‘NYT’ never mentions military occupation in piece calling Palestinian stonethrowing a cultural practice

Israel/PalestineUS Politics
on 136 Comments

In a long front-page piece on Palestinian youths who throw stones at Israeli soldiers, The New York Times characterizes stone-throwing as a “rite of passage” handed down from fathers to sons.

“In a West Bank Culture of Conflict, Boys Wield the Weapon at Hand” the piece is headlined, on-line. The headline in the print edition is shocking: ‘My Hobby Is Throwing Stones’. 

The word occupation never appears in the piece. But under international law, people have a right to resist a military occupation.

The word occupy does appear, but only in the quoted claim of a young stone-thrower. “They occupy us.”

Authored by Jerusalem bureau chief, Jodi Rudoren, the piece says that stone-throwing is a form of “pushback against Israel”–as if no military occupation and colonization program exists. And it’s a “rite of passage,” ala Claude Levi-Strauss:

They do it because their brothers and fathers did.

Rudoren quotes a young stone-thrower expressing a belief about settlement land: “land he sees as stolen from his people.” 

He sees as?” writes Nancy Kanwisher, who alerted me to this piece. “What is the real story? Are you serving up hearsay or are you a journalist, Rudoren? Who took the land from whom?” 

The piece seeks to obliterate the undestanding established by Ben Ehrenreich’s landmark cover story in the Times earlier this year on Nabi Saleh, that stones were aimed at occupation:

The stones were … symbols of defiance, of a refusal to submit to occupation, regardless of the odds. The army’s weapons bore messages of their own: of economic and technological power, of international support.

The piece also elides the brilliance of Amira Hass in the Israeli newspaper Haaretz:

Throwing stones is the birthright and duty of anyone subject to foreign rule. Throwing stones is an action as well as a metaphor of resistance. Persecution of stone-throwers, including 8-year-old children, is an inseparable part − though it’s not always spelled out − of the job requirements of the foreign ruler, no less than shooting, torture, land theft, restrictions on movement, and the unequal distribution of water sources.

Excerpts of the Times piece:

Youths hurling stones has long been the indelible icon — some call it a caricature — of Palestinian pushback against Israel: a recent United Nations report said 7,000 minors, some as young as 9, had been detained between 2002 and 2012. Here in Beit Ommar, a village of 17,000 between Bethlehem and Hebron that is surrounded by Jewish settlements, rock throwing is a rite of passage and an honored act of defiance. The futility of stones bouncing off armored vehicles matters little: confrontation is what counts….

Now 10, Abdullah [Sabarnah] uses binoculars a relative bought him for bird watching to monitor military movement. “I feel happy when I throw stones on the soldiers,” he said. “They occupy us.”

Mr. Awad, like many here, views the stone throwers with a mixture of pride at confronting Israel and fear for their safety. “Nobody dares to criticize them and say, ‘Why are you doing this?”

The youths, and their parents, say they are provoked by the situation: soldiers stationed at the village entrance, settlers tending trees beyond. They throw because there is little else to do in Beit Ommar — no pool or cinema, no music lessons after school, no part-time jobs other than peddling produce along the road. They do it because their brothers and fathers did.

He recently sneaked into a settlement before dawn to steal apricots he finds especially delicious because they grow on land he sees as stolen from his people.

Reporter Jodi Rudoren did better on August 4 in this reference to the occupation:

The cabinet decision added a number of Jewish settlements in the West Bank territory that Israel seized in the 1967 war to a “national priority list” of communities eligible for extra subsidies…  The United States, along with most of the world, considers these settlements illegal, and some of them sit in the heart of the area imagined as a future Palestinian state.

136 Responses

  1. Donald
    August 5, 2013, 10:57 am

    She buried the lead at the very end of the piece–

    “an advocacy group that last year documented 360 cases of arrested Palestinian youths, found that many were blindfolded, beaten and threatened during interrogations. Most confessed, and 90 percent received jail sentences in Israel’s military system, according to the report, compared with 6.5 percent of arrested Israeli children, who are prosecuted in a civil system.”

    • iResistDe4iAm
      August 5, 2013, 12:25 pm

      Between 2005-2010 the conviction rate for Palestinian children in Israeli military courts was an unprecedented 99.88%, even higher than the conviction rate for Palestinian adults which was only 99.74%

      link to haaretz.com

      link to haaretz.com

      Of course when Israel doesn’t have “evidence” to convict, it simply imprisons Palestinians without charge or trial.

  2. MHughes976
    August 5, 2013, 11:52 am

    I might not judge Ms. Rudoren quite so harshly. She seems to be serving up a sandwich – an outer layer which could be interpreted as cultural contempt around an inner layer which could be interpreted as a plea for understanding. We read that the young Palestinians have almost nothing and have the well-provided settlers within sight: ‘wouldn’t you do something desperate in that situation?’ her words seem to say. As you bite into that question, the meat in the sandwich, you also encounter the bland bread – ‘well, some people imitate others’. Perhaps that is the best that an enlightened employee of the New York Times could do or could get away with.

    • Donald
      August 5, 2013, 1:48 pm

      “Perhaps that is the best that an enlightened employee of the New York Times could do or could get away with.”

      Possibly, but my opinions of Rudoren’s work go up and down–right now it’s a little more down than up. As I mentioned upthread, she buried the lead. If she wanted to do this story fairly, there’d be a lot more emphasis on what happens to these kids in the Israeli injustice system. Also, there are stories on the I/P conflict in the NYT on a fairly regular basis, but they are usually shorter pieces, maybe a quarter page or less, somewhere around page 4. This story is front page, about Palestinians throwing stones. There’s some funny editorial decisions being made. During the uprising against Mubarak in 2011, how many front page stories were there about protestors throwing stones at the security forces? It’s emphasized here because it’s part of how the Israeli side portrays the conflict–peaceful settlers just trying to live their nice peaceful lives, surrounded by juvenile thugs.

      What’s really depressing are the comments from the pro-Israel side after the story. Disgusting.

      • American
        August 5, 2013, 2:41 pm

        Possibly, but my opinions of Rudoren’s work go up and down”…Donald

        I remember reserving judgement on Rudoren when she first began….but only took two of her articles for me to say for the 1000th time…a zionist is a zionist is a zionist .
        Truth, objectivity, morality, fairness —all totally absent and incapacitated in their cultish tribalism.
        No matter how ‘clever’ she/they try to ‘appear’ to be by ‘giving’ the Palestines a sentence or two.

      • MHughes976
        August 5, 2013, 4:55 pm

        I don’t think I could bring myself to read those comments but I’ll take your word for it.

      • Citizen
        August 5, 2013, 5:57 pm

        @ Donald
        Yes.
        I just read all the comments under the NYT article. There’s a lot of historical hasbara spewed out by those on the pro-Israel side. Any regular reader of MW would spot it all in a second, but most American readers know zilch about the history of Palestine and Israel, and if you mentioned Zionism to them, they’d think it was some new age form of exercise. And of course, they know nothing about the matrix of chauvinistic Jewish institutions and law, nor the influence of the Talmud in Israel, the “Jewish state.”

        On the upside. the most astute comments are anti-Zionism and anti US enablement of same–and they have sequentially gained the most reader recommendation tags by far. Somebody’s waking up who reads the NYT.

        I’m guessing the NYT has somebody who’s job is to note this sort of thing, as a way of putting the NYT’s finger up to gauge the winds of change. Anybody know more about this?

      • American
        August 6, 2013, 1:09 am

        link to friendfeed.com

        New friendfeed –” America- Israel- Palestine- MidEast”

        I set up for anyone who might want to extend conversations when Mondo gets drowsy —this is not a Mondoweiss mirroring feed but can include Mondo articles and whatever anyone might want to feature there.

        Anyone here, even hasbara brats, feel free to post any articles they please——but be aware I am not doing everyday monitoring , censoring, etc. because I do not have the time for that so if anyone does use it act half way decently please.

      • MRW
        August 6, 2013, 2:42 pm

        There’s no link.

  3. mondonut
    August 5, 2013, 11:54 am

    But under international law, people have a right to resist a military occupation.

    Really? Where do you discover the right to violent resistance? In the same place under International Law where the occupiers have an obligation to ensure public order?

    • eGuard
      August 5, 2013, 12:12 pm

      mondonut: the right to violent resistance

      Why did you introduce that word “volent”? To first create and then make your point?

      • mondonut
        August 5, 2013, 1:07 pm

        eGuard says: Why did you introduce that word “volent”? To first create and then make your point?
        =======================================
        Because the subject at hand is the throwing of rocks. Violence. How is that not obvious?

      • Citizen
        August 5, 2013, 6:02 pm

        @ mondonut
        Yeah, it’s as obvious as midnight raids on Palestinian homes lived in for many generations, and IOF and settlers walking around (from Brooklyn) with M-16s paid for by Dick and Jane Goy America.

      • eGuard
        August 5, 2013, 7:18 pm

        You added that word to the ‘quote’. That is called “cheating”.

    • Qualtrough
      August 5, 2013, 12:37 pm

      So Mondonut, following your logic you must believe that the populations of countries occupied by the Nazis during WWII had no right to violent resistance under International Law? The Warsaw Uprising was a criminal act, right?

      • Obsidian
        August 5, 2013, 1:00 pm

        And that Germans and Japanese had the right to resist the military occupation of their homeland?

      • Cliff
        August 5, 2013, 2:31 pm

        They did.

        It doesn’t matter WHO is occupied.

        But the Palestinians aren’t the axis powers.

        It was the Jewish terrorists who stole the land from the indigenous population.

        You are the ze Germans/Japan.

      • Citizen
        August 5, 2013, 6:06 pm

        @ Obsidian
        Well, in fact, both the Germans and Japanese did resist the military occupation of their homeland. Are you suggesting the West & UN should forcibly return Jews to Europe as the ethnic Germans were forced to return to Germany 1945-48? Just asking as I don’t know what your comment means in context of your response.

      • Hostage
        August 5, 2013, 10:06 pm

        And that Germans and Japanese had the right to resist the military occupation of their homeland?

        Gee, are you clueless. They did resist the invasion of their territories by every means available. We call that WWII. Then their governments unconditionally surrendered or signed armistice agreements, like Italy which even changed sides from Axis to Allied mid-war. All of the Allied occupations were armistice occupation regimes in the end, not belligerent occupation regimes. I’m sure if either Arafat or Abbas had signed an agreement on their unconditional surrender to Israel we’d have surely heard about that by now.

      • talknic
        August 6, 2013, 6:11 am

        @ Obsidian August 5, 2013 at 1:00 pm

        “…Germans and Japanese had the right to resist the military occupation of their homeland?”

        FAIL. When are you going to learn?

        Under an official surrender, which is in effect an agreement, occupation is not considered to be belligerent. I don’t believe there has ever been a Palestinian surrender.

        Neither country was claimed by the Occupying Powers, nor did the Occupying Powers illegally settle their citizens in the territories occupied. Unlike Israel, who has failed to live up to its obligations as an Occupying Power.

        Furthermore, both Japan and Germany were assisted in re-building, developing industry, getting back on their feet.

      • James Canning
        August 6, 2013, 2:28 pm

        Germans and Japanese quite rightly cooperated with the occupying forces.

        Britain, France and the US were not trying to annex parts of what became West Germany.

      • mondonut
        August 5, 2013, 1:09 pm

        Qualtrough says: The Warsaw Uprising was a criminal act, right?
        =======================================
        I did not ask for analogies but for an explanation of the statement. Try again.

      • Citizen
        August 5, 2013, 6:09 pm

        @ mondonut
        So, you think no Jews in the Warsaw ghetto threw stones? You think more should have? Or not?

      • Hostage
        August 6, 2013, 10:24 am

        So, you think no Jews in the Warsaw ghetto threw stones? You think more should have? Or not?

        Stone throwing was also part of our English cultural milieu in 1770, if my elementary school history lessons on the Boston Massacre were accurate.

    • Mndwss
      August 5, 2013, 1:20 pm

      My Norwegian father as a child threw rocks at Nazi soldiers that had invaded Norway.

      If i was a Palestinian child i would throw rocks at Zionist soldiers invading Palestine.

      Would you support Jewish children throwing rocks at Christian soldiers invading Palestine/Israel?

      • mondonut
        August 5, 2013, 2:00 pm

        Mndwss says: My Norwegian father as a child threw rocks at Nazi soldiers that had invaded Norway.
        ===========================================
        Admirable, but irrelevant. Please reference rights under International Law.

      • Cliff
        August 5, 2013, 2:18 pm

        Who cares nut.

        Israel breaks the law all the time.

        Why are you so interested in shooting the fish in a barrell..

      • Mndwss
        August 5, 2013, 2:20 pm

        Educate yourself:

        link to mondoweiss.net

      • Woody Tanaka
        August 5, 2013, 2:24 pm

        “Admirable, but irrelevant.”

        No, I think it is relevant by analogy.

      • Cliff
        August 5, 2013, 2:33 pm

        Admirable and relevant. All the IDF and Jewish colonists are thieves and vandals.

        Fighting them is a moral right and imperative.

      • Citizen
        August 5, 2013, 6:11 pm

        @ mondonut
        Are you suggesting international law requires occupied people turn the other cheek even as their land is being taken away from them by force?

      • mondonut
        August 5, 2013, 8:25 pm

        Cliff says: All the IDF and Jewish colonists are thieves and vandals. Fighting them is a moral right and imperative.
        ———————
        Moral rights do not equal International Law. Try again.

      • Hostage
        August 5, 2013, 10:54 pm

        Admirable, but irrelevant. Please reference rights under International Law.

        Surely. The UN Charter is conventional international law. But opinio juris holds that it was also a codification that reflects the customary international law of the mid-20th Century, including the Kellogg-Briand pact that outlawed wars of aggression.

        In the 1948 “Reparations” case, the ICJ noted that the members of the UN had established a new entity with its own legal personality and that they had put non-member states on notice of the their intention to use the Organization to enforce international law, suppress acts of aggression, and promote self-determination of peoples. All of those Charter principles representing customary law had immediate force and effect and required no further action or consent.

        UN Security Council resolution 678 (1990) is a graphic example of the Organization delegating its Chapter VII enforcement powers to the government of Kuwait, and any member states cooperating with it, to pursue those ends by using “all necessary means” to end the Iraqi occupation of its territory and restore international peace and security. That authorization certainly included armed resistance to the occupation. link to un.org

        Similarly, United Nations General Assembly Resolution A/RES/33/24 of 29 November 1978 recognized the universal right of self-determination free from foreign interference:

        “2. Reaffirms the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from colonial and foreign domination and foreign occupation by all available means, particularly armed struggle;”

        link to un.org

        General Assembly Resolution A/RES/3246 (XXIX) of 29 November 1974:

        1. Reaffirms the inalienable right of all peoples under colonial and foreign domination and alien subjugation to self-determination, freedom and independence in conformity with General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) and other relevant resolutions of the United Nations;
        2. Renews its call to all States to recognize the right to self-determination and independence of all peoples subject to colonial and foreign domination and alien subjugation and to offer them moral, material and other forms of assistance in their struggle to exercise fully their inalienable right to self-determination and independence;
        3. Reaffirms the legitimacy of the peoples’ struggle for liberation from colonial and foreign domination and alien subjugation by all available means, including armed struggle;…

        The resolution specifically addressed the situations in Southern Africa and Palestine:

        7. Strongly condemns all Governments which do not recognize the right to self-determination and independence of peoples under colonial and foreign domination and alien subjugation, notably the peoples of Africa and the Palestinian people;

        link to un.org

      • mondonut
        August 6, 2013, 10:26 am

        Hostage says: Surely. The UN Charter is conventional international law. But opinio juris…
        ==============================================
        So looking at your reply, if we toss out the GA resolutions (not law) we are left with a correlation of an active war zone between two established nations and a UN recognized legitimately occupied territory subject to both an Armistice agreement and a subsequent peace treaty. Well, there is no correlation there.

        And its your contention that the civilian residents are simultaneously afforded both the rights as protected persons and the right to commit violence against occupying forces.

      • talknic
        August 7, 2013, 4:01 am

        mondonut ” if we toss out the GA resolutions (not law)”

        All law by its very nature is binding. The UN Charter is binding on all UN Members in its entirety, ratified Conventions are binding. The Laws, UN Charter and conventions reaffirmed, recalled or emphasized in any UN resolution (UNGA UNHRC, UNHCR, UNSC) are STILL binding and it is a binding obligation on all UN Member states to adhere to them. UNGA and UNSC Chapt VI resolutions ‘recommend’ that they do.

        ” we are left with a correlation of an active war zone between two established nations and a UN recognized legitimately occupied territory subject to both an Armistice agreement and a subsequent peace treaty…”

        One established nation. Israel, who has taken on the responsibilities of UN Charter Chapt XI over a UN recognized legitimately occupied territory with whom Israel has no Armistice agreement or Peace Treaty.

        “. Well, there is no correlation there.”

        When mangled in the Ziofier, there is never any correlation

        ” its your contention that the civilian residents are simultaneously afforded both the rights as protected persons and the right to commit violence against occupying forces

        Civilian residents have a right to take up arms against occupying forces, especially against an Occupying Power obliged to protect the occupied but doing the complete opposite. By taking up arms they become belligerents, also afforded protection. I don’t believe children throwing rocks is classified as taking up arms

      • Shingo
        August 7, 2013, 7:00 am

        if we toss out the GA resolutions (not law) we are left with a correlation of an active war zone between two established nations and a UN recognized legitimately occupied territory subject to both an Armistice agreement and a subsequent peace treaty.

        Wrong. If you toss out the GA resolutions, you are still left with customary international law – which all the UNGA Resolutions are based on.

        And its your contention that the civilian residents are simultaneously afforded both the rights as protected persons and the right to commit violence against occupying forces.

        Correct. That’s the deal that goes with being an occupier. If you don’t like it, stop occupying someone else’s territory.

        Simple.

      • Hostage
        August 7, 2013, 9:36 am

        So looking at your reply, if we toss out the GA resolutions (not law)

        You keep making these ignorant statements that have no basis in reality. The International Court of Justice has ruled in several cases that the General Assembly’s declarations on the rules of customary law do indeed reflect binding laws that the international community of states have adopted to govern their mutual relations.

        The Court has also noted that the member states gave the General Assembly the task of promoting the codification of the rules of international law and that the job happens to be an area falling within the scope of its competence under the explicit terms of Article 13 of the UN Charter. link to yale.edu

        So its bizarre to claim that the member states don’t have a treaty obligation under Article 1 of the Charter to act in conformity with those rules of international law, once they have been codified and declared under the terms of the mandate that they gave to the Organ they created for that specific purpose. link to yale.edu

        The Court has also noted in a number of cases, that the powers and functions of the General Assembly under the terms of the Charter are not limited to merely making hortatory recommendations. The “decisions” adopted under Article 18 on any subject can be binding, have operative designs, and legally dispositive effects that the member states and other UN organs are bound to respect. link to yale.edu

        The Court has also noted that the Charter only granted the Security Council “primary responsibility” for ensuring conformity with rules of international and the maintenance of international peace and security. Any time that it fails to do that, the General Assembly can step in and take appropriate action. One example are the actions and decisions taken in Emergency Special Sessions under the auspices of the “Uniting for Peace” doctrine contained in resolution 377A (V) – which is a integral part of the law of the United Nations Organization.

      • Hostage
        August 7, 2013, 10:12 am

        we are left with a correlation of an active war zone between two established nations and a UN recognized legitimately occupied territory

        False. Please stop reciting shopworn hasbara bullshit about the UN recognizing the legitimacy of Israel’s illegal occupation.

        The UN is unconditionally bound by the rules of customary international law contained in the Charter, which prohibit the members from using threats or force against the political independence or territorial integrity of any state or against any territory in violation of the principle of self-determination contained in Article 1 of the UN Charter and many other international legal instruments that reflect customary international law on the use of force. The latter includes the Montevideo Convention, the Chapter on the Rights and Duties of States in the Charter of the Organization of American States, the Rome Statute of the ICC, and the Acquis communautaire of the European Community. All of those have been recognized as codifications of customary law.

        The laws of occupation still have a legitimate application in situations where the UN itself authorizes an enforcement action on the behalf of the members. Otherwise, any military occupation is an illegal act of aggression.

        In any event, every UN organ has declared that Israel’s occupation represents a flagrant violation of the rules of law contained in the UN Charter, and the Geneva and Hague Conventions.

        For example, the Emergency Special Sessions of the General Assembly convened under the Uniting for Peace resolution demanded that Israel immediately and unconditionally withdraw from the occupied Arab territories and subsequently declared Israel’s continued occupation in violation of UN resolutions an illegal act of aggression in line with its Definition of Aggression (14 December 1974) A/RES/3314 (XXIX).
        See:
        *General Assembly Resolution ES-9/1 link to un.org
        *General Assembly resolution 39/146 link to un.org

        For many years Prof. Rosalyn Cohen Higgins wrote journal articles which suggested that military occupation was not illegal per se:

        “ [t]here is nothing in either the Charter or general international law which leads one to suppose that military occupation pending a peace treaty is illegal.”

        — Rosalyn Higgins, The Place of International Law in the Settlement of Disputes by the Security Council, 64 AM. J. INT’L L. 1, 8 (1970).

        Many Zionists grew accustomed to using that argument, even after the UN General Assembly and other UN organs declared Israel’s continued occupation and settlements in defiance of Security Council and General Assembly resolutions to be flagrantly illegal and violations of its treaty obligations under the Charter and Geneva Conventions. The adoption of the Definition of Aggression, including military occupation in 1974 settled the matter.

        In the 2004 advisory opinion, the ICJ also found the settlements and the associated Israeli administrative regime in the occupied territories, including East Jerusalem, to be illegal (not just the construction of the Wall). Judge Higgins dispelled any lingering doubts when she advised that:

        “A binding determination made by a competent organ of the United Nations to the effect that a situation is illegal cannot remain without consequence.” She said “That an illegal situation is not to be recognized or assisted by third parties is self-evident . . . Although in the present case it is the Court, rather than a United Nations organ . . . that has found the illegality; and although it is found in the context of an advisory opinion rather than in a contentious case, the Court’s position as the principal judicial organ of the United Nations suggests that the legal consequence for a finding that an act or situation is illegal is the same.

        So she went on to declare the situation created by Israel in the occupied territories illegal on behalf of the ICJ, and noted that it was irrelevant that the situation happened to be spelled-out in the context of an advisory case. So the determination doesn’t rest on the basis of UN resolutions alone. — See Her Opinion in Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory link to icj-cij.org

        The only way to remove all the impediments to the exercise of self-determination and end the violations of the rules of the Charter is to end the alien occupation and withdraw from all the territory acquired by war. Full stop.

    • Justpassingby
      August 5, 2013, 1:50 pm

      Yes really, you think it is legal to occupy and take land?

      • mondonut
        August 5, 2013, 2:07 pm

        Justpassingby says: Yes really, you think it is legal to occupy and take land?
        =================================
        OK, so everyone else’s replies were only somewhat off topic. Your’s is completely OT. But for the record, it is not illegal to occupy territory.

      • Citizen
        August 5, 2013, 6:25 pm

        @ mondonut
        For the record, it’s not illegal to belligerently occupy territory, but it’s illegal to take land in the OT.

        United Nations General Assembly Resolution 799

        2. Reaffirms the applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 12 August 1949 to all the Palestinian territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem, and affirms that deportation of civilians constitutes a contravention of its obligations under the Convention

        December 18, 1992
        Synopsis Of Law Governing Belligerent Occupation

        Legality of the war is irrelevant to effectiveness of the governing law
        Legality of conduct during occupation must be distinguished from legality of the occupation (jus ad bellum v. jus in bello).
        Neither occupation nor the law of war operate to transfer sovereignty over the territory occupied
        The occupant must continue orderly government and may exercise control over and utilize the resources of the country for that purpose and to meet his own military needs
        The occupant has limited legislative powers and may not make permanent changes in fundamental institutions
        When possible the occupant must utilize already existing local laws
        Privately owned war munitions may be seized without limit of occasion or quantity but subject to restoration and payment of compensation at war’s end
        Services may be requisitioned but workers cannot be forced to operate against their country, and are limited to providing local needs. They cannot be used for the general benefit of the occupier’s homeland
        The occupier may collect funds to pay for occupation and local administration
        Public immovable property of a military character may be damaged or destroyed. The occupier acts as a usufruct of other public immovables
        Public movable property subject to military uses (e.g. war munitions, transport) may be seized without compensation. Other public movables such as art and objects of national patrimony are treated as private property
        The occupier may collect state debts but need not pay debts owed by the prior state. Any interference with currency must be justified by good economic order of the territory
        Sources, Stone, Oppenheim, FM 27-10, British Manual Part III, Hague Convention IV, 1907, Articles 46-56, Geneva Civilians Convention, 1949, Protocol I to Geneva Conventions.

      • Justpassingby
        August 6, 2013, 3:44 am

        mondonut

        No, it is illegal for Israel to take and occupy the land and thereof palestinians have the right with, if they want, violence to take it back under international law.

      • James Canning
        August 6, 2013, 2:32 pm

        Yes, the colonies of Jews in the West Bank are illegal. And powerful Jews in the US prevent Obama from stopping the growth of those illegal colonies of Jews in the West Bank.

      • Hostage
        August 7, 2013, 12:10 pm

        But for the record, it is not illegal to occupy territory.

        Just for the record: the State Parties to the Rome Statute of the ICC adopted the definition of the crime aggression contained in General Assembly resolution 3314 (XXIX), 14 December 1974 as part of consensus amendments during a review conference in 2010. The very first constituent act listed is:

        The invasion or attack by the armed forces of a State of the territory of another State, or any military occupation, however temporary, resulting from such invasion or attack, or any annexation by the use of force of the territory of another State or part thereof;

        Every UN political and judicial organ , without exception, has condemned Israel for one or more of those elements, including an invasion of Jordanian territory in November of 1966. But the General Assembly has adopted a series of resolutions which pointed out that Israel’s continued occupation of the Arab territories captured in 1967 in violation of both the Charter and the decisions contained in UN resolutions is an example of aggression as defined by its by resolution 3314 (XXIX). Read:
        *General Assembly Resolution ES-9/1 link to un.org
        *General Assembly resolution 39/146 link to un.org

        FYI, in Regina v. Jones (2006), the UK Law Lords spelled-out the proposition that the core elements of the crime of aggression have been understood, at least since 1945, with sufficient clarity to permit the lawful trial (and, on conviction, punishment) of those accused of this most serious crime. They said that: “It is unhistorical to suppose that the elements of the crime were clear in 1945 but have since become in any way obscure.”

        During the hearings on Israel’s membership application in the United Nations, the representatives of Israel listened in silence as country after country argued that the map attached to resolution 181(II) satisfied the criteria for statehood regarding well-defined frontiers. The Soviet Union was particularly outraged over Syrian claims to territory around Lake Kinneret that had been allocated for the establishment of a Jewish state. However the definition of “Hitlerite” aggression that he employed could just as easily be applied to the millions of dunams in Arab Palestine that Israel had invaded and claimed for itself despite the UN’s map:

        At the same time, it is impossible to disregard a strange theory advanced here by the representative of Syria and supported, if I am not mistaken, by the representative of France. The substance of that theory is that inasmuch as the territory and frontiers of the State of Israel and its right of existence are contested by some of its neighbor States, the State of Israel does not exist as a sovereign State and cannot be recognized as such. That theory is not only strange but also dangerous. It is reminiscent of the “theories” which, as we all know, were once upon a time preached by the fascist aggressors who claimed world mastery. According to those theories, it was enough for Hitlerite Germany to cast doubt on the existence of one of its neighbor States for that State to cease to exist, and for its territory to be seized and absorbed into the territory of Hitlerite Germany. Such claims were made by the fascist aggressors in respect of Austria, Czechoslovakia and a number of other European countries, including France. In that connection, all kinds of expansionist theories were advanced concerning the inferiority of the people of certain countries, and were used as justification for seizing those countries.

        — Mr. Yakov A. Malik, the 386th meeting of the UN Security Council, S/PV.386, 17 December 1948, pages 12-13 link to un.org

        Most of us recognize that you’ve adopted that as your own modus operandi in making comments about Palestine and Palestinians. So let me remind you that it is considered hate speech to publicly condone, deny, or trivialize any crime, including the crime of aggression, that targets the Palestinians on the basis of either their nationality or ethnicity.

      • James Canning
        August 7, 2013, 2:24 pm

        Bravo, Hostage. The colonies of Jews in the West Bank are illegal. Full stop. No matter how much rubbish is put out by Israel lobby to the contrary.

    • Hostage
      August 5, 2013, 2:08 pm

      Really? Where do you discover the right to violent resistance? In the same place under International Law where the occupiers have an obligation to ensure public order?

      The right of self-determination and self-defense have been considered intransgressible norms of international law since the late 18th Century by most states in the New World.

      The customary law norm regarding the right of an indigenous population to recognition as a belligerent community during colonial wars or alien occupation was very well settled by the early 19th Century. By then, the majority of independent American states had been established on the basis of that principle. Truman’s recognition of the de facto Jewish regime was a prime example of belligerent recognition.

      The right was codified in Article 1(4) of the 1st Additional Protocol, which has been ratified by 173 state parties. The Protocol has also been recognized as reflecting the applicable customary law on the subject by the General Assembly and the various international tribunals. It provided that armed conflicts in which peoples are fighting against colonial domination, alien occupation, or racist regimes are to be treated as international armed conflicts in which the inherent right of self-defense naturally applies under the terms of the UN Charter (which has itself been almost universally ratified):

      PART I. GENERAL PROVISIONS

      Art 1. General principles and scope of application

      1. The High Contracting Parties undertake to respect and to ensure respect for this Protocol in all circumstances.

      2. In cases not covered by this Protocol or by other international agreements, civilians and combatants remain under the protection and authority of the principles of international law derived from established custom, from the principles of humanity and from dictates of public conscience.

      3. This Protocol, which supplements the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 for the protection of war victims, shall apply in the situations referred to in Article 2 common to those Conventions.

      4. The situations referred to in the preceding paragraph include armed conflicts in which peoples are fighting against colonial domination and alien occupation and against racist regimes in the exercise of their right of self-determination, as enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations and the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.

      Although Israel doesn’t recognize the State of Palestine, it does recognize the situation as an international armed conflict. See for example, the subsection of the ruling under the heading “The General Normative Framework, A. International Armed Conflict”

      The Ministry of Foreign Affairs advised that

      In particular, Israel’s High Court of Justice has confirmed that in the ongoing armed conflict with Palestinian terrorist organisations, including Hamas, Israel must adhere to the rules and principles in (a) the Fourth Geneva Convention, (b) the Regulations annexed to the Fourth Hague Convention (which reflect customary international law), and (c) the customary international law principles reflected in certain provisions of Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions on 1949. Israel is not a party to the Additional Protocol I, but accepts that some of its provisions accurately reflect customary international law

      – See Terrorism obstacles to peace, Hamas war against Israel, Operation in Gaza, Factual and legal aspects, Applicable legal framework, 5 Aug 2009 at the MFA website: link to mfa.gov.il

      The ICJ noted that the exchange of letters between Rabin and Arafat recognized the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people, which the Court held includes the right of self-determination in accordance with the terms of the UN Charter.

      • mondonut
        August 5, 2013, 2:54 pm

        Hostage says: The right of self-determination and self-defense have been considered intransgressible norms of international law…
        ================================================
        A right to self-determination does not equal a right to violent resistance to occupation. Nor does recognition as a belligerent community equal a right to violent resistance to occupation. The Geneva Conventions specifically written to provide protection of victims of armed conflicts does not provide a right to violent resistance of occupation as the Conventions are an endorsement of protection – not violence.

        Same goes for Chapter VII, Article 51 of the UN Charter. The right of a nation and individuals (as members of the UN) to self defense against attack does not extend to territories under occupation. The Palestinian residents of the occupied territories did not inherit a right to physically attack Israelis upon recognition by the UN.

      • Woody Tanaka
        August 5, 2013, 4:08 pm

        “The Palestinian residents of the occupied territories did not inherit a right to physically attack Israelis upon recognition by the UN.”

        The Palestinians in Palestine have a moral right to fight, by any means necessary, the cancer which is attacking them. If the settler colonialists don’t like it, let them scurry back behind the green line.

      • Hostage
        August 5, 2013, 6:05 pm

        A right to self-determination does not equal a right to violent resistance to occupation.

        Once again, the 1st Additional Protocol explicitly stipulates that it does apply to “armed conflicts” in which peoples are fighting against colonial domination and alien occupation and against racist regimes in the exercise of their right of self-determination, as enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations.

        That means the UN Charter is the “international law” that allows peoples the right to use armed force to either end or resist an occupation Sherlock.

        In case you didn’t notice, it wasn’t just the contracting state parties to the Geneva Conventions who made that determination. The General Assembly, which has the responsibility to promote the codification of international law under the explicit terms of the UN Charter, created special committees and subsidiary organs so that the member states could identify and draft a declaration on the principles of international law that are contained in the UN Charter itself. The General Assembly simply affirmed the opinio juris of the parties to the Charter regarding the customary right. The ICJ and the international tribunals subsequently ruled that the declaration reflected binding customary law on the subject.

        FYI, the declaration and Charter go even further and allow peoples to seek military assistance from other states and join regional mutual defense organizations in order to end an occupation.
        link to un-documents.net

      • eljay
        August 5, 2013, 6:28 pm

        >> mondonuteee: A right to self-determination does not equal a right to violent resistance to occupation.

        A right to self-determination does not equal a right to terrorism, ethnic cleansing, colonization, oppression, torture and the establishment of a supremacist state, you stupid, immoral piece of Zio-supremacist shit.

      • Hostage
        August 5, 2013, 6:30 pm

        Same goes for Chapter VII, Article 51 of the UN Charter. The right of a nation and individuals (as members of the UN) to self defense against attack does not extend to territories under occupation.

        Bullshit. Article 2(4) of the Charter explicitly states that the prohibition against the threat or use of force applies to any situation that is “inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.” Article 2(6) warns that “The Organization shall ensure that states which are not Members of the United Nations act in accordance with these Principles so far as may be necessary for the maintenance of international peace and security.”

        Article 1 of the Charter says that those purposes include suppression of acts of aggression, settlement of disputes in accordance with international law, and self-determination of peoples.
        link to yale.edu

        Furthermore, unilateral military occupations, undertaken in violation of the UN Charter and maintained in violation of multiple UN resolutions, are one of the prime examples cited in the customary Definition of Aggression (14 December 1974) A/RES/3314 (XXIX) and Article 8 bis of the Rome Statute.

      • Citizen
        August 5, 2013, 6:52 pm

        @ Hostage
        Further, a right to belligerent occupation does not, under international law, include the right to take occupied territory, which is exactly what Jewish Israeli settlers do with the support of the Israeli state. The US regime under Bush Jr should be prosecuted for crimes of aggression just like the Nazi leader at Nuremberg, but they wouldn’t be charged with illegal de facto annexation of the land occupied nor with illegal colonial settlement–but Israel and its leaders should be so charged additionally.

      • talknic
        August 5, 2013, 9:00 pm

        mondonut
        “The Geneva Conventions specifically written to provide protection of victims of armed conflicts does not provide a right to violent resistance of occupation as the Conventions are an endorsement of protection – not violence”

        Oooooops…. When will Israel start protecting Palestinian civilians, their property and their territory? Thus far it has incurred hundreds of UNSC resolutions for doing the OPPOSITE of its obligations.

        ” Chapter VII, Article 51 of the UN Charter. The right of a nation and individuals (as members of the UN) to self defense against attack does not extend to territories under occupation”

        Only a real moron makes a claim obviously NOT supported by the documents they cite. Care to quote verbatim where it says it “does not extend to territories under occupation” ….. thx

        Same goes for Chapter VII, Article 51 of the UN Charter. The right of a nation and individuals (as members of the UN) to self defense against attack does not extend to territories under occupation. The Palestinian residents of the occupied territories did not inherit a right to physically attack Israelis upon recognition by the UN.

      • Justpassingby
        August 6, 2013, 3:47 am

        mondonut


        The Palestinian residents of the occupied territories did not inherit a right to physically attack Israelis upon recognition by the UN.

        Haha oh using reivionism now? Plan Dalet rings any bell?
        And Israel wasnt recognized by the UN. You are fabricating.

      • Shingo
        August 6, 2013, 7:21 am

        Same goes for Chapter VII, Article 51 of the UN Charter. The right of a nation and individuals (as members of the UN) to self defense against attack does not extend to territories under occupation.

        Sorry, but you are simply making that up. Surely you don’t expect anyone to take your word for it.

        UNSC242 requires Israel to withdraw from the OT (ie. end the occupation) before the occupied populations are required to terminate their state of belligerent resistance.

        The Palestinian residents of the occupied territories did not inherit a right to physically attack Israelis upon recognition by the UN.

        Who says they has to inherit it? They always had it.

      • Shingo
        August 6, 2013, 7:35 am

        A right to self-determination does not equal a right to violent resistance to occupation

        Yes it does.

        Unlike terrorism which is universally deemed as criminal (no such thing as “legal terrorism”), other forms of political violence are not only acceptable, but are fully legal. This obviously includes military acts of self-defense (i.e. the right to resist an aggressor, defend ones territorial integrity, et cetera) as well as UN Security Council sanctioned Chapter VII actions (the war making powers of the UNSC, as employed in South Korea or in Bosnia-Herzegovina). However, among these legal forms of violence there is also the right to use force in the struggle for “liberation from colonial and foreign domination”. To quote United Nations General Assembly Resolution A/RES/33/24 of 29 November 1978:

        “2. Reaffirms the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from colonial and foreign domination and foreign occupation by all available means, particularly armed struggle;” (3)

        To quote General Assembly Resolution A/RES/3246 (XXIX) of 29 November 1974:

        “3. Reaffirms the legitimacy of the peoples’ struggle for liberation form colonial and foreign domination and alien subjugation by all available means, including armed struggle; …
        7. Strongly condemns all Governments which do not recognize the right to self-determination and independence of peoples under colonial and foreign domination and alien subjugation, notably the peoples of Africa and the Palestinian people; (4)

        To summarize the two points — people under colonial and foreign domination have the right to use armed struggle against their oppressors and that this specifically applies to the Palestinian people — has been repeatedly reaffirmed in a myriad of United Nations resolutions. These include UNGA Resolution A/RES/3246 (XXIX; 29 November 1974), UNGA Resolution A/RES/33/24 (29 November 1978), UNGA Resolution A/RES/34/44 (23 November 1979), UNGA Resolution A/RES/35/35 (14 November 1980), UNGA Resolution A/RES/36/9 (28 October 1981), and many others. While these resolutions, coming from the General Assembly do not carry the weight of law per se, they do reflect the views of the majority of the world’s sovereign states, which is the basis of customary international law. So although General Assembly resolutions are not legally binding in of themselves, when they address legal issues they do accurately reflect the customary international legal opinion among the majority of the world’s sovereign states.

      • Hostage
        August 6, 2013, 10:07 am

        mondonut
        “The Geneva Conventions specifically written to provide protection of victims of armed conflicts does not provide a right to violent resistance of occupation as the Conventions are an endorsement of protection – not violence”

        Well, it shouldn’t be necessary to point this out, but Israel uses nonsenical propaganda arguments like these that really don’t dispose of the legal issues involved, while acting as if they do.

        Experts and publicists in the field of international humanitarian law or the laws and customs of war have been pointing out ever since 1988 that the government of Jordan had legally recognized several of the uniformed Palestinian militias as privileged combatants before the dissolution of the union occurred. Even the Goldstone report noted that the Gaza police force had been targeted by Israeli forces who claimed they were part of a uniformed militia. Many of those legal experts noted that Israel had an obligation to observe the rules of the 3rd and 4th Geneva Conventions, relative to the treatment of prisoners of war, and the protection of civilians after the PLO had declared the establishment of the State of Palestine and filed an accession to the four Geneva Conventions of 1949 and their Additional Protocols. See for example Prof. L.C. Green’s chapter on that subject in the Israel yearbook on human rights. 19. 1989 (1990). link to books.google.com

        So its illegal to deport anyone, including civilians or prisoners of war, from the occupied territory and put them in Israeli jails. See HCJ Rejects Petition against Holding Detained Palestinians in Israeli Territory [HCJ 2690/09] [28.3.2010] link to idi.org.il It’s also ludicrous to suggest that Article 1 of the 1st Additional Protocol and the UN Charter do not apply to armed conflicts in which the people of Palestine are fighting an alien and racist occupation regime in pursuance with their right of self-determination.

        Israel has simply been violating the 3rd Convention relative to the treatment of prisoners of war, like all of the other conventions it has violated since 1967. The ICJ noted that, for its own part, the government of Switzerland considered the Palestinian accession a valid undertaking and that it notified the other signatories about it. It also pointed out that it was not competent to decide the matter on behalf of the other signatories, but that did not grant them a license to violate the conventions. There are propaganda talking points which gloss over the fact that the Conventions are open to “any power” and that the depositary is not competent to waive the international obligations of contracting parties towards any entity that files an accession. Any disputes over interpretation of the terms of the Conventions or any other multilateral treaty are subject to the general jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice. Disputes can’t be decided on a unilateral basis by a party to an armed conflict under any circumstances.

        Likewise, the former ICC Prosecutor admitted in his last update report to the UN on the Situation in Palestine that he was not empowered under the statute to make determinations regarding statehood and then went on to provide a great illustration of his ignorance on the subject. Nonetheless, the press and Hasbara Fellowship make the illogical claim that the Prosecutor somehow was competent to reject the 2009 Palestinian declaration on the basis of his determination of Palestine’s supposed status within the UN Organization – another subject he was equally unqualified to decide. In any event, his successor has pointed out that she has the option to obtain jurisdiction under the terms of the Declaration, but will take no further action on it until such time as Palestine joins the Court. That hasn’t stopped Israel and its supporters from pretending that it’s no longer possible to prosecute crimes committed during Cast Lead.

      • Hostage
        August 6, 2013, 12:10 pm

        mondonut
        The Palestinian residents of the occupied territories did not inherit a right to physically attack Israelis upon recognition by the UN.

        On the contrary, the General Assembly of the United Nations specifically extended belligerent recognition to the Palestinian people and specifically condoned and sanctioned their use of armed struggle in the text of General Assembly Resolution A/RES/3246 (XXIX) of 29 November 1974.

    • The Hasbara Buster
      August 5, 2013, 4:54 pm

      Where do you discover the right to violent resistance? In the same place under International Law where the occupiers have an obligation to ensure public order?

      Except that Jewish settler kids throw rocks at civilians and are not arrested by the Israeli soldiers.

      As for the occupier’s obligations under international law, they are required not to transfer civilians into the occupied territory. Both the Security Council and the International Court of Justice have declared Israel’s settlement building illegal. I hope you’ll enlighten us as to exactly what the Palestinians are expected to do in the face of such violations of international law.

    • justicewillprevail
      August 5, 2013, 5:52 pm

      Where did you discover the right to violent and sadistic occupation and theft? Stone throwing boys are not a threat to those IDF robocops, who like to portray themselves as poor little wide-eyed innocents threatened by some kids, as if they weren’t there for the express purpose of disruption, harassment and repression, whilst hiding behind a mammoth industrialised military machine. And they’re terrified of kids with stones – or just like the crank out the usual endless propaganda about Palestinians and violence, conveniently forgetting the endless violence they and their protected settlers inflict on defenceless villagers?

    • Talkback
      August 5, 2013, 6:29 pm

      mondonut says: Where do you discover the right to violent resistance?

      It always amazes me what people like you actually have learned from WW2 and the Holocaust. Maybe to call resistance fighter “terrorists”?

    • Shingo
      August 6, 2013, 7:07 am

      Where do you discover the right to violent resistance? In the same place under International Law where the occupiers have an obligation to ensure public order?

      The law says nothing about public order. Public order can be defined according to the opinion of the accipiter, which can be clearly distorted to mean crusading dissent.

  4. amigo
    August 5, 2013, 12:32 pm

    “Really? Where do you discover the right to violent resistance? In the same place under International Law where the occupiers have an obligation to ensure public order?mondonut.

    If you care so much about public disorder get your dam murdering terrorist soldiers out of Palestine.

    QED blockhead.

    • MHughes976
      August 5, 2013, 5:33 pm

      The right to resist tyranny has been acknowledged by many, Locke most importantly among philosophers. I don’t think that occupation of itself amounts to tyranny provided that it is based a) on acceptance that the territory in question does not belong to the occupiers, b) that steps to end the occupation are set to be taken, for implementation as soon as possible after major conflict is over, by negotiation with the representatives of the occupied people and c) that the occupiers are not to seize or transfer property except in strictly defined reparation for war crimes. These limits have to apply, surely, unless we are to acknowledge rights based on sheer might, which is paradoxical. If these limits are transgressed then we are not dealing with a process of occupation but (obviously, I think) of conquest, ie of the abolition of the rights of the occupied people, ie of tyranny. To my mind the question of justified violent resistance always arises when conquest is attempted but the answer is not the same in every case: for instance, is there in the given situation a non-violent way of rallying the consensus of the human race to put things right?

  5. Obsidian
    August 5, 2013, 12:54 pm

    Maybe the New York Times assumes that after 45 years of news coverage, their readers are aware of the military occupation.

    • Donald
      August 5, 2013, 4:40 pm

      “Maybe the New York Times assumes that after 45 years of news coverage, their readers are aware of the military occupation.”

      Anthony Weiner claims not to be. And that’s not just snark–he’s obviously pandering to some elements of his potential voter base. And if you read the pro-Israel comments underneath the article, you’ll find a bunch of people who seem to think that the situation is this–some nice Jewish families are trying to live their normal lives in peace and these anti-semitic hoodlums throw rocks at them.

      So I think a fair number of NYT readers are in denial.

      • Citizen
        August 5, 2013, 6:59 pm

        @ Donald
        Yep. I read all the comments under the NYT article. The pro-Israel comments reduce it all to Palestinians just aren’t civilized and they teach hate and don’t love their kids; additionally the pro-Israel commenters there dish out factually inaccurate hasbara narration of the history of the I-P conflict, stuff that’s been demolished here and elsewhere on the internet as self-serving outright lies, stuff that’s been debunked even by former Israeli leaders after they left office.

      • James Canning
        August 5, 2013, 7:53 pm

        @Donald – – Anthony Weiner claims not to be aware of the Israeli occupation of the West Bank?

      • Donald
        August 5, 2013, 10:14 pm

        “Anthony Weiner claims not to be aware of the Israeli occupation of the West Bank?”

        Yep. Phil has written about this, but when I googled I just picked the first link, which is

        Daily Beast

      • James Canning
        August 6, 2013, 4:05 pm

        Thanks, Donald. Should be amazing.

  6. mondonut
    August 5, 2013, 1:13 pm

    amigo says: QED blockhead.
    ==================================
    Thanks so much for your typical thoughtful and intelligent reply.

    • amigo
      August 5, 2013, 3:11 pm

      Thanks so much for your typical thoughtful and intelligent reply.mondonut

      Your,e welcome.

  7. Ludwig
    August 5, 2013, 1:40 pm

    I think we all can agree that stone throwing has to stop. It has critically injured young children and killed others. This is a deadly crime that can not continue.

    • Woody Tanaka
      August 5, 2013, 2:26 pm

      When the zios end their theft of Palestine and go back to Brooklyn or Poland or wherever they belong or, at the very least, stop the violence they inflict on the Palestinians every moment of every day, then we can worry about a few pebbles hurled at the land thieves.

      • Ludwig
        August 5, 2013, 4:08 pm

        Woody,

        These aren’t pebbles, recall they have injured and killed innocent children. That’s something you have to remember.

      • Pamela Olson
        August 5, 2013, 11:33 pm

        Why are people taking innocent children into a situation of land theft and oppression, where even if they don’t acknowledge the right of the land owners to resist, they know it will happen? Why are they using their own children as human shields? For God’s sake, if you’re going to steal land, assault people with price tag attacks, and directly participate in a system of horrific oppression, leave children out of it!

      • thankgodimatheist
        August 6, 2013, 12:28 am

        ” they have injured and killed innocent children”
        It’s the parents responsibility not to put their kids in harm’s way. By choosing to live in illegal settlements, knowing well what kind of dangers they’re exposed to, they’re doing just that.

      • Djinn
        August 6, 2013, 1:11 am

        Particularly given that Palestinians are regularly accused of putting their children in harms way when they are murdered by IOF personnel. Never mind that they were playing soccer next to their home, sitting at a school desk or asleep in their beds.

        Palestinians have little if any choice but to raise their children in a conflict zone. Settlers DELIBERATELY CHOOSE to take their children there, either because they can get a bigger & cheaper house than in Israel or because of pure ideological insanity.

      • amigo
        August 6, 2013, 9:08 am

        “Particularly given that Palestinians are regularly accused of putting their children in harms way when they are murdered by IOF personnel. Never mind that they were playing soccer next to their home, sitting at a school desk or asleep in their beds.”djinn

        Yes and in their own country.

      • Woody Tanaka
        August 6, 2013, 10:07 am

        Ludwig,
        When the israeli terrorists in uniform and the colonial land thieves stop injuring and killing Palestinians and stealing their land, then I might give a damn how big the pebbles are that the israeli’s acts and terror have brought upon themselves in retaliation.

        And if there are innocent children being hurt, then damn their parents for bringing them into Palestine. They are the ones that are to blame.

      • Hostage
        August 6, 2013, 10:47 am

        These aren’t pebbles, recall they have injured and killed innocent children. That’s something you have to remember.

        The fact that indigenous people have the right to organize militias and engage in armed struggles in pursuance of their right to self-defense or right of self-determination doesn’t mean that they have the right to commit war crimes or are immune from the consequences of any crimes. But there is an entire Geneva Convention, the 3rd, devoted to the treatment of prisoners of war. It recognizes armed resistance groups, like militias, as a category of privileged combatants.

        It should be obvious, but even the Israeli Supreme Court has noted that this is still a belligerent occupation, not an armistice occupation like the one on the Israeli side of the Green Line. In the Gaza Coast Council v Knesset case the Court advised that the Israeli settlers are NOT considered “protected persons” or a “protected civilian population” under the terms of the applicable international humanitarian law. Under the terms of the UN Armistice agreements, they are prohibited from from crossing the Green Line in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

      • Hostage
        August 6, 2013, 11:19 am

        It’s the parents responsibility not to put their kids in harm’s way.

        True enough, but ultimately the government of Israel signed an armistice agreement that prohibits its civilians from crossing the so-called Green Line at all. That agreement was concluded under orders Israel received from the Security Council, acting under Chapter VII of the UN Charter – yet another agreement signed by the government of Israel.

      • Light
        August 6, 2013, 12:09 pm

        Nice attempt at diversion Ludwig. What is your opinion of bullets and tear gas canisters fired by the Israeli Army. Can we all agree that Israel’s occupation is not only immoral and illegal but also a deadly to civilians?

      • talknic
        August 6, 2013, 2:24 pm

        Ludwig “These aren’t pebbles, recall they have injured and killed innocent children. That’s something you have to remember.”

        Something you have to remember is that the Israeli Government deliberately encourages its Jewish citizens to break GC IV. A convention specifically adopted to protect civilians by prohibiting their settlement in “territories occupied”. A government is supposed to protect its citizens by encouraging them to abide by GC IV

    • ah
      August 5, 2013, 2:53 pm

      I think we can all agree that the military occupation of Palistine has to stop. I think we can all agree that the illeagal theft of Palistinian land by Israeli settlers has to stop. I think we can agree the theft of Palistinian culture such as couscous and the Debka by the Isrealis has to stop. Have you not noticed the rubber bullets and gas canisters fired at peaceful protests against the Isreali wall? I think we can all agree the IDF soliders firing them has to stop! I think we ALL agree aparthied Isreal has to stop.

      • jon s
        August 6, 2013, 4:57 am

        Couscous? You’re really going too far – couscous is a staple of traditional North African cuisine , Moslem and Jewish.
        And enough with the ridiculous accusations concerning the debka…

      • Light
        August 6, 2013, 12:02 pm

        No Jon, go to most supermarkets and you will find something sold as “Israeli Couscous”. It is not couscous at all but a variation of Palestinian maftoul. Just another example of Palestinian culture expropriated by Israel.

      • jon s
        August 7, 2013, 12:50 am

        Maftoul is couscous, Palestinian style.
        Israeli couscous means that it’s made in Israel.
        Here in Israel I bought in the supermarket couscous made in Morocco.
        A friend of ours here in Beer Sheva makes a glorious, Tripolitanian-style couscous. As I said, couscous is a staple of North African cooking.
        In other words: food gets around, the whole issue is ridiculous.
        Imagine if I would say this: “In America you can buy pizza. Just another example of Italian culture expropriated by America. White people in America play jazz – another example of African – American culture expropriated”…and so forth.

    • Ecru
      August 5, 2013, 2:56 pm

      Then can we all agree that the Israeli Occupation and Jewish ethnic cleansing of said Occupied lands, the CAUSE of the rock-throwing also has to stop?

      • Citizen
        August 5, 2013, 7:02 pm

        @ Ecru
        Well, yes–that’s the key. The NYT gave no direct occupation context background to the stone-throwing except it reported that one Palestinian kid specifically mentioned it, as if to say to the reader, “Consider the childish source.” It was a very mendacious article. I hope the NYT keeps losing readership. It’s creepy, like the antiseptic Bill Kristol who, in his presentation and slick glibness, reminds me of Reinhard Heydrich.

    • Talkback
      August 5, 2013, 6:37 pm

      Ludwig says: “I think we all can agree that stone throwing has to stop. It has critically injured young children and killed others. This is a deadly crime that can not continue.”

      Can Israel keep the Palestinians opressed without the use of deadly violence, Ludwig?

    • Qualtrough
      August 6, 2013, 4:08 am

      Yes, and I am sure you will agree that attacking densely populated urban areas and killing and critically injured hundreds upon hundreds of women and children (see Gaza) is a deadly crime that cannot continue. Right?

    • talknic
      August 6, 2013, 10:35 am

      Ludwig
      “I think we all can agree that stone throwing has to stop. It has critically injured young children and killed others. This is a deadly crime that can not continue

      The GC’s are there to protect ALL civilians including those of the Occupying Power rom the likely violent consequences of belligerently occupying another people by prohibiting the citizens of the Occupying Power from settling in “territories occupied” (UNSC res 242)

      Instead, successive Israeli Governments have encouraged Israeli citizens to endanger themselves by breaking the GC’s in order to create illegal facts on the ground. Furthermore successive Israeli Governments have illegally sold illegal settlers land in territory not belonging to the State of Israel.

      What sort of a government PURPOSEFULLY endangers its citizens by encouraging them to break a convention meant to protect them and then sells them property not belonging to the state?

  8. just
    August 5, 2013, 4:56 pm

    I guess the media elite love lying about the reality that Palestinians face every second of every minute of every hour of every day of every year.

    Justice will come one day. I hope very soon. The brave and stalwart Palestinians have suffered more than enough, and we are complicit and responsible.

  9. Obsidian
    August 5, 2013, 5:09 pm

    Here is a comprehensive list of Tibetans who have protested the illegal Chinese occupation of their homeland by committing self-immolation.

    link to savetibet.org

    No culture of stone throwing. Just the ultimate in non-violent protest.

    Different strokes, I guess.

    • Djinn
      August 5, 2013, 10:30 pm

      Excellent idea Obsidian. Instead of raining bombs on one of the most densely populated regions on earth, where approximately half of all people are under 15; instead of sending 3 IDF personnel for every settler to enforce Apartheid in Hebron; instead of imprisoning people without charge; instead of mounting armed raids in the middle of the night to arrest children, we could sit and toast marshmallows while Bibi and Livni et al burn.

    • Eva Smagacz
      August 5, 2013, 10:31 pm

      Obsidian,
      I know it would be more convenient for Zionists if Palestinians were more civilized and self-immolate en mass.
      I can see you seething with frustration.

      Back on the planet earth, the self immolation and stone throwing are expressions of continuing spirit of resistance of the occupied people.

      I don’t believe for one moment that you don’t know that. I think you are playing troll pilpul.

    • tree
      August 6, 2013, 1:04 am

      Gee, it only took me 30 seconds to google this from 2008:

      Several days of protests in Tibet turned violent Friday, as demonstrators threw rocks and burned shops and cars in the capital, Lhasa, and casualties were reported.

      The U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights urged Beijing to respond with restraint, as did the United States and the European Union.

      The protests appear to have caught China off-guard just months before it hosts the summer Olympics.

      Eyewitness accounts say that Friday’s violence was centered in Barkhor, the heart of old Lhasa and the site of similar violent protests nearly 20 years ago.

      Reports say that demonstrators burned shops and vehicles in Barkhor and pelted police with stones.

      link to npr.org

      • tree
        August 6, 2013, 1:08 am

        And more on the protests here:

        The Tibetan capital of Lhasa was on the brink of chaos today as the fiercest anti-government protests in almost 20 years erupted into violence between Chinese security forces and protestors wielding iron bars.

        Armed police used water cannons and teargas on the crowds, and witnesses say security vehicles were set on fire and Chinese drivers were carried off with bloodied faces after being beaten by a mob of young Tibetans.

        The US embassy in Beijing said its citizens in Lhasa had reported gunshots being fired in the city. The embassy emailed an advisory to Americans warning them to stay away from the city, now in its fifth day of anti-Chinese protests.

        Coming just months before the start of the 2008 Olympics, the protests against Beijing rule threaten to overshadow preparations for the games.

        A resident told the Guardian that he heard an explosion and around 10 shots every minute at one point, but thought it was teargas rather than bullets being fired because he saw people running from plumes of smoke and covering their mouths.

        “I am too afraid to go out,” the source, who asked to remain anonymous, said. “It is chaos out there.”

        The source, who is from the Chinese Han ethnic group, said he saw Tibetans attack two fire engines.

        “I saw Tibetans throwing stones at the vehicles. They dragged drivers from vehicles, took off their uniforms and helmets, then beat them.

        “The chanting mob beat up around five or six drivers who had to be carried away with blood on their faces … then they put a motorbike under the fire engine and set fire to it so the engine was burned.”

        link to theguardian.com

        So much for the stereotype of all Tibetan protests being non-violent.

        I guess Tibetans must have a “culture of iron bars, stones, and mob violence”, eh Obsidian?

        Not to mention all the Israeli Jews who participate in their won “culture of stone throwing”.

    • Qualtrough
      August 6, 2013, 4:16 am

      Here we go again with the inferior culture trope: If only Palestinians had a different (meaning = better) culture they would take the high road and commit suicide rather than throw stones at their occupiers.

    • Shingo
      August 6, 2013, 7:25 am

      No culture of stone throwing. Just the ultimate in non-violent protest.

      Actually it is violent. Killing and immolaying oneself is extreme violent.

      BDS is non violent.

      • Obsidian
        August 6, 2013, 12:17 pm

        @Shingo

        So you’ll be joining a BDS against the People’s Republic of China?

    • Talkback
      August 6, 2013, 7:47 am

      Obsidian says: “Here is a comprehensive list of Tibetans who have protested the illegal Chinese occupation of their homeland by committing self-immolation. … No culture of stone throwing. Just the ultimate in non-violent protest.”

      The ultimate wet dream of an occupier – nobody violently resists an occupation which can only exist through violence against the occupied – the occupied are violent against themselves.

      If only occupied Jews would have set themselves on fire, right?

      • Obsidian
        August 6, 2013, 12:19 pm

        @Talk

        Not my wet dream. I want China and Israel out of the occupied territories.

        Like most Israelis, I support the peace process and a two-State solution.

    • talknic
      August 6, 2013, 10:46 am

      Obsidian

      link to savetibet.org

      “No culture of stone throwing. Just the ultimate in non-violent protest”

      TYPICAL FAIL!

      BTW ‘culture’? Cute….. Say, was the Jewish resistance against the Nazis ‘culture’ too?

    • Hostage
      August 6, 2013, 11:01 am

      No culture of stone throwing. Just the ultimate in non-violent protest.

      Different strokes, I guess.

      Except that you are glossing over the history of several armed resistance groups that operated in Tibet in opposition to the communist occupation. They were very active in places like Amado and eastern Kham. There were even pro-Taiwanese Kuomintang who claimed Tibet as part of their territory. The Taiwanese parliament has better fights than most hockey games, but very few self-immolations. See for example, Birgit Van de Wijer, Tibet’s Forgotten Heroes: The Story of Tibet’s Armed Resistance Against China link to amazon.com

      • Obsidian
        August 6, 2013, 12:23 pm

        I never said that self-immolation was the only means of protest against the occupation of Tibet and the ‘Western Provinces’.

        Tibetans violently rebelled during the 1950’s and afterward.

        How about everybody here on Mondoweiss join me in saying,’China! Quit Tibet and the Western Provinces!’.

        ‘Join the BDS movement against China’!

      • talknic
        August 7, 2013, 4:09 am

        Obsidian

        ‘Join the BDS movement against China’!

        Tell Netanyahu, he’s just been in China drumming up MORE business.

      • Cliff
        August 7, 2013, 6:54 am

        Sure Obsidian.

        Will you join the BDS movement against Israel too?

      • Hostage
        August 7, 2013, 12:57 pm

        How about everybody here on Mondoweiss join me in saying,’China! Quit Tibet and the Western Provinces!’.

        ‘Join the BDS movement against China’!

        Because I’d rather that Israel just follow China’s example. It gave the inhabitants citizenship and admits that the territory is subject to China’s jurisdiction for the purposes reporting and monitoring under all the UN human rights treaties – including those that require the parties to eliminate all forms of racial discrimination. Israel refuses to do that and practices illegal deportation, Bantustanization, and annexation. It covets some of the West Bank, but not Gaza. It’s a matter of public record that it wants all the territory without the Arab inhabitants, if it can just manage to accomplish that feat.

      • Hostage
        August 7, 2013, 1:04 pm

        P.S. You seem to have forgotten that the BDS Movement is willing to accept a single state, with equal rights for all, that would include Gaza, the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and Israel.

      • Obsidian
        August 7, 2013, 3:47 pm

        @Cliff

        I live in Israel along a million or so Arabs. Tell us what we should to Boycott Israel?

      • Obsidian
        August 7, 2013, 4:07 pm

        Wow. One billion Han Chinese gave 2.4 million Tibetans the right to vote.
        Big changes are in the offing Hostage. Big changes.

        If this is what passes for a salve, than maybe you should move on and leave Tibetans with their voting cards (without an explanation for those pesky self-immolations).

  10. dbroncos
    August 5, 2013, 6:01 pm

    When Rudoren got the job of NYT reporter in I/P she bit her lip and claimed, “Gee, I don’t have much knowlege of the area, I certainly don’t have any pre existing bias.” Yet here she is writing like so many of her Zionist bigot predecessors.

    I’m certain she wouldn’t have the job if her loyalties to the Jewish state had not been pre determined by NYT brass.

  11. Clif Brown
    August 5, 2013, 6:03 pm

    I am glad to see a Palestinian story on the front page of the NYT. I’m glad to see the map that shows the Palestinian town surrounded by settlements. I’m glad to see contributors to the story, who presumably worked with Rudoren, with Arab names. I’m glad to see the story free of the word terrorist. The Times is no leader against the occupation, but I was prompted to write the following to the editor…

    “I was very pleased to see the NYT take a cautious dip into the Palestinian situation on today’s front page. After 65 years of eviction by armed force and continuing today with Israeli settlements, you are at last portraying them as human beings, just as time has altered the Anglo-American view of native-Americans from savages into the victims of injustice they are. Please continue to do this kind of reporting (I noted the contributors with Arab names) and become more bold in your truth-telling as you do.”

  12. James Canning
    August 5, 2013, 7:51 pm

    New York Times should do Israel a favor by pointing out the colonies of Jews in the West Bank are there illegally. Full stop.

  13. Fritz
    August 6, 2013, 3:09 am

    Nobody mentions yet that Rudoren/NYT presents material provided from the Israeli Border Police, the taped and obvious fabricated confession of the 17 year old Muhammad Abu Hashem. Two questions arise: 1. Is it in accordance with the journalistic ethics of NYT to present news material from an occupying force based on military law without questioning it? 2. Has a non-Jewish, non-pro-Zionist reporter, especially a Palestinian news source also access to the same material?
    The same with some documentaries about so called suicide bombers interviewed in prison under the auspieces of the Israeli security by Jewish / Israeli / pro-Zionist journalists such as Esther Schapira [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esther_Schapira] who also produced a documentary about Muhammad al-Durrah and comparable pieces presented in main stream medias.

    • jon s
      August 6, 2013, 5:12 am

      Fritz, what do you mean by “so called suicide bombers”? Obviously, a person being interviewed didn’t “succeed” in carrying out a bombing, but the suicide/homicide terrorists are a reality.
      I saw the documentary on the al-Durrah incident, and thought that it raised significant points.

      • Fritz
        August 6, 2013, 6:12 am

        Schapira uses material In her documentaries to which only selected people were given access by the Israeli authorities. Especially, interviewing prisoners was only allowed to Schapira personally, who is without question a partisan supporter of the state of Israel. My question now is why the Israeli officials gave Jode rudoren/NYT the named, selected, and obvious fabricated audio of the confession of Mohammed and if it is common practice to provide such material to all news media. Do you know something about it? Provides the border police and the military courts in the occupied territories such audio tapes to every interested person? Did Mohammed agree in publishing it? Or is the article itself an expression of colonial supremacy?
        About the “so called suicide bombers”, it is clearly a fact that this people don’t name themselves “suicide bombers”.

      • jon s
        August 6, 2013, 7:24 am

        I don’t know anything about the confession you’re referring to, and didn’t see it.

        Sure they don’t name themselves “suicide bombers”. They probably think of themselves as “heroic martyrs”. For the rest of us , they should be suicide/homicide bombers and terrorists, not “so-called”.

      • Talkback
        August 6, 2013, 7:56 am

        jon s says: “For the rest of us , they should be suicide/homicide bombers and terrorists, not “so-called”.”

        Of course, we also call Israeli soldiers who use weapons which don’t differentiate between combatants and civilians like artillery, (cluster) bombs and rockets “terrorists”. And as we all know they hide behind Palestinian civilans and their nothern military bases between Israeli Arab residential areas.

      • Fritz
        August 6, 2013, 7:56 am

        The confession is presented with photos as a Video in the last part of the Rudoren / NYT Report with the subscription: “Excerpts from Muhammad Abu Hashem’s interrogation by the Israeli police along with photos of his arrest.”
        I have a different view on people who uses themselves as weapons. May be that You and “the rest of us” may agree that the Biblical Samson was also something like that. Judges 16:30 “And Samson said: ‘Let me die with the Philistines.’ And he bent with all his might; and the house fell upon the lords, and upon all the people that were therein. So the dead that he slew at his death were more than they that he slew in his life.”

      • Donald
        August 6, 2013, 8:06 am

        “For the rest of us , they should be suicide/homicide bombers and terrorists, not “so-called”.”

        I’m fine with this, so long as we employ the correct designation of “war criminal”, “racist thug”, “narcissistic land thieves” and so forth for various Israelis. The rhetorical ploy where we use harsh and accurate words for Palestinians who kill civilians while being oh so reticent in describing Israeli brutality is something that should not be tolerated.

        You might agree with this too, for all I know. Just saying.

      • jon s
        August 6, 2013, 9:43 am

        I never mentioned Palestinians or any specific nationality, I condemn all terrorism, from any source. I also don’t see much reticence in describing Israeli brutality, at least not here on Mondoweiss, where we are now being accused of debka-stealing …

      • amigo
        August 6, 2013, 12:02 pm

        “I also don’t see much reticence in describing Israeli brutality, at least not here on Mondoweiss ” jon s

        Care to link us to where you have “described Israeli brutality”.

        I scrolled down your past posts (circa 60).No sign of the term Israeli brutality or Israeli violence???.

      • Donald
        August 6, 2013, 12:03 pm

        “I also don’t see much reticence in describing Israeli brutality, at least not here on Mondoweiss”

        No, not at this website and I agree with you that Palestinian terrorism should be labeled as such. In American political culture in general there’s a great deal of reticence regarding Israeli brutality–more evidence that we can’t function as honest brokers.

      • Woody Tanaka
        August 6, 2013, 12:26 pm

        “I never mentioned Palestinians or any specific nationality, I condemn all terrorism, from any source.”

        Nonsense doubletalk because no doubt you don’t consider much of what your people do to the Palestinians in Palestine (on both sides of the green line) to be “terrorism” so it’s really convenient for you to make such an empty statement.

  14. Citizen
    August 6, 2013, 3:50 am

    Meet Jodi Rudoren, latest in a long line of Jewish-only NYT Jerusalem bureau chiefs: link to ifamericansknew.org

    (And, if you want a chuckle, check out Wikipedia’s entry on the NYT, the section there on content bias. The usual charade of “balance” pro and con quotes to infer the NYT gets slammed from both sides so it must be objective.) Ignoring where the power lies, ignoring the actual content pattern over many years–just like the usual narrative about the I-P conflict we Americans get from our mainstream media, as if all the power is not on one side.

    • James Canning
      August 6, 2013, 2:30 pm

      New York Times got its ears boxed from time to time, when it deviated from wishes of the Israel lobby.

  15. Citizen
    August 6, 2013, 4:23 am

    The NYT’s investigates a Palestinian hobby:
    link to 972mag.com
    Sharp, succinct, right to the key point about Ms Rudoren’s misleading article printed as “All the news fit to print (or click)”

    • Donald
      August 6, 2013, 8:22 am

      That 972 piece was very good. I’d add (as I did above) that Rudoren buried the lead–there’s one paragraph towards the end about how Palestinian children are treated in the Israeli justice system. Maybe that has something to do with the “culture of stone throwing”?

      Sheizaf in the piece makes a good point about the “anthropological” point of view that Rudoren takes in her article. Can anyone imagine the NYT doing a “rite of passage” piece about the petty and not-so-petty cruelty that Israeli soldiers indulge in against Palestinian civilians? Is that a rite of passage? You don’t have to be in the IDF to understand how that would work. You’d dehumanize the Palestinians and being cruel would be a game of sorts, a way of bonding with each other. Maybe that’s why so many Gazan farmers and fishermen have been shot. I’m eagerly awaiting a NYT investigation into these ritualistic activities.

    • Donald
      August 6, 2013, 8:28 am

      The comments underneath that 972 piece are pretty good. Our old pal Richard Witty wrote one–I was impressed by how politely yet thoroughly his comment was dismantled by various responders.

  16. MRW
    August 6, 2013, 5:37 am

    Look what we pay for. Imagine an army in downtown Manhattan outfitted, stoked, and full of venom, attacking the Hudson Valley. This is what these 18-19-year-olds are doing.

  17. Annie Robbins
    August 6, 2013, 8:35 am

    if anyone is interested in we covered the july 8th arrest of Ahmed Abu Hashem and his son Muhammad including the press release from The Palestine Solidarity Project (PSP) hours after the arrest. Children of Beit Ommar Popular Committee are targeted again link to mondoweiss.net

    one thing i found interesting was the nyt glaring omission here from the night of the arrest:

    Three people from Beit Ommar were arrested in the wee hours of the following Sunday. That night, Muhammad Abu Hashem slept, while his father and younger siblings sat a vigil on worn couches on their roof.

    it’s a little odd there is no mention Abu Hashem’s daughter-in-law Yasmin Abu Maria had just given birth to Abu Hashem’s grandchild. And soldiers burst into the room of a baby girl on the first night of her life, not even a day old.

    and as for the ‘confession’, why were the soldiers using tear gas on the funeral procession anyway?

    and what is this framing ” which the Palestinians say have taken up to one-third of the village’s original 13 square miles.”

    how much research would it take rudoren to verify the village land has been stolen/confiscated for the illegal settlements?? or isn’t that worth finding out for a report like this? from our july 8 coverage:

    Ahmed is the father of eight children, and is the only source of income for his family. Ahmed has a piece of land, about 3 dunams (3000 square meters), adjacent to Karmei Tsur settlement. The settlement is illegal according to international law under the 4th Geneva Convention. The Palestinian land near the settlement has been planted, uprooted and cut by settlers, and replanted again many times. It is a constant effort for Palestinians to keep their own land.

    and why were the military there, in Beit Ommar, during a funeral the day before? if it was a jewish funeral and palestinian forces started shooting tear gas do you think we’d even be discussing rock throwing?

  18. NickJOCW
    August 6, 2013, 9:43 am

    You cannot be expected abide by Queensberry rules if your opponent kicks you in the junk. We have seen recently a Florida man excused killing a youth because it passed through his head that he was under attack. And what about the old frontier claim, He drew first.

    The persecution the Palestinians endure can be seen as a consequence of Israel’s status as a US satellite, one among many whose highly questionable behavior the US tolerates and shields from peer pressure because their role in US global hegemonic aspirations outweighs all else. Aside from the immediate and daily horrors perpetrated by Israelis in the Holy Land, it is arguable that by turning a blind eye and obfuscating transparent truths the US has lost much moral integrity not only in the eyes of the rest of the world but at home in terms of crime, prison populations, decayed inner cities, drug addiction and the apparent immunity of the unprincipled robber barons of Wall Street. I really do feel that however assiduous US supporters of Palestinian rights may be they face a Sisyphean task and the main impetus for change will come from Europeans.

    Can Europeans defy the US? It maybe of interest that the threat of 136 years imprisonment for Manning has probably rendered it impossible for Russia to extradite Snowden to the US since the European Court of human rights has judged that a prison sentence for a period exceeding human life expectancy is contrary to the European Convention on Human Rights, and Russia is party to that Convention. link to lemonde.fr

  19. American
    August 6, 2013, 12:02 pm

    Washington Post sold to Amazon’s Jeff Bezos for $250 million

    link to politico.com

    “The values of The Post do not need changing,” he wrote. “The paper’s duty will remain to its readers and not to the private interests of its owners. We will continue to follow the truth wherever it leads, and we’ll work hard not to make mistakes. When we do, we will own up to them quickly and completely.”

    Washington Post to be sold to Jeff Bezos

    By Paul Farhi, Monday, August 5, 3:33 PM

    The Washington Post Co. has agreed to sell its flagship newspaper to Amazon.com founder and chief executive Jeffrey P. Bezos, ending the Graham family’s stewardship of one of America’s leading news organizations after four generations.

    Bezos, whose entrepreneurship has made him one of the world’s richest men, will pay $250 million in cash for The Post and affiliated publications to The Washington Post Co., which owns the newspaper and other businesses.

    Seattle-based Amazon will have no role in the purchase; Bezos himself will buy the news organization and become its sole owner when the sale is completed, probably within 60 days. The Post Co. will change to a new, still-undecided name and continue as a publicly traded company without The Post thereafter.

    The deal represents a sudden and stunning turn of events for The Post, Washington’s leading newspaper for decades and a powerful force in shaping the nation’s politics and policy. Few people were aware that a sale was in the works for the paper, whose reporters have broken such stories as the Watergate scandals and, in May, disclosures about the National Security Agency’s surveillance program.

    For much of the past decade, however, the paper has been unable to escape the financial turmoil that has engulfed newspapers and other “legacy” media organizations. The rise of the Internet and the epochal change from print to digital technology have created a massive wave of competition for traditional news companies, scattering readers and advertisers across a radically altered news and information landscape and triggering mergers, bankruptcies and consolidation among the owners of print and broadcasting properties.

    “Every member of my family started out with the same emotion — shock — in even thinking about” selling The Post, said Donald Graham, The Post Co.’s chief executive, in an interview Monday. “But when the idea of a transaction with Jeff Bezos came up, it altered my feelings.”

    Added Graham: “The Post could have survived under the company’s ownership and been profitable for the foreseeable future. But we wanted to do more than survive. I’m not saying this guarantees success, but it gives us a much greater chance of success.”

    The Washington Post Co.’s newspaper division, of which the Post newspaper is the most prominent part, has suffered a 44 percent decline in operating revenue over the past six years. Although the paper is one of the most popular news sources online, print circulation has dwindled, too, falling an additional 7 percent daily and Sundays during the first half of this year.

    Ultimately, the paper’s financial challenges prompted the company’s board to consider a sale, a step once regarded as unthinkable by insiders and the Graham family.

    With extraordinary secrecy, Graham hired the investment firm Allen & Co. to shop the paper, company executives said. Allen’s representatives spoke with a half-dozen potential suitors before The Post Co.’s board settled on Bezos, 49, a legendary tech innovator who has never operated a newspaper.

    Bezos, in an interview, called The Post “an important institution” and expressed optimism about its future. “I don’t want to imply that I have a worked-out plan,” he said. “This will be uncharted terrain, and it will require experimentation.”

    “There would be change with or without new ownership,” he said. “But the key thing I hope people will take away from this is that the values of The Post do not need changing. The duty of the paper is to the readers, not the owners.”

    Despite the end of the Graham family’s control of the newspaper after 80 years, Graham and Bezos said management and operations of the newspaper would continue without disruption after the sale.

    Post publisher Katharine Weymouth — Graham’s niece and the fourth generation of her family involved in the newspaper — will remain as publisher and chief executive of the Bezos-owned Post; executive editor Martin Baron will continue in his job. No layoffs are contemplated as a result of the transaction among the paper’s 2,000 employees, who were told of the sale at a company-wide meeting Monday afternoon.

    Bezos said he would maintain his home in Seattle and would delegate the paper’s daily operations to its existing management. “I have a fantastic day job that I love,” he said.

    In a note to Post employees on Monday, Weymouth wrote: “This is a day that my family and I never expected to come. The Washington Post Company is selling the newspaper that it has owned and nurtured for eight decades. ”

    The new owner of The Post may be as much a surprise as the decision to sell the paper in the first place.

    Throughout his storied business career, Bezos has been an empire builder but has not shown any evident interest in the newspaper business. He has, however, maintained a long friendship with Graham, and they have informally advised each other over the years. Graham, for example, advised Bezos about how to feature newspapers on the Kindle, Amazon’s popular e-reader.

    A computer-science and electrical-engineering student at Princeton University, Bezos used his tech savvy to rise rapidly at a New York hedge fund company, becoming its youngest senior vice president.”

Leave a Reply