palestinian” news (and I use the word “news” beyond its broadest sense) source, doesn’t even mention the fire:

      which is proof of nothing. i didn’t mention the fire either. it isn’t the primary feature of what went on that day. it’s merely the settlers excuse after the fact for why they were there, an excuse that seems rather feeble once you watch the video of them approaching the video, with NO FIRES. again, if the fire was started near their outpost why aren’t they on the other side of the hill protecting their outpost? why leave a fire to approach the village which, at that time, had NO FIRE?

      where is the fire when the settlers approached the village?

      • ykohen
        May 21, 2012, 2:40 pm

        obviously they shoot guns. guns cause fires.

        When lives are in danger- and after the Arabs set those fires AND attacked those Jews trying to put out the fires, lives WERE, not only is it permitted to shoot, but it is a requirement in order to control the situation that the Arab arsonists and rock-throwers caused.

        then what were the settlers doing coming to the village before you can see fire there, like in the first video?

        You need to look at that first video again. There are raging fires in the background- towards Yitzhar

        (I wrote) Maan News, probably the most widely read “Palestinian” news (and I use the word “news” beyond its broadest sense) source, doesn’t even mention the fire:

        (you wrote) which is proof of nothing. i didn’t mention the fire either. it isn’t the primary feature of what went on that day. it’s merely the settlers excuse after the fact for why they were there, an excuse that seems rather feeble once you watch the video of them approaching the video, with NO FIRES. again, if the fire was started near their outpost why aren’t they on the other side of the hill protecting their outpost? why leave a fire to approach the village which, at that time, had NO FIRE?

        Incorrect: The whole incident started when the Arabs lit the fires in the direction of Yitzhar and then violently attacked the Jews who went to put it out.

        where is the fire when the settlers approached the village?

        The Jews didn’t attack the village. They went to put out the fires, were attacked by Arabs, and then had to respond. The fires were there, as your own videos clearly show.

      • Annie Robbins
        May 21, 2012, 2:49 pm

        You need to look at that first video again. There are raging fires in the background-

        when i said first video i meant earlier video, as in earlier in the day..it is on the bottom of the post. could you tell me what minute (precisely) in the video you allege there are raging fires?

        thanks

      • Woody Tanaka
        May 21, 2012, 2:53 pm

        “Incorrect: The whole incident started when the Arabs lit the fires in the direction of Yitzhar and then violently attacked the Jews who went to put it out.”

        No, the whole incident started when European Jews started stealing Palestine back in the 19th Century. If these jews want to live in peace, tell them to get the hell off of Palestinian land and slink back over the green line where they belong.

      • Annie Robbins
        May 21, 2012, 2:57 pm

        also, you keep alleging ‘arabs’ set the fires AND they have done so over the last 3 sabbaths yet you’ve shown no documentation of these alleged fires in the press. why?

        the Arabs lit the fires in the direction of Yitzhar and then violently attacked the Jews who went to put it out

        ok, they please explain..where is the fire when the settlers can be seen coming over the hilltop in the direction of the palestinian village? where it says “Beginning of ‘Asira al-Qibliya event, 19.5.2012 ”

      • ykohen
        May 21, 2012, 2:58 pm

        Feel free to look at 1:28 on the far left corner. It then spread towards Yitzhar.

      • Annie Robbins
        May 21, 2012, 3:11 pm

        you see a raging fire at 1:28 in this video?

      • Woody Tanaka
        May 21, 2012, 3:15 pm

        “Feel free to look at 1:28 on the far left corner.”

        All I see are a bunch of zio squatters. Time to run those pigs out!!

      • ykohen
        May 21, 2012, 3:17 pm

        As YOU point out, it it the beginning of the event- right after the Arabs set it.

        And we don’t see what is to the left of that fire either.

      • marc b.
        May 21, 2012, 3:50 pm

        you see a raging fire at 1:28 in this video?

        annie, you’re debating a psychotic.

      • tree
        May 21, 2012, 5:08 pm

        Feel free to look at 1:28 on the far left corner. It then spread towards Yitzhar.

        I see no fire in the far left corner or elsewhere in the very first video, where the settlers are already approaching Asira. In the second video, the fire is spreading to the left, which is in the opposite direction from Yitzhar which is visible in the first video on the hilltop TO THE RIGHT.

      • marc b.
        May 21, 2012, 5:22 pm

        tree, from what i can see in the two videos, the most logical interpretation of what occurred is that the settlers baited the palestinians into a stone-throwing exchange, swapping out stone throwers for armed IDF/settlers during the exchange. there is absolutely no evidence in these videos that the palestinians set the fires or that settlers were attacked while ‘battling’ the fires. and as i said before, if a palestinian had opened fire on a settler who threw stones, these psychopaths would be bleating on about the ‘murderous’ palestinians.

      • ritzl
        May 21, 2012, 5:41 pm

        @ Mark b.

        Yup.

        The settlers are seen streaming down the hill away from the fire zone toward the village, before the fire. They were attacking (or cordoning)- before the fire was set.

        What really happened, imo:

        Settlers, bent on harassment, as per usual set fire to Palestinian lands and crops. As ykohen said (elements of truth and all that), the wind this time was blowing in the wrong direction, endangering the settlement. Ooops, settlers then try to put out their own fires. Palestinians, thinking the attack is still on, continue to throw stones. Settlers, realizing their rabid stupidity, open fire on the Palestinians in defense of their settlement. Voila, anatomy of a “self-defense” claim.

        On a less assumptive note, I wish someone would or could “Ken Burns” one or some of these attacks with chronology and maps showing Palestinian land, settlements on Palestinian land, with actions overlaid. It would take maybe four or five maps to show the progression. I think it would go a long way toward showing that settlers are the instigators and just how egregious this ritual arson is.

      • Fredblogs
        May 21, 2012, 6:29 pm

        Does he mean the amorphous grey thing on the top of the hill (upper left corner) is smoke from a small fire?

      • Annie Robbins
        May 21, 2012, 10:20 pm

        what moment in the video? because i do see a cloud in the sky. besides,if that was a fire one would think the ‘fire crew’ settlers would be on the OTHER side of the hill putting it out.

      • Fredblogs
        May 22, 2012, 12:19 am

        Only thing I could see at 1:28 on either left corner that even might be smoke. It might also be a distance blurred tree for all I can tell. I’m not agreeing with him about the fire in the earlier video, just trying to figure out what he is referring to. Unless he means 1:28 of some other video.

        However, the first video posted shows plainly that there is a fire, that the Jews are fighting it, and that the Palestinians are attacking the people fighting the fire. As to the second posted one, it is shot from farther to the right (of the cameraman) than the first and doesn’t pan far enough to the left to see the area where the fire is in the first posted video. So it is ambiguous.

      • ykohen
        May 22, 2012, 12:49 am

        The Jews were coming from the right because had they come from the left, they would have had to to by the fire. Also, these are different views of the incident, as anyone can see.

      • Shingo
        May 22, 2012, 3:09 am

        In the independence war, the Arabs killed over 6000 Jews. It was hardly one sided. The Arabs just happened to lose.

        No. At 2:02, the camera pulls back to the same spot and there is nothing there.

      • Shingo
        May 22, 2012, 3:10 am

        The Jews were coming from the right because had they come from the left, they would have had to to by the fire.

        There’s mo fire in that clip anywhere.

        Also, these are different views of the incident, as anyone can see.

        None of which show any fire.

      • tree
        May 22, 2012, 4:41 am

        The Jews were coming from the right because had they come from the left, they would have had to to by the fire.

        The Jews came from the right because they came from Yitzhar. Had they come from the left, they wouldn’t have been coming from Yitzhar, which can clearly be seen in the distant background in the first (sequentially-speaking) video, labeled “beginning…”. If they’d come from the left they would have been coming from Madama, another Palestinian village that had been previously attacked by Yitzhar settlers.

        Does he mean the amorphous grey thing on the top of the hill (upper left corner) is smoke from a small fire?

        There is no fire or smoke seen in that first “beginning” video . The “gray amorphous” thing is a solid, not smoke, Fred. It never changes shape, there’s no smoke emanating from it, and can be seen at one point or another in each of the 3 videos, always looking exactly the same. If you’d take your eye off the futile search for the non-existence smoke in that “beginning” video for a moment, you might notice that several of the settlers are wearing masks or headdresses that conceal their faces, even though some of them are not wearing shirts. Not particularly effective for “fighting fires”, but good for concealing your identity. Some of the settlers are also throwing stones at the Palestinians. Again, this is all in the first video before any fire. You might want to also notice in that first video that some of the settlers stop at one point on the path and head off toward a group of three trees. At that point, on the lower side of the path, you will see a white rocky outcropping that looks kind of like the letter “u”. You’ll see that again in the 3rd video, labeled “2nd camera”, right before the video ends (at 2:32 to be exact). At 2:32 in that video you see that right next to that same outcropping there is burned and smoldering brush, which was obviously not on fire when the first video taken. The smoke from it is moving slightly to the left (away from Yitzhar in the distance), as is all the smoke from all the fire along the ridge next to the Palestinian village. The fire was plainly moving in a leftward manner, away from Yitzhar, and there clearly was no fire in the first video. The fire must have started sometime after the Jewish settlers showed up.

      • Talkback
        May 22, 2012, 9:07 am

        “When lives are in danger … not only is it permitted to shoot but it is a requirement …”

        Universal moralist Ykohen teaches us:
        When Gentiles lives are in danger it is a requirement to shoot Jews, too.

        That does not only count for Gentiles (Palestinians) living under Jewish Apartheid and siege but also for Gentiles who are threatened to be attacked (Iran, etc.).

      • Fredblogs
        May 22, 2012, 1:01 pm

        No, even at 2:02 the bush in the foreground isn’t there. Also notice that from that angle the building on top of the hill is more obscured than in the video with the fire. It’s a spot to camera’s right of the place with the fire.

      • tree
        May 22, 2012, 5:18 pm

        No, even at 2:02 the bush in the foreground isn’t there.

        If you are talking to me, Fred, I didn’t say 2:02, I said 2:32 of this video

        right before the end of the video, at 2:36, the camera pans off to the right. If you stop it at 2:32, you can see the white “u” shaped outcropping just above the dirt road ( framed between two metal rods, one white, one gray, on the rooftop where the camera was located). To the right and slightly above that outcropping is the smoking brush. All video of the fire and smoke shows it moving to the left, with the wind. The brush by the outcropping was not burning when the masked settlers came down the road in this video. And the outcropping is to THE RIGHT of the leftward advancing fire that we see in the other two videos. The fire did not start somewhere unseen way off to the left of the camera. It started to the right, after the settlers arrived, and moved leftward.

        You can first see the white rock outcropping I am talking about at 0:36 in the “beginning” video. It is the one with the two dogs walking on the road just below it. There is no fire there, and the fire moved leftward whenever it was seen in the two other videos. It was moving away from Yitzhar, which was some distance away, and moving towards Asira, to which it was much closer. And it wasn’t there prior to the first settlers coming down to Asira.

        You can even see from the “beginning ” video; the one with no fire present, that the wind is blowing towards Asira and away from Yitzhar. Look at the rusting gray pole in the immediate foreground at around 1:55. You can see a small piece of something stuck to the pole on the right side of it that is blowing towards the camera (towards Asira). You can also hear the wind blowing in the camera’s microphone.

      • Djinn
        May 23, 2012, 1:30 am

        its such a common every day occurance it’s bizarre to see the usual suspects straining and stretching to turn this into a story of reluctant violence by settlers/IOF in the face of Palestinian (also bizarre the abject refusal of certain usual suspects to even breath that word) unprovoked aggression.

        Settlers roam the areas surrounding their settlements, armed to the teeth like the pathetic cowards they are, LOOKING for opportunities to shoot, destroying wells and olive trees, destroying the meagre infrstrature Palestinians have managed to assemble.

        I dont need to forensically examine this particular video. Distract all you like hasbaratchiks – doesnt change reality.

    • Annie Robbins
      May 21, 2012, 2:33 pm

      The Arabs of Asira al-Qibliya set fires to fields in between them- for the 3rd Jewish Sabbath in a row.

      any news article from a couple weeks ago claiming this? anything to back this up besides recent settler assertions? even one little itty bitty piece of evidence produced PRIOR to these damning inflammatory videos shot by the palestinian villagers of the approaching settlers?

      anything..links? or is ‘maan and B’Tzelem said nothing about the fires’ the extent of your ‘proof’? in that case we could include jpost, haaretz, wapo and the nyt in on the plot because they didn’t mention the palestinians starting a fire last week or the week before either.

      ha!

    • Woody Tanaka
      May 21, 2012, 2:36 pm

      I looked at a map and noticed that you forgot to mention that this took place on the stolen land of the Palestinians where none of these Israeli invaders belong. So if these jews don’t want problems, they can move back beyind the green line. Where they are, these settlers are legitimate targets.

      • ykohen
        May 21, 2012, 2:54 pm

        Nothing was stolen.

        PS Ever see this?

        “THE PALESTINIAN NATIONAL CHARTER” (Al-Mithaq Al-Kawmee Al-Philisteeni), Adopted in 1964 by the 1st Palestinian Conference

        Article 24: This Organization does not exercise any territorial sovereignty over the West Bank in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, on the Gaza Strip or in the Himmah Area.

        http://www.un.int/wcm/content/site/palestine/pid/12363

      • dimadok
        May 21, 2012, 3:04 pm

        Awesome-thank you .

      • Woody Tanaka
        May 21, 2012, 3:14 pm

        “Nothing was stolen.”

        All of Palestine was stolen. The zio’s greed and blood lust wasn’t slaked by the 78% percent they stole and all of those innocent people they murdered in 1947, so their cancer is spreading to the rest of the land they stole in 1967.

        Sure, I’ve seen it. So what? It’s an internal Arab matter and doesn’t concern any settler pigs. It certainly doesn’t establish any rights for zionist squatter pigs to be there, as the Jordanians returned the rights discussed in that Article to the Palestinians.

      • Blake
        May 21, 2012, 3:31 pm

        And nobody but Palestinians had any authority to give Palestine away.

        Avi Shlaim Israeli historian : Britain had no moral or legal or legal right to promise the land that belonged to the Arabs to another people so the Balfour Declaration was both immoral and illegal

      • mig
        May 21, 2012, 4:01 pm

        In 1964 it was Jordanian who ruled west bank, Egypt in Gaza strip. But i guess this goes beyond your imagination wildly. And that article 24 says as it is correct in time. Also i guess that we will see lots of butbutbut’s later on….

      • ritzl
        May 21, 2012, 4:07 pm

        @ykohen Every time you goof balls try to post evidence to support your “position” it shows why you so rarely do so.

        Any normal person reading that Charter and the “Article 24” link you just provided would understand that it means exactly the opposite of what you just wrote.

        The entire charter is laced with phrases like “the Palestinian homeland.” It specifically and repeatedly describes Palestinian nationality and territory as being a real thing.

        Your Article 24 assertion was even more bizarre. As part of the Charter of the PLO, A24 simply, clearly, and ONLY states that the PLO is not the government. That’s why it’s #24. That’s why you left off the second half of the text. Full Article:

        Article 24: This Organization does not exercise any territorial sovereignty over the West Bank in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, on the Gaza Strip or in the Himmah Area. Its [the PLO] activities will be on the national popular level in the liberational, organizational, political and financial fields.

        For someone to zip past all that comes before A24 in the PLO Charter, and settle on A24 as a proclamation that “Palestine doesn’t exist and therefore the land belonged to no one until WE came along” is an archtypical demonstration of how utterly bankrupt and untenable your thinking is (as well as your reason for being there on Palestinian land). More bluntly, it’s just a thinly veiled version of the “land without a people” racist credo.

        You spout settler fantasy so I assume you’re a settler. Why don’t you just say you’re there because you have the guns and you can do anything you want. At least that would be honest. Also, you should bear in mind that in the near future, you will be living under Palestinian laws, so the “might makes right” precedent you set now may well come back and bite you in the “hilltop” (or ass…). Ten years from now the people in the house next door and across the street will be Palestinians with equal rights.

      • talknic
        May 21, 2012, 10:55 pm

        ykohen

        Ever see this ? … http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/B4085A930E0529C98025649D00410973

        Or these .. http://wp.me/PDB7k-Y#annexation Follow the links to the sources

        Or this .. http://wp.me/PDB7k-Y#look Follow the links to the sources

      • Fredblogs
        May 22, 2012, 12:40 am

        In the independence war, the Arabs killed over 6000 Jews. It was hardly one sided. The Arabs just happened to lose.

      • Hostage
        May 22, 2012, 2:46 am

        PS Ever see this? Adopted in 1964 by the 1st Palestinian Conference . . . Article 24: This Organization does not exercise any territorial sovereignty

        Ever see these? The government of Israel swears that the Occupied Palestinian Territories are not a part of its sovereign territory and jurisdiction. See CCPR/C/ISR/2001/2, para 8 or E/1990/6/Add.32, para 6-7

        FYI, why should the 1st Palestinian Conference have exercised territorial sovereignty in 1964? The King of Arab Palestine and Transjordan did that in his capacity as Monarch of the joint Kingdom of Jordan after the union was ratified by the two peoples in a 1950 national plebiscite.

        In 1964 the constitution of Jordan reserved half of the seats in the lower house of Parliament for representatives from the West Bank. Gaza was being administered by the government of Egypt as a trusteeship of the Arab League, an organization in which Palestine was fully represented.

        After the 1974 Rabat Conference, the PLO was recognized as the sole representative of the Palestinian people in their international relations. In 1988 the King of Jordan dissolved the union between the East and West Banks and renounced his claims in favor of the Provisional Government of the State of Palestine. The Executive Committee of the Palestine Liberation Organization was entrusted with the functions of the Provisional Government by a decision of the Palestine National Council in accordance with the terms of the 1988 Declaration of the State of Palestine.

        There are a host of Israeli Supreme Court decisions which state that the authority of the military commander in the occupied territory rests upon the public international law contained in the Hague Regulations and the 4th Geneva Conventions. Those laws say that he is entitled to usufruct, but does not exercise sovereign jurisdiction. They also prohibit Israel from transferring parts of its population into the occupied territory.

      • tree
        May 22, 2012, 4:51 am

        In the independence war, the Arabs killed over 6000 Jews. It was hardly one sided. The Arabs just happened to lose.

        And according to the new Israeli historians, Jews killed over 35,000 Arabs (should I say “the Jews”, since you said “the Arabs”?). That makes it nearly a 6:1 ratio of dead Arabs to dead Jews. That sounds pretty one-sided to me. Also, its estimated that 80% of the Jews killed in the war were participating in offensive maneuvers (as opposed to defensive ones) when they were killed. The Arabs “happened to lose” because they were outnumbered, outgunned, and out-organized.

      • thankgodimatheist
        May 22, 2012, 7:14 am

        “Any normal person reading that Charter and the “Article 24″ link you just provided would understand that it means exactly the opposite of what you just wrote.”
        Ritzl
        Yishai Kohen perfectly knows and understands that. We have put it to him thousand times but who cares? He just thinks it’s a good trick worth giving a try on a site where he’s never been before thinking that he’s dealing with amateurs. There will be more of this trick , selectively and out of context, quoting Palestinian characters/leaders/spokespersons “proving” that there’s no such a thing as Palestine and Palestinians. Expect that any time he’ll be back. And he will be soon.

      • Hostage
        May 22, 2012, 8:38 am

        In the independence war, the Arabs killed over 6000 Jews.

        Independence from who or what? The British were withdrawing. Simha Flapan and other historians have noted that 60 percent of those Jewish casualties occurred in fighting beyond the borders of the Jewish state. Those were aggressive operations that were initiated by the Jews themselves, not defensive ones needed for independence. Many of the other casualties happened during attacks meant to ethnically cleanse Arabs from their own homeland.

      • Talkback
        May 22, 2012, 8:48 am

        Fredblogs: “In the independence war, the Arabs killed over 6000 Jews.”

        Isn’t it strange that only about 1000 of them were defending Jewish settlements and about half of them died were killed beyond partition borders?

      • Woody Tanaka
        May 22, 2012, 8:51 am

        “Independence from who or what?”

        They use the euphamism so they don’t have to celebrate “Theft of Palestine from the Palestinians Day”

      • eljay
        May 22, 2012, 8:58 am

        >> In the independence war, the Arabs killed over 6000 Jews. It was hardly one sided. The Arabs just happened to lose.

        In the rapist’s brutal physical and sexual assault on his victim, the victim punched the rapist’s face – drawing blood and leaving a bruise – and tore his brand-new shirt. It was hardly one-sided. The victim just happened to lose.

      • seafoid
        May 22, 2012, 9:18 am

        “The Arabs “happened to lose” because they were outnumbered, outgunned, and out-organized.”

        And because they were shafted by Europeans who wanted to export their Jewish problem and the Palestinians were easy meat.

      • playforpalestine
        May 22, 2012, 10:09 am

        “And according to the new Israeli historians, Jews killed over 35,000 Arabs ”

        In the independence war? That’s absurd. Perhaps you mean from 1947 till NOW? Because even then it’s around twice what the generally accepted count is.

      • ritzl
        May 23, 2012, 5:43 pm

        Thanks, tgia. Didn’t know his history.

      • playforpalestine
        May 24, 2012, 12:07 am

        “Simha Flapan and other historians have noted that 60 percent of those Jewish casualties occurred in fighting beyond the borders of the Jewish state. Those were aggressive operations that were initiated by the Jews themselves, not defensive ones needed for independence.”

        How do you know that? Let’s assume that you’re right, that only 40% were killed within what the partition had allocated to the Jewish state. Obviously that 60% includes any Jews from Jerusalem and any other settlement that existed outside of those borders. Are we honestly supposed to believe that all of the Jews who were killed in places like East Jerusalem died during aggressive attacks they initiated and none were killed while resisting the ethnic cleansing that succeeded in expelling 100% of the Jewish population in these areas?

      • tree
        May 24, 2012, 2:20 am

        How do you know that?

        Simha Flapan was an Israeli scholar who wrote “The Birth of Israel: Myths and Realities” in 1987, drawing on what were then recently declassified Israeli material.

        His seven myths, exposed by the counter reality revealed in the Israeli archives, were:

        1. Zionists Accepted the UN Partition and Planned for Peace
        2. Arabs Rejected the Partition and Launched War
        3. Palestinians Fled Voluntarily, Intending Reconquest
        4.All the Arab States United to Expel the Jews from Palestine
        5, The Arab Invasion Made War Inevitable
        6.Defenseless Israel Faced Destruction by the Arab Goliath
        7.Israel Has Always Sought Peace, but No Arab Leader Has Responded

        In discussing Jewish casualties in the War, Flapan said this:

        According to data assembled by Yochai Sela of Tel Aviv University, the number of Jewish deaths in the war was 5,708, including 4,558 soldiers. Among civilians, most casualties resulted from bombings and artillery fire, the majority in Jerusalem. Among the military, 1.345 were killed during the civil war, November 30.1947, to May 15th, 1948; the remaining 3,213 were lost between May 15th, 1948, and March 10, 1949. More Israeli soldiers died while attacking than while defending against attacks by Palestinians and Arab armies- 2409 as opposed to 1947. The number of Israelis killed within the borders of the state designated by the UN was 1581; the number killed in the areas outside of these borders was 2759. In a final breakdown, 984 Israelis were killed defending Jewish settlements, 1212 died attacking Arab settlements.

        A part of the mythology of the War of Independence asserts that most of the Jewish casualties were suffered in the defense of the Yishuv. The figures, however, tell a different story. They show that more than 50 percent of Jewish casualties were suffered in offensive actions and only 21 percent of Jewish casualties were suffered in defensive ones. Furthermore, 60 percent of all Jewish casualties occurred in actions in areas outside of the borders of the Jewish state.

        Flapan, pages 198-199.

        You might want to read this book, or other more recent ones from the so-called New Historians, which rely on declassified Israeli archives. You seem to be laboring under a host of old myths that have been debunked for years.

        Are we honestly supposed to believe that all of the Jews who were killed in places like East Jerusalem died during aggressive attacks they initiated and none were killed while resisting the ethnic cleansing that succeeded in expelling 100% of the Jewish population in these areas?

        There were only some several thousand Jews living in East Jerusalem in 1947-48. The vast majority of the hundred thousand Jews in Jerusalem at that time lived in West Jerusalem, which was much greater in area, and was not already well populated by indigenous Palestinians as was East Jerusalem. When the Jordanian army finally gained control of East Jerusalem, there were approximately 2500 civilians who were captured and then, at their request, were transferred to Israeli forces controlling West Jerusalem. Every description of the hand over that I have read, primarily from Israeli sources, including ones from the Jewish civilians themselves, says that the civilians were treated with courtesy and respect by the Jordanian Army. Whether they would have been allowed to live in Jordan-controlled East Jerusalem if they had so chosen is unknown. I can certainly understand their reluctance to stay there, but their departure is not comparable to the violent forced expulsion of over 750,000 Palestinian civilians, and, as Flapan indicated, the majority of Jewish casualties were not incurred in defense of these civilians or any other Jewish civilians.

      • Hostage
        May 24, 2012, 3:56 am

        Let’s assume that you’re right, that only 40% were killed within what the partition had allocated to the Jewish state.

        I didn’t say that 40 percent were killed in the area allocated to the Jewish state. I said 60 percent were combat casualties killed in fighting that took place beyond the borders of the Jewish state and that those operations were not necessary to establish the independence of Israel. The other 40 percent included the civilian casualties that occurred on either side of the border.

        In December of 1947, just a few days after the UN vote, the Haganah, Etzel, and Lehi were already bombing hotels and theaters in the Corpus Seperatum and outside the borders of the Jewish state. The January security report to the UN Palestine Commission noted they carried out attacks with 2 inch mortars and destroyed the Haifa Police Station with a barrel bomb. Those were not defensive actions. The British High Commissioner noted that the Jewish militias had overreacted to unarmed Arab rioting by carrying-out armed reprisals. During a debate in the First Knesset, Ben Gurion was excoriating Begin over the damage to Israel’s foreign relations that had resulted from the Irgun’s terror attacks during the Jerusalem uprising. The former Haganah commander Moshe Sneh interrupted Ben Gurion and reminded him that he had cabled him and instructed the Haganah not to interfere with the IZL. MK G. Meyer responded by threatening Sneh (ala Anat Kam/Uri Blau) : “Moshe Sneh, don’t threaten us with publication!” — See the Minutes of the 8th Sitting of the First Knesset, 8 March 1949, in Netanel Lorach, “Major Knesset Debates, 1948-1981” Volume 2, JCPA/University Press, 1993, page 445.

        The UN Yearbook and the FRUS both report that the acceptance of the UN partition plan by the representatives of the Jewish Agency was subject to constitutional and territorial reservations. The spokesman said that neither the majority nor minority reports were acceptable, because among other things, the Jewish section of modern Jerusalem outside the Walled City was not included in the Jewish State.
        See the UN Yearbook 31 December 1948 http://tinyurl.com/5rbqllp

        The FRUS reports that

        Rabbi Silver deemed the minority report unacceptable; nor did the majority report satisfy the Jewish people because of the limited area of the proposed Jewish state and the exclusion of Jerusalem from that state. Nevertheless, the Agency was willing to accept the majority report since it made possible the immediate reestablishment of the Jewish State. This acceptance was made subject to further discussion of constitutional and territorial provisions (pages 15-17).

        –http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/FRUS/FRUS-idx?type=goto&id=FRUS.FRUS1947v05&isize=M&submit=Go+to+page&page=1165

        Israeli military historian David Tal confirms the Jewish Agency’s publicly stated view that the partition plan was not an integrated plan. They insisted that the establishment of the Jewish State did not depend upon the implementation of the other parts of the plan regarding the establishment of the Arab State and Corpus Separatum. More significantly he writes that the Jewish Agency did not formally accept the internationalization of Jerusalem as it was stipulated in the partition resolution. –See David Tal, War in Palestine, 1948: strategy and diplomacy, Routledge, 2004, ISBN 071465275X, page 471.

        So it was the Zionists who launched the armed offensive to capture Jerusalem. Avi Shlaim writes:

        In Jerusalem the initiative was seized by the Jewish side. As soon as the British evacuated the city, a vigorous offensive was launched to capture the Arab and mixed quarters of the city and form a solid area going all the way to the Old City walls. Glubb Pasha, the British commander of the Arab Legion, adopted a defensive strategy which was intended to avert a head-on collision with the Jewish forces. According to his account, the Arab Legion crossed the Jordan on 15 May to help the Arabs defend the area of Judea and Samaria allocated to them. They were strictly forbidden to enter Jerusalem or to enter any area allotted to the Jewish state in the partition plan. But on 16 May the Jewish forces tried to break into the Old City, prompting urgent calls for help from the Arab defenders.

        http://www.fathom.com/course/72810001/session3.html

        Israeli historian Shlomo Ben Ami says Plan D was a push to extend the frontiers of the future Jewish state beyond the partition lines by linking Jewish population hubs to the settlements established in outlying areas. link to foreignaffairs.com The Plan called for the Jewish militias to operate inside the sovereign territory of the new Arab State on a routine basis to supply and help defend outlying settlements. In most instances those were blocks of fortified watchtower and stockade militia bases that were deliberately established on confrontation or skirmish lines well beyond any boundaries that had been proposed by the British or UN commissions studying partition.

        How do you know that?
        Apart from everything I’ve read, I also learned a lot from listening to one of my great uncles who worked in the Arab section of the Jewish Agency’s Political Department.

      • Cliff
        May 24, 2012, 7:54 am

        Playforpalestine,

        He cited a source. You are now asking ‘how’ one is to believe in the data he provides.

        So consult the source.

        Simple.

        Perhaps he is wrong. Perhaps he is right.

      • Annie Robbins
        May 24, 2012, 10:14 am

        tree, there used to be a whole series of interviews with Simha Flapan on youtube. but i just went over there for a search and now there is nothing. if anyone knows where i can find them please post a link.

      • tree
        May 24, 2012, 4:21 pm

        Annie, are you sure it was interviews with Flapan and not someone else? Flapan was the editor of New Outlook and an official of the leftist Mapam party, but he died in 1987, as his book was going to the publisher. He could not have held any video interviews, or any type of interviews for that matter, after his death, of course.

      • Annie Robbins
        May 24, 2012, 4:50 pm

        i’m almost positive, but not quite. they were old (films probably), a series of interviews. it was someone who had done extensive research on the early (israeli) zionists and he had lots of documents that he had made available.

      • Hostage
        May 24, 2012, 5:43 pm

        Perhaps he is wrong. Perhaps he is right.

        Yochai Sela and Simha Flapan simply reported the total number of civilian deaths with no further breakdown. Unlike the statistics for the militia members, the distinction between those killed before and after 15 May or those killed beyond the partition borders is not relevant in the case of civilians. That’s because they had the right of residency or transit in both States and the Corpus Separatum – and were never a legitimate military objective.

        To clarify the way I’m interpreting the statistics: The UN resolution called on the people of both states to take the steps necessary to implement the plan. The provisional governments of each state were tasked to establish militias, recruited from their own citizens, as soon as possible. The resolution stated that, during the transition period prior to 15 May, the only limitation on the right of transit that would be allowed was for the purposes of national security. So there was no “civil war” or legitimate reason for the militias of one state to conduct operations beyond their own frontiers during the transition period.

        A militia member killed in operations conducted beyond the borders of the Jewish state was violating the terms of the partition plan. That’s true regardless of whether or not the operation was offensive, in defense of an outlying settlement, or happened during the period before 15 May. Militias were only authorized under the terms of the resolution for purposes of internal security and to prevent border clashes. In the context of our discussion here, the outlying settlements and Jerusalem had nothing to do with establishing the independence of the Jewish State under the UN plan.

      • tree
        May 24, 2012, 6:25 pm

        Thanks, annie. I know Flapan wrote an earlier book called Zionism and the Palestinians, which covered the time from 1917 to 1948. Maybe the interviews were in regards to that book, or his research on the time period. When I get some more time I’ll try to do a search. But, sadly, quite a few things do disappear from the internet over time, mostly for non-nefarious reasons.

      • Hostage
        May 24, 2012, 7:33 pm

        it was someone who had done extensive research on the early (israeli) zionists and he had lots of documents that he had made available.

        Some of the very best and most thoroughly documented books on the history of the founding of the State of Israel were written by Simha Flapan and Rabbi Elmer Berger, “Peace for Palestine: first lost opportunity”. Both books are full of inline citations to the FRUS, British, Israeli, and Arab Refugee Center of Ramallah (Aziz Shahadeh) archives; footnotes, subject indexes, and bibliographies that put a lot of other trained historians to shame.

        In the case of Flapan’s books, they were a group undertaking by a veritable Who’s Who of scholars and historians. The research for the book was done at Harvard University from 1982-85 with the support of the Ford Foundation and the American Middle East Peace Research Institute. Flapan acknowledged that while there, he had discussed the subject and the book projects with other scholars, including Wahlid Khalidi, Noam Chomsky, Phillip Mattar, and many others. He also acknowledged the assistance of a long list of post-grad research assistants, like Joshua Landes, and Eugene Rogan. Others, like Yoram Nimrod, had made his own PhD dissertation available and Yohai Sela had performed the analysis of the 1948 casualties that we’ve mentioned in our comments here.

    • Woody Tanaka
      May 21, 2012, 3:31 pm

      “The winds in Israel”

      This didn’t occur in Israel. It occurred in Palestine.

    • tree
      May 21, 2012, 4:44 pm

      3. There is no doubt that it was the Arabs who set the fires because:

      a. Jews can be seen in the videos trying to put the fires out. Arabs are not. They are busy attacking those trying to put out the fires.

      b. The winds in Israel- especially in the later afternoon when the incident occurred, blow from west to east; FROM Asira al-Qibliya TOWARDS Yitzhar.

      c. The terrain where the fires were is UPHILL towards Yitzhar, whereas it is DOWNHILL towards Asira al-Qibliya, and as we all know, fire will rage uphill- especially with the wind blowing it; as we see in the videos.

      Several of your points and conclusions are faulty and in contradiction to the videos seen, including the first video, where the settlers are approaching the Palestinian village and no fire is present. The fact that Jewish settlers are fighting the fire proves nothing about who or what started it, as many, if not most, brush fires are caused by accident rather than purposely set. Accidentally set fires are often fought by the very ones who start the fire. In any case, it would be impossible for the Palestinian villagers to fight the fire, as they were already blocked from it by the settlers before the fire erupted. And of course, it would be hard to come up with any logical reasoning that would establish how and why Palestinian villagers could set a fire at some distance from their immediate location that threatens their own village more than it does Yitzhar.

      Despite your assurance that all winds blow from west to east in Israel, its well known that wind is often variable, no matter where one is on earth. In the video, the active fire is heading toward the left of screen, which also appears to be slightly uphill (and away from Yitzhar). The wind at this time is clearly not going from west to east as you insist, since Yitzhar, to the east of Asira, is off screen to the right, not to the left. You can also tell the direction of the wind from the direction of the smoke(to the left, or west), as well as by looking at the way the white shirt of the leftmost settler with the rifle ripples to the left (also west). In fact the wind, and the fire is actually heading more towards Asira than it it towards Yitzhar. And it is quite far from Yitzhar, which is not even in view in the later videos.

      In an attempt to locate Yitzhar I came upon this from Wikipedia, which leads me to take any assurance by the settlers there that they were simply fighting a fire set by others with a mammoth sized grain of salt. Actually, it does more than that. It leads me to believe that they are simply racist liars:

      Education is a priority of the community and several institutions operate locally: a daycare center, preschools, the boy’s Zilberman Talmud Torah, and the Od Yosef Chai (Joseph Still Lives) institutions headed by Rabbi Yitzhak Shapira, comprising the Dorshei Yichudcha yeshiva high school, a post-high school yeshiva gedola, previously located in Joseph’s Tomb Nablus, headed by Rabbi Yitzhak Ginzburg, and a kollel. The yeshiva, built illegally according to the IDF military prosecutor,[13] supports the so called “price tag” policy, and senior rabbis of the yeshiva are suspected to encourage students to attack Palestinians and Palestinian property and the Israeli security forces. Several students affiliated with the yeshiva were forbidden to enter the West Bank on “well-founded suspicions that these students had been involved in attacks on Arabs, including “price tag” attacks on Arab property”.[14]

      In 2003, rabbi Ginzburg who is a member of the Chabad Lubavitch Hasidic movement, was indicted for incitement to racism in his book “Tipul Shoresh” (“Root Treatment”), which contains calls for the Arabs to be expelled from Israel and for the land to be “cleansed” of foreigners and compares the Arabs to a cancer. Previous demands to indict Ginzburg had been rejected by Attorney General Elyakim Rubinstein in 2001 and following the 1998 publication of Ginzburg’s book “Baruch Hagever” (“Baruch the Man”), which praised the mass murderer Baruch Goldstein.[15] Ginzburg was offered an end to all criminal proceedings against him in return for his explicitly and publicly retracting his offensive statements about Arabs.[16]

      In January 2010, rabbi Shapira was arrested for alleged involvement in the torching of a Palestinian mosque in the village of Yasuf, after five of his students had been arrested on suspicion of torching the mosque’s carpet and book closet and obstructing the investigation. Shapira, who refused to say which of his students had taken part in the attack, was released a day after his arrest.[17]

      According to Haaretz, Israeli security service Shin Bet is urging the Education Ministry to stop funding the Od Yosef Chai Yeshiva in Yitzhar. In 2009, the yeshiva high school received NIS 468,000 and the yeshiva gedola received NIS 847,000 from the Education Ministry. The yeshiva also got NIS 707,000 from the Social Affairs Ministry for a project to rehabilitate ultra-Orthodox drop-outs, and an additional NIS 156,000 to operate a dormitory. In January 2011, it was decided not to transfer funds to the yeshiva gedola, but after political pressure was applied, the yeshiva received a letter saying funding would be restored. Od Yosef Chai, for its part, is preparing to petition the High Court of Justice if its funding is halted.[14]
      In November 2011, Israel’s Education Ministry decided to withhold funds from the Od Yosef Chai yeshiva and close down the Dorshei Yehudcha Yeshiva high school. The decision was based on information received from the defense establishment of extensive involvement by students and rabbis in violent acts against Palestinian residents and Israeli security forces.[18]

      ……..

      Yitzhar has been called “an extremist bastion on the hilltops commanding the Palestinian city of Nablus … [where] a local war is … being waged” by the New York Times.[12] On Saturday, 13 September 2008, a Palestinian entered the illegal Yitzhar-outpost Shalhevet, set fire to an abandoned building and stabbed a nine-year-old boy who had spotted him and tried to call for help, wounding him lightly.[19] Dozens of settlers from Yitzhar responded by marching through the adjacent Palestinian village of Asira al-Qibliya where the attacker was thought to live, using live fire and wounding eight people and torching dozens of Palestinian homes and buildings, with Israeli soldiers present, in what then Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert called a “pogrom”.[20] One week later, a forteen year old teenager from Asira al-Qibliya, was shot dead by Israeli border police while walking toward Yitzhar, intending to throw a Molotov cocktail at the settlement. Police later said they had identified him as the attacker of the boy, thanks to forensic evidence.[21]

      Four inhabitants of Yitzhar were arrested on 14 June 2011 on suspicion of “attacks on public order”, including arson attacks on Palestinian property.[22]

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yitzhar

      • justicewillprevail
        May 21, 2012, 5:20 pm

        Thanks, tree, for clarification. What a bunch of racist goons they sound. And their sock puppets think we should believe their version of events, especially when they have a track record of arson and racist attacks? Please.

      • tree
        May 21, 2012, 5:46 pm

        Here’s another example of the kind of violence perpetrated by some of the settlers at Yitzhar, from a little over a year ago:

        Israel Defense Forces officers have lashed out at rioters who clashed with soldiers at the West Bank settlement of Yitzhar on Tuesday.

        “These people are scum,” one senior officer told Haaretz after three soldiers were wounded by stones thrown near the hilltop settlement, known for its hard-line yeshiva, or Jewish seminary.

        …..

        According to Yitzhar residents, IDF troops began harassing groups of visitors who wanted to tour the area early Tuesday morning, and prevented the visitors from entering the springs near the settlement.

        Yitzhar residents said that at a certain point, the soldiers tried to hold back one of the residents, which created upheaval among the settlers.

        The residents said that one of the soldiers who were stationed in the area fired a warning shot into the air. The soldier refused to give his name to the residents, and they demanded that he remain in the area until he agreed to tell them his name.

        According to the IDF, the soldiers asked the residents to evacuate the area because it was a closed military zone. The residents then began attacking the soldiers with stones, and as a result three soldiers were lightly hurt.

        The IDF issued a statement saying that “violence against soldiers is intolerable and an action which crosses the line, especially on Israel’s Independence Day. This intolerable behavior will be addressed in accordance with the law at the necessary level of firmness.”

        A soldier who was in the area told Haaretz that the army was “conducting a routine patrol, and we saw people who were in a place where they weren’t supposed to be, according to army orders.” The soldier added that the residents began attacking the IDF soldiers, sparking an altercation.

        http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=b38_1271836878

        Notice that the Jewish rioters thought that “holding back” a resident was sufficient cause to start hurling rocks at the IDF. And note that firing a warning shot over his head was likewise considered a provocation to the settlers. Notice the huge difference in the reaction of IDF soldiers to stone throwers, depending on whether they are Palestinian or Jewish, even though the danger to themselves is exactly the same in each instance.

      • Annie Robbins
        May 22, 2012, 10:21 am

        tree, Yitzhar are these freaks..

        http://coteret.com/2009/11/09/settler-rabbi-publishes-the-complete-guide-to-killing-non-jews/

        the cream of the crop wackos. the baby killing manual. and the meeting they called to torch palestinian homes..the original price tag meeting that came out in the press in 09:

        http://coteret.com/2009/12/06/primary-document-settlers-prep-to-terrorize-west-bank/

      • ritzl
        May 23, 2012, 5:51 pm

        @Annie And with all the fuss about madrassas a few years ago, being crucibles for hate.

    • eljay
      May 21, 2012, 6:37 pm

      >> Here are the facts:
      >> 1. The Arab village of Asira al-Qibliya is just west of the Jewish town of Yitzhar.

      Here is the most important fact of all, the one that hateful and immoral Zio-supremacists just like you love to gloss over: The Jewish State’s Jewish colony of Yitzhar is deep within the West Bank, far outside of the Jewish State‘s 1948 1967 borders.

      >> These Arabs are like the guy who murders his parents and then cries for mercy from the court on the grounds of being an orphan.

      These Jews are like the rapists who, while they brutally beat and rape their victims, cry for mercy from the court because the victims are slapping and punching them.

    • thankgodimatheist
      May 21, 2012, 11:39 pm

      Ykohen is Yishai Kohen, a well known (to all those who used to comment on the Angry Arab blog when a comment section was available ) is a far right settler and disciple of Meir Kahane and Rabbi Kook. Expect hasbara on crack and if it isn’t for a moderation policy over here he’d be calling for “Arabs” to be gassed.

      • thankgodimatheist
        May 21, 2012, 11:43 pm

        I’m not sure if VR is still around but he’s very familiar with this nasty character as well.
        BTW, we should also expect him to deny he’s Yishai. Typical of him.

      • Annie Robbins
        May 21, 2012, 11:43 pm

        really. freaky.

      • thankgodimatheist
        May 22, 2012, 12:03 am

        He used to comment on my blog and the Palestinian Pundit as well. He was banned from both for using some of the vilest and meanest comments EVER seen anywhere on the web. He used to boast about serving on a checkpoint and submitting Palestinians to abuse and humiliation.

      • Annie Robbins
        May 22, 2012, 10:25 am

        tgia, i should inform phil and adam…

      • thankgodimatheist
        May 22, 2012, 10:08 pm

        I wish I could retrieve some of his comments and make a pot pourri of the most “eloquent” ones. I have archived most of his production over a period of 2 years but when I changed my template and comments section provider forgetting to make a backup, all was lost.

        “The Philistines are cockroaches that we’re keeping in a bottle” is just one sample.

      • Djinn
        May 23, 2012, 1:48 am

        While I disagree with Chaos on whether ALL the zionumpties should be banned (I think the responses to them, while repetitive and boring to regular users are useful to the occaisional lurkers) if Ykohen really is the same Yishai Kohen known well for the vile racist skidmarks he leaves all over the www then he needs to be banned instantly, there is absolutely no benefit in tolerating him.

      • thankgodimatheist
        May 23, 2012, 3:51 am

        The reason I’m sure ykohen is Yishai is because of this very quote he keeps bringing up in every discussion. Have seen it 100 times. That can’t be a coincidence. Another point. He may be well aware of a moderation policy on this site which may push him to soften his edges a little trying to make his way through. But it doesn’t take long for his true colours to show regardless.
        PS. He also adopts a dozen of monikers that can barely camouflage the character behind them.

    • lyn117
      May 22, 2012, 3:11 am

      @ykohen,

      I don’t know how the winds usually blow in the occupied West Bank (which isn’t, by the way, Israel)

      However, in the videos, the smoke is drifting towards the left, which would be more or less north, the opposite direction from which the settlers originally came. I.e. more towards Asira al-Qibliya. It would therefore seem that the settlers claim that Arabs were trying to destroy some settlement neighborhood is as bogus your claim to be logical.

    • seafoid
      May 22, 2012, 4:36 am

      d. On the Jewish Sabbath, Jews light no fires; not even for cooking.
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M...
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUiMs1s7I0A

      only 10% of US Jews are orthodox
      and the Yitzhar settlers are not real Jews. i never see any tikkun olam from them

    • Samuel T
      May 23, 2012, 3:31 am

      ykohen,

      I appreciate your thorough examination of the facts and your rationalization that links them together. Unfortunately, the likelihood is that observations from a factual basis are largely ignored in favour of emotional irrationality from (some) commenters.

      However. Logic need not argue with incongruent emotionalism.

      There is a suggestion that Fires were lit by the use of RIFLES. That is simply naiveté, ignorance or wishful thinking. Any spark or combustion happens within the chamber of a rifle, it does not come outside of the barrel of a rifle, nor does it follow the path of the projectile.

      Annie, attempts below to “minimize” the relevance of the fire. The clouds of smoke in the air are evidence that this is a serious fire. Why are the Palestinians being pursued when the fire is behind the settlers? Gee. Maybe, the Palestinians were spreading the fire and had to be chased away. They certainly outnumbered the settlers didn’t they?

    • Hostage
      May 23, 2012, 9:01 pm

      d. On the Jewish Sabbath, Jews light no fires; not even for cooking.

      If they can carry a gun to save a life, then surely they can light a fire to save a life too. That’s how sophistry works:
      Numbers 15:
      32. When the children of Israel were in the desert, they found a man gathering wood on the Sabbath day.
      33. Those who found him gathering wood presented him before Moses and Aaron and before the entire congregation.
      34. They put him under guard, since it was not specified what was to be done to him.
      35. The Lord said to Moses, The man shall be put to death; the entire congregation shall pelt him with stones outside the camp.
      36. So the entire congregation took him outside the camp, and they pelted him to death with stones, as the Lord had commanded Moses.

      Jeremiah 17:
      21. So said the Lord: Beware for your souls and carry no burden on the Sabbath day, nor bring into the gates of Jerusalem.
      22. Neither shall you take a burden out of your houses on the Sabbath day nor shall you perform any labor, and you shall hallow the Sabbath day as I commanded your forefathers.
      23. But they did not hearken, neither did they bend their ear[s], and they hardened their nape not to hearken and not to receive instruction.

    • ColinWright
      July 12, 2012, 5:15 am

      “So Jews responded to the fire that the Arabs set. They were attacked by MANY Arabs. Evidently, three Jews were injured by the attacking at this stage. The videos show dozens of Arabs, and shows Arabs attacking the Jews. “

      One hopes this is accurate. If so, it’s a good sign.

      If you (and I believe the term is accurate) have indeed managed to madden the Arabs beyond endurance, and they do rise up, you will never be able to justify slaughtering them to defend settlements that are illegal in the first place.

  8. Blake
    May 21, 2012, 2:53 pm

    Shot in the neck by a settler and still manages to smile:
    http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=23920953&l=0e6ede35a9&id=560710256

  9. DICKERSON3870
    May 21, 2012, 3:24 pm

    RE: “Watch as the settlers first approach the village. Why can’t they just stay home on the sabbath?” ~ Annie Robbins

    SEE: Fighting Settlers’ Impunity and Immunity, by Pierre Klochendler, Inter Press Service, 12/16/11

    (excerpts) . . . Often, settler stone-throwers confronting soldiers and Palestinians face arrest and interrogation before they’re sent home with a reprimand, or to a forced ‘exile’ in Israel proper; Palestinian stone-throwers confronting Israeli settlers or soldiers face possible death, or imprisonment.
    Since the army is not responsible for enforcing the law on Israeli citizens – the police is, together with the General Security Services (or “Shin Beth”) – rioting by settlers has continued unabated. Netanyahu decided to give the army the power to arrest radical settlers.
    Moreover, Israel’s police in the West bank show signs of helplessness, even “negligence” and “incompetence”. . .
    . . . The Israeli occupation, particularly the future of wildcat settlements built by settlers without formal government approval has been a simmering issue ever since their creation during the 1990s.
    In 2005, former head of the State Prosecution Criminal Department Talia Sasson published a landmark report on the question. Commissioned by then prime minister Ariel Sharon, the report found the Israeli government guilty of “institutional lawbreaking”* and of the theft of private Palestinian land to covertly establish over a hundred “illegal outposts”.
    The damning irony is that the “outposts” were a 1997 initiative by none but Sharon himself, then foreign Minister under Netanyahu, who’d urged settlers to seize hilltops in order to prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state.
    The report recommended criminal investigation against those allegedly involved in the scheme, but it was shelved. Repeated injunctions have since pressed successive governments to address the issue…

    ENTIRE ARTICLE – http://original.antiwar.com/klochendler/2011/12/15/fighting-settlers-impunity-and-immunity/

    *P.S. RE: “…the report found the Israeli government guilty of ‘institutional lawbreaking’ …”

    BRANDEIS ON ‘BLOWBACK’: Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis elaborated in Olmstead v. United States (1928):

    “In a government of law, the existence of the government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for the law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy.”

  10. seafoid
    May 21, 2012, 5:25 pm

    Another bunch of JDK- Jews disgracing kippot.

    What are the forces that brought those Jews onto that hill and what are the dynamics that will bring them away from that hill forever?

    • ColinWright
      July 12, 2012, 5:16 am

      “…what are the dynamics that will bring them away from that hill forever?”

      Fear will do it.

  11. Elliot
    May 21, 2012, 10:57 pm

    Thanks, Annie for promoting this discussion from an earlier comments thread.

    I thought this pattern of “Sabbath violence” would be interesting to Americans, Jews and otherwise: Orthodox Jews violate the strict Sabbath laws and the spirit of Sabbath peace by using violence against the Palestinians – ad majorem Dei gloriam. This violence on the Sabbath day drives home the chasm between standard concepts of religion and those of the settlers.

    This “Sabbath violence” is a marker of the ideological settler. To the best of my knowledge, other Orthodox Jews, such as the Haredim – even those who live on the West Bank – do not suspend the Sabbath laws in favor of attacks on Palestinians.

    If it’s true that the settlers set the fields of dry grass aflame as a pretext, that would make sense. Ancient Jewish law (BT Eruvin) cites an attack by (non-Jewish) robbers on “straw and hay” as sufficient to justify a Jewish counter-attack on the Sabbath. At least one Israeli Orthodox
    website made the explicit connection between this Saturday’s shot-to-kill incident and this ancient Jewish text.

    Finally, the frequency of such settler violence on the Sabbath is likely prosaic. The men are home on the weekend. There’s plenty of time to get into mischief.
    (Of course, the settlers will say the same for the Palestinian villagers.)

    • Annie Robbins
      May 21, 2012, 11:40 pm

      thank you elliot, and shunra too. she just sent me this link by yossi gurvitz http://www.hahem.co.il/friendsofgeorge/?p=2920
      it’s in hebrew but i google translated it. apparently the excuses used by the settlers is exactly what our ziobots here said. he caught them on their lies.

      We will lie to the other. Settlers from Yizhar’s raids on Asira al Qibliya are pretty common thing, even some would say especially on Saturdays, when the holy flock shrouded soul of the Sabbath rest died of boredom. A year ago, there were settlers from Yizhar tearing the Asira al Qibliya, Cairns residents with stones, and set fire to vehicles. Between rioters was also Isaac Shapiro Our acquaintance, Rosh Yeshiva of Izhar, and one of the authors’ theory of the king. ” Settlers was an excuse: It’s okay to violate the sanctity of the Sabbath in the confrontation with non-Jews. Very convenient excuse, what was said. Apparently they did not think anyone would remember him after a year, and he will come back to bite their new lie

      there’s much more at the link. he’s hardest on the iof.

  12. justicewillprevail
    May 22, 2012, 9:13 am

    Just bear in mind that these fascist and racist settlers are the people that Yahoo is manipulating the US to protect and enable through being embedded in endless wars, expenditure and the lives of its service men and women. A sobering thought. Bill Kristol and co are effectively cheerleading for these morons to maintain their lifestyles.

  13. Ellen
    May 22, 2012, 9:53 am

    Welcome to Oleg’s world:
    …then the Palestinians have no rights either and then might is right..

    No wonder he believes in myths of the Bronze age when no matter what “might was right.” Carry that logic just a little further and we live in barbarism, where a justification of might being right can always be found.

    The more Oleg writes here, the more he shows a horribly deranged face of Zionism.

    • Chaos4700
      May 22, 2012, 10:19 am

      The fact that he is perfectly welcome here is, for the record, why I left for good. This is pointless. Oleg and dimadok and Fredblogs are Judaism’s future. They very nearly are Judaism’s present.

      I don’t intend to stay in a forum where, quite frankly, evil hateful men and women with no morals whatsoever are given free reign. People like this should be in a prison somewhere. Instead they hold a place of respect in Jewish society, even as they wage pogroms. The irony is beyond outrage.

      Goodbye, everyone.

      • Elliot
        May 22, 2012, 5:15 pm

        Chaos,
        I will miss your contributions. I hope you will reconsider. Your voice is vital for this forum.
        If it’s any comfort, I continue to learn from the thoughtful responses of commenters such as yourself to the mouthpieces of Israeli propaganda.

      • ColinWright
        July 12, 2012, 5:29 am

        The alternative you propose would simply lead to everyone sitting around in a coffee clatch discovering they all largely agree with each other.

        I’d be all for a reasoned, intelligent defense of Zionism — but we’ll never get one, because ‘a reasoned, intelligent defense of Zionism’ is inherently impossible.

        So as far as discussion goes, this is about as good as it’s going to get. Personally, the only thing I’d like to see is more discussion of specifically, what to do.

      • wes
        September 7, 2012, 6:34 am

        i second that

        by the way -what would have happened if one of the soldiers was an israeli arab as you suggested in your reply that at least 40% of idf officers should be israeli arabs

      • Taxi
        September 7, 2012, 2:07 am

        Good grief Chaos,

        Come the f-ck back here right now!

        I promise I’ll make it worth your while hahahaha!

        (I only just saw your goodbye post!)

  14. Elliot
    May 22, 2012, 1:54 pm

    The video in Yossi Gurwitz’s atricle shows a Palestinian fire truck in the village. I wonder if the settlers let the truck through to the bush fire.
    Whether or not the fire was started intentionally or inadvertently (from gunfire? expelled cartridges?), the settlers’ intent the moment they illegally entered the Palestinian fields, through the fire incident, their murderous shooting of the Palestinian protesters and the IDF’s involvement, all advanced their goal of seizing the Palestinian fields by moving the scope of Jewish control outward from Yizhar’s perimeter fence towards the village.

    • ColinWright
      July 12, 2012, 5:34 am

      “The video in Yossi Gurwitz’s atricle shows a Palestinian fire truck in the village. I wonder if the settlers let the truck through to the bush fire.”

      What Palestinian in his right mind would drive it? It sounds about as safe as coating yourself with peanut butter and jumping into a pen of hogs.

  15. piotr
    May 22, 2012, 7:44 pm

    Because there are no videos or eyewitness testimonies about the start of the fire, one can merely conjecture. A possible cause could be even a broken beer bottle.

    People who anticipated fire could set it. Brush fire can be quite harmless, or extremely dangerous (like several years ago in Oakland, California or more recently in northern Israel), so once the fires were noticed, Palestinians called for a fire truck to protect homes if needed.

    I read that the settlers used rubber bullets which are described in ammo catalogs as “less lethal munition”. I think this means that if someone is hit in the neck with a bullet, and this is not a “grazing shot”, then with a more lethal bullet there is no chance to survive, and with a less lethal bullet, it is basically Russian roulette. Shooting at neck/head with a sniper rifle is homicidal.

    • Annie Robbins
      May 23, 2012, 12:56 am

      there’s more footage

      • Elliot
        May 23, 2012, 8:00 am

        Thanks, Annie.

        This video drives home the point of the settlers’ exercise – expanding their domain into Palestinian land.

        Poor IDF soldiers, all dressed up for battle and nowhere to go. They wouldn’t be carrying more ammo or be better camouflaged if they were parachuting into Teheran. Instead, here they are, doing crowd control for the settlers. As this video shows, their role was to hold back the Palestinians while the settlers illegally entered and publicly demonstrated their claim to Palestinian land.
        Among these soldiers are good boys who, on weekend furloughs back home a few miles towards the Mediterranean, will complain about those nasty settlers. Once the weekend is over these soldiers will head back to base for some more complicity with the settlers.

  16. ColinWright
    July 12, 2012, 5:32 am

    On balance, I’d guess the settlers set the fire themselves to stage the incident. The ‘hasbara’ response seems rather powerful and suggests a certain degree of planning.

    If the Palestinians set the fire, that’s interesting — but I don’t see anything objectionable in the act. Indeed, I hope they did.

Leave a Reply