Trending Topics:

Palestinians grapple with knife attacks as violence enters fifth month

Israel/Palestine
on 134 Comments

The killing of Israeli civilians and the young age of the Palestinian attackers, along with their almost inevitable deaths at the hands of police, are raising tough questions for Palestinians.

Speaking at an event in Ramallah last month on the current confrontations with Israel, activist Mariam Barghouti said of the attacks, “we may not agree with the tactics, but that doesn’t mean we should bring anyone down.” Barghouti shared the stage with former PLO official turned analyst Diana Buttu and the Palestinian Ambassador at large Husam Zomlot. The roundtable was billed to discuss whether an “Intifada”—or uprising—has began (they all agreed that yes it has), but the conversation careened to their personal feelings about knife attacks on Israelis.

It was an impassioned talk. The subject is touchy, which explains why this panel has been the only public event so far to showcase leading Palestinian thinkers sharing a frank discussion on the matter in front of members of the press.

What became clear from the discussion that is Palestinians are keenly aware that they are collectively demonized anytime a member of their national group assaults an Israeli and they have no interest in contributing to that discourse. At the same time they are seriously concerned about what is happening to children in their community where an undeniable trend has sprung. And it can’t be ignored that there are voices in the West Bank who do celebrate the deaths of Israelis, or justify the killing of American Taylor Force last week, although polls suggest this is a fringe position.

Fifty-four per cent of Palestinians in the West Bank said they are opposed to “the continuation of knife attacks against Israelis,” according to a poll published Sunday from the Jerusalem Media and Communication Centre.

The reasons for this are varied. Some Palestinians note international law allows in certain cases for the killing of soldiers in uniform in the context of a military occupation. Others look inward at their own society and ponder what leads minors, including children as young as 12, to stow a kitchen knife in their backpacks and head to an Israeli military post instead of going to school. In any case, what polls can’t show, is that Palestinians are struggling to grapple with the issue of attacks and the death of the attackers.

Each of the speakers at the roundtable hosted by the Rosa Luxemberg Foundation —Buttu, Barghouti and Zomlot—said, and repeated, they do not advocate violence. But they understand why it is happening. In broad strokes the answer is: the occupation. Their view is while violence is not their answer they want employed, the context of what brought a person to carry out an attack should be highlighted.

Zomlot surmised, “There has never been a country that will give up their privileges willingly just because we the Palestinians have been nice.”

All of the speakers found the phenomena of young attackers especially troubling.

“It highlights the shortcomings of our society,” Barghouti said of children attackers.

“I would feel like a failure as a father,” Zomlot said, if one of his children were to think of taking on a violent action. “Of course there is a Palestinian failure, indeed there is a Palestinian failure, but the provocation came from Israel.”

“I think they reason why so many people are really, really young is that they don’t see any prospect that there lives will change,” Buttu added in a follow-up conversation with Mondoweiss.

“My generation didn’t grow up under checkpoints. You didn’t see the army in your space. This generation they only see army and they know it isn’t normal. Their eyes are open to the world and they know this is not the way a human being should be living,” said Buttu who paused for a moment before adding, “and that–this crushes me, it crushes me.”

The word “desperation” was debated by panelist as a possible motivating factor. Are Palestinians grabbing knives because they have lost all hope for a better life though any other means?

“I reject the idea of desperation. Most of them if you look at the information are from middle income families and highly educated,” Zomlot said of the attackers, adding he believed they–at least the adults–saw themselves operating in “self-defense not desperation” against “unprecedented violence and brutality.”

Buttu agreed the general mood in Jerusalem in particular has toughened recently. She recounted three incidents over the past few months when Israelis on the street circled around her while she was speaking Arabic. Once she was told “to stop speaking the language of the terrorist.”

At least 10 per cent of the attacks on Israelis during the past five months were done by minors age 16 or less, according to Israel’s security agency Shin Bet. The youngest attacker, a 12-year-old girl from the West Bank whose name is being withheld, became the youngest Palestinian prisoner in history to be sentenced in an Israeli prison. During her hearing in Israel’s military court in February the judge noted she had only reached the age of criminal liability by a few months. In the trial the lawyers and the judge all debated jailing the 12-year-old in an abandoned hotel, rather than placing her in the adult women’s prison.

Overall, more than 70 per cent of attacks took place in the West Bank. The geography is important, because it means that there is an effort on the part of the attackers to confront who they perceive as settlers, and Israeli soldiers. Indeed while the attacks may feel random to the victims, most have occurred near the Damascus Gate in Jerusalem and in Hebron, two areas with long histories of conflict between Israeli settlers, military, and Palestinians.

Speaking of an incident last month where a Palestinian police officer attacked an Israeli soldier at the Beit El checkpoint outside of Ramallah, Buttu put it bluntly, “He’s a legitimate target, you might not like it, move on”—again, Buttu was not advocating for such actions against soldiers, but stating an argument about how there could be a legal difference articulated by the Palestinian leadership when making statements about these encounters. Yet they have not done so.

“They [Palestinian leadership] don’t say this is a man that had reached his endpoint, that he had lived his entire life under military occupation and he hit his endpoint, and he was done. And then he targeted a military instillation,” said Buttu.

“A lot of these people targeted in Israel have been uniformed, not to condone it, just to say that’s what’s going on,” noted Buttu, adding at the same time, “the [militant] factions don’t have a problem claiming this is someone who is under their command.”

About Allison Deger

Allison Deger is the Assistant Editor of Mondoweiss.net. Follow her on twitter at @allissoncd.

Other posts by .


Posted In:

134 Responses

  1. Stephen Shenfield
    March 16, 2016, 5:12 pm

    Are the targets always any Israeli who comes to hand? Or are at least some of them specific individuals attacked in revenge for crimes they committed against Palestinians, or perhaps residents of specific settlements in revenge for crimes committed by people from those settlements?

    Private, family or clan revenge is customary in some parts of the world such as the Caucasus. It can be justified where the criminal enjoys immunity, as in Israel and especially the occupied territories for crimes committed by Jews against Palestinians. Unlike random attacks, acts of revenge for specific crimes can give Palestinians the satisfaction of knowing that sometimes justice is done and hopefully deter some Jewish criminals.

    • Mooser
      March 16, 2016, 6:40 pm

      “Unlike random attacks, acts of revenge for specific crimes can give Palestinians the satisfaction of knowing that sometimes justice is done and hopefully deter some Jewish criminals.”

      Stephen, have you noticed that the Palestinians seem to have virtually no firearms?

      • El Cazador
        March 17, 2016, 7:53 pm

        Back in December 1948, the irgun and other zionist secret terrorist groups were armed, as they had brought with themselves the rifles the British had provided them during WWII to fight the Germans. The British had trained them as well… So when the zionists decided to go killing Palestinians and scare the rest of them to leave their homes, villages, cities, in December 1948, it was an easy job as there were very few firearms in Palestine, and no Palestinian army either since there was no need for them. Some Orthodox Jews described how peaceful and friendly relations between the Jews living in Palestine and the Palestinians were before the beginning of the arrival in Palestine of the European zionists, armed, in 1945. The description can be found in the documentary «Occupation 101».

        The link (English version with French subtitles) :
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8twvXHUNrXY

        Or in English only and in high definition, part 1 of 7, the other six are listed in the site right margin:
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_LGogkbjpRw&list=PLD6D247076445907C

        I also suggest the 2010-released 4-episode, 6-hour TV series «The Promise», directed by a British Jew, Peter Kosminsky, a BBC collaborator, who did historical and military research for 8 years to accumulate all the material and proof for his series, including interviewing British soldiers who were in Palestine in the 1940s as part of the British Palestine Mandate military.

        Episode 1 :
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kU2Ls9IDpM4

        Episode 2:
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z36uDSjC3DY

        Episode 3:
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J2sloszsOgw

        Episode 4:

      • talknic
        March 17, 2016, 8:05 pm

        @ El Cazador March 17, 2016, 7:53 pm

        “Back in December 1948, the irgun and other zionist secret terrorist groups were armed … … … So when the zionists decided to go killing Palestinians and scare the rest of them to leave their homes, villages, cities, in December 1948 … … … the beginning of the arrival in Palestine of the European zionists, armed, in 1945”

        Best check your dates. Accuracy is essential

      • Tom Suarez
        March 18, 2016, 6:25 pm

        Hello El Cazador,
        While I understand (and agree with) the intent of your posting, your history is a bit convoluted. Important to be accurate so you’re not shot down by the Dark Side on details.

  2. Abierno
    March 16, 2016, 6:31 pm

    Modeling is a strong component in behavioral performance. Review of the history of Israel since 2000 would suggest that Israelis are modeling – day in and day out, exactly the behaviors they wish to inhibit in the Palestine community.

    A look at the statistics: (courtesy of Alison Weir) 2,089 Palestinian children killed, 9,271 adults killed. 86,974 individuals seriously wounded (probably significantly more at this time). 28,000 home demolitions since 2000 (again probably more). More than 10,000 children (UNICEF) have been incarcerated in Israeli jails, and subject to interrogation procedures which rise to the level of abuse (UNICEF). More than 261 Jewish settlements (prohibited under international law) have been constructed all on appropriated on land owed by Palestinians, many of whom have Ottoman era documents of their legal title. Review of news reports over the period since 2000 indicates virtually daily – nighttime incursions into Palestinian homes, with gratuitous violence and destruction following these incursions.
    Then there have been three catastrophic massacres in Gaza during this period to say nothing of a tightly bound siege which puts Gazans on a near starvation diet, leaves them with little electricity and virtually no palatable or safe water.

    This is all children 10 to 14 have known – gratuitous, daily violence (by actuality or report); children of 15 – 18 were toddlers and preschoolers during this period. Given these horrific conditions, the paucity of adolescents taking a violent route to their demise is the surprise – these adolescents cannot expect to own land, to marry and raise families in safety, to have effective access to health care, to live safety in schools and home communities and to have the freedom of movement not only throughout Palestine but also through the world. They cannot even have a secure prediction of longevity given that Israel can kill civilians with impunity. That these brave children and adolescents still have hope and not despair, that they still have one of the highest rates of literacy in the Middle East, that they follow the religious tenets of their community is a testament to their personal strength and that of their families.

    No one – either Israeli or Palestinian condones violence but if Israel wishes to reduce the incidence of lone wolf attackers, they would do well rethink the manner of their treatment of Palestinians -, respect Palestinian life with all that implies, give these children the opportunity to live safely, with neither the fear nor the actuality of daily violence to themselves, their families, their friends and those who seek to live peacefully within
    this “much too promised” country.

    • Mooser
      March 16, 2016, 6:47 pm

      “No one – either Israeli or Palestinian condones violence”

      I’m sorry, as far as I know, Zionism is predicated on violence. Glorifies it, as a matter of fact.

    • Kris
      March 17, 2016, 12:32 pm

      Abierno, great comment, but saying “No one–either Israeli or Palestinian–condones violence…” is absurd.

      Maybe you meant to say that no Israelis condone Palestinian retaliatory violence against Israeli violence?

  3. jsinton
    March 16, 2016, 9:06 pm

    My faith dictates to me that violence can ever be condoned, no matter what. No loopholes, no exceptions. That being said, it is completely understandable the mentality of a Palestinian teenager who chooses to engage in a violent act against the perceived atrocities of the Zionists. So I am at a loss to come up with an opinion of judgement. I suppose in the end, it is God’s job to judge. And it’s our job to follow God’s rules.

    • Lillian Rosengarten
      March 17, 2016, 10:22 am

      I would agree JS as a general rule. However this young generation is the product of brutality and violence, of being caged with checkpoints, murder by settlers, grotesque missiles incineration of Gaza while killing and mutilating the children. This occupation is apartheid and the grossest human rights abuses.What would you do under these circumstances that has passed through 3 generations? The only way this will end is to end permanently the occupation. Zionist Israel needs help to do this for it will not happen from inside. That is only a beginning but a crucial step to stop the violence

  4. Rooster
    March 16, 2016, 10:48 pm

    I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again:

    I don’t like knife attacks.
    But apartheid, occupation, home demolitions, underfunding of infrastructure, detention of minors, land theft, water theft, planted evidence, antimiscegenation, criminalizing dissent, state encouragement of prisoner abuse, state encouragement of abuse period, deportation, travel restrictions, education restrictions, white phosphorous, hellfire missiles, hellfire missiles as a spectator sport, and soccer team rallies that advocate genocide, murder of child soccer players on the beach, fishing boat confiscations, torture, torture of minors, indefinite detention without charge, vandalism, and firebombing will do that.

    Spontaneous knife attacks are obviously counterproductive violent attacks. But the way to stop Palestinian violence is to stop all violence. And the greatest amount of violent attacks are not being conducted by disillusioned Palestinian teens, as listed above.

    • Mooser
      March 17, 2016, 5:08 pm

      “I don’t like knife attacks.”

      This is getting absurd. In a world awash, kinee-freakin’-deep in firearms, pistols, automatic weapons and explosives, it seems to me that an attack with a knife can only be a product of a terrible, terrible desperation.

      • MHughes976
        March 17, 2016, 7:07 pm

        That really is the truth. The family income and the level of education do not in the least discredit the idea of desperation. Maybe the level of education, helping people to see the absence of reasonable hope, makes desperation more likely.

    • El Cazador
      March 17, 2016, 8:05 pm

      Something to think about:

      “I would have joined a terrorist organization.”
      — Ehud Barak’s response to Gideon Levy, a columnist for the Ha’aretz newspaper, when Barak was asked what he would have done if he had been born a Palestinian.

      The link to many more:
      http://monabaker.com/quotes.htm

  5. niass2
    March 16, 2016, 10:51 pm

    The subject was touchy. The warsaw and other camps uprising were a desperate and vain but worthy attempt to deal the Nazis a blow. Just like in chicken run, you do what u need to do, when your a chicken in a chicken farm. I’d suggest we give them their freedom instead.

  6. Herchel
    March 16, 2016, 11:38 pm

    Palestinians grapple with knife attacks as violence enters fifth month
    —-
    It takes a special level of savagery to “grapple” with the question of whether it’s OK to stab innocent civilian women. It takes an even greater measure of stupidity to portray the decision as a very difficult one that burdens the decider.

    • Abierno
      March 17, 2016, 12:00 pm

      Does it not take a “special level of savagery” to force a child to drink gasoline so when he is set on fire he burns from the inside out? Does it not take a “special level of savagery” to burn a family while they sleep and when they stumble out of their flaming home, to watch them burn alive? Does it not take a “special level of savagery” to incinerate hundreds of women, children, the elderly and the disabled with hellfire missiles? Does it not take a “special level of savagery to prognosticate that in the next Lebanon war that a large population of families will be annihilated? Were these decisions “difficult” for the perpetrators?

      • Annie Robbins
        March 17, 2016, 12:30 pm

        Does it not take a “special level of savagery” to incinerate hundreds of women, children, the elderly and the disabled with hellfire missiles?

        perhaps he thinks modern weaponry is less savage — or cleaner or something. “precision” bombing etc. and maybe he also assumes hitlers genocide was less savage because of the modernity of the gas chambers.

        and this: It takes an even greater measure of stupidity to portray the decision as a very difficult one that burdens the decider.

        reminds me of We cannot forgive them for forcing us to kill their children.

        they were forced to kill palestinian children — and still are. it must be quite a struggle for them.

    • Kris
      March 17, 2016, 12:36 pm

      Herchel, I think we can all agree that Jewish Israelis have made a science out of perfecting and refining a “special level of savagery,” and an art of whining about the blowback that they trigger.

    • Mooser
      March 17, 2016, 5:28 pm

      “It takes a special level of savagery to “grapple” with the question of whether it’s OK to stab innocent civilian women.”

      In the US, we think it takes a special level of savagery, which we call “tyranny” to deny people the right to bear arms in well-regulated militia.

    • El Cazador
      March 17, 2016, 8:14 pm

      About the Palestinian children being targeted, these photos showing a kid in the crosshair of a rifle telescope, and even «better», and certainly sick, the womb of a pregnant Palestinian woman being the target, with a comment «1 SHOT 2 KILLS». SICK AND BRAINWASHED…, AND the sniper claiming he «killed 13 Palestinians kids today»

      https://socioecohistory.wordpress.com/2014/08/01/israeli-sniper-i-killed-13-palestinian-kids-today/

  7. John Odam
    March 17, 2016, 12:32 am

    Palestinians need to ask themselves: what exactly do we want? What do we want Israel to do? A. Let us be equal citizens one state? Or B. Give us back our stolen land and leave us alone in our own state? These are completely different goals and require completely different tactics. The stabbing incidents are symptom of a nihilism arising from despair, and a lack of clarity about what is the end-game. As a tactic, they are unlikely to achieve any positive goal.

    • Annie Robbins
      March 17, 2016, 12:57 am

      As a tactic, they are unlikely to achieve any positive goal.

      no other tactic appears to be working either. and what difference would it make if palestinians chose either A. be equal citizens one state or B. leave us alone in our own state? because we all know israel – come hell or highwater – won’t allow either. seriously, what difference would it make?

      • rugal_b
        March 17, 2016, 5:15 am

        You overestimate the resilience of bullies. The only reason Israel won’t give in the Palestinian demands now is due having the support of the USA. This set of arrangements won’t last forever, and I can already see the tide changing in favor of the Palestinians. The Zionists are not stupid, they know the collapse of their little project is a certainty and are devising all sort of exit strategies as we speak. As such I doubt they would be putting up any sort of fight once Israel nears its breaking point.

      • bintbiba
        March 17, 2016, 8:26 am

        Touché , dear annie , touché !!

      • Lillian Rosengarten
        March 17, 2016, 10:32 am

        Dear Annie, you are right, Israel will not stop for it still fantasizes a Jewish only state. This can never happen and is a grand illusion completely destroyed. It is up to the EU , the US , UN and Churches to broker the end of this ghastly zionist orchestrated hell which must begin with ending the occupation and violence against the Palestinian population. Zionism must be expunged and transformed into a truly equal and democratic society. If this does not happen, the consequences will be deadly.

      • rugal_b
        March 17, 2016, 10:51 am

        “It is up to the EU , the US , UN and Churches to broker the end of this ghastly zionist orchestrated hell ” – Rosegarten

        What makes you think these political entities are fit for the stated goals?

      • Annie Robbins
        March 17, 2016, 12:54 pm

        You overestimate the resilience of bullies…..I doubt they would be putting up any sort of fight once Israel nears its breaking point.

        how reassuring/not. and i noticed you didn’t address any of my points rugal. what are you suggesting here anyway? zionists “know” their “project” is collapsing and are making “exit strategies as we speak”?

        and what sort of brilliance are you imparting here:

        The only reason Israel won’t give in the Palestinian demands now is due having the support of the USA.

        we all already know this. please provide a source zionists are planning their exit from the region, or is that merely your theory/hunch. either way please explain and elaborate a time frame. 5 years, 10, 50 or 100. curious minds want to know.

      • John O
        March 17, 2016, 12:58 pm

        @rugal_b

        ‘“It is up to the EU , the US , UN and Churches to broker the end of this ghastly zionist orchestrated hell ” – Rosegarten

        What makes you think these political entities are fit for the stated goals?’

        What makes you think they are unfit?

      • rugal_b
        March 17, 2016, 1:24 pm

        we all already know this. please provide a source zionists are planning their exit from the region, or is that merely your theory/hunch. either way please explain and elaborate a time frame. 5 years, 10, 50 or 100. curious minds want to know. -Annie

        You know, I am also curious to why do you only demand all kind of sources and references to facts and opinions that you disagree with, in such a biased manner. Why not be fair and demand the same from all commenters both sides of the spectrum?

        Also, if I am not mistaken, you once tried to claim that Jews were responsible for the chattel slavery practiced by the whites in America, how about providing some references for that outrageous claim first?

        Anyways, I said the Zionist are scheming on an exit strategy, with respect to the occupation of Palestinian territories, not planning to literally exit from the region. Agreeing to a one-state solution with equal rights for all citizens is an “exit strategy”, as is nuking Palestine to oblivion along with themselves. Whichever plan they decide to carry out, it will not enable them to continue the occupation past the next decade.

      • Annie Robbins
        March 17, 2016, 1:53 pm

        Why not be fair and demand the same from all commenters

        all commenters don’t preface their opinions/views w/critiques such as You overestimate nor make such weird allegations to back up their critiques as you have here.

        so as i gather it, what i said (“we all know israel – come hell or highwater – won’t allow either”), in your opinion was an “overestimation” (of “the resilience of bullies” — assuming you meant the bullies were the colonizers/zionists). and you backed this up w/the information that you doubted “they would be putting up any sort of fight once Israel nears its breaking point.”

        so now you say:

        Agreeing to a one-state solution with equal rights for all citizens is an “exit strategy”, as is nuking Palestine to oblivion along with themselves. Whichever plan they decide to carry out, it will not enable them to continue the occupation past the next decade.

        so i guess what you mean is that “nuking Palestine to oblivion along with themselves” is not “putting up any sort of fight”

        i’m merely trying to get some clarity as to what you mean. when other posters make as confusing statements as you do, i generally do ask them for sources too — when i read their comments (albeit i don’t read everything that passes through here). and now that i know “Agreeing to a one-state solution with equal rights for all citizens” is one of the “exit strategies” you were referencing — i’m still quite curious where you got the information they are “devising” this particular exit strategy “as we speak”. but since you’ve chosen not to provide any source whatsoever, i’ll just assume this is another of your far flung hunches theories used to determine my so called ‘overestimation’.

      • rugal_b
        March 17, 2016, 2:46 pm

        “What makes you think they are unfit?” – John 0

        Firstly, the ruling class that are responsible for the foreign and domestic policies of these establishments have consistently behaved in a sociopathic manner when dealing both friends and foes. They are product of the same institutions that produced systems of oppression that hurt and are hurting billions of people today, from colonialism, imperialism, racism, homophobia, etc. They cannot be trusted to help solve a conflict that they themselves gleefully created for entirely self serving purposes.

        In addition, I don’t see the US, UK, Australia etc as a totally separate entity from Israel. I see them as surface outcrops in separate locations that are sustained by the vast interconnected network of subsurface root system. They are highly dependant on each other and collectively form a massive organism with shared goals and interests, while appearing independent superficially. Therefore it is illogical to expect any of these entities to turn against each other without any extreme motivating factor.

        Please be informed that the US is technically both a settler-colonial government as well as a colonialist one. It like Israel is maintaining sovereignty on land acquired through theft and violence, and near genocide of the indigenous native populace. At the same time, it effectively is colonizing African-Americans who are forced to yield to the laws of the state and pledge allegiance to the flag, even though their presence in the country is not a result of voluntary migration but violent population transfer for the purpose of slavery. There have been no official dialogue or debate within the government for any form of reparations for these ongoing acts of injustice. The government is therefore, unfit to help the Palestinians against Israeli oppression, considering they themselves are oppressors of equal or arguably greater calibre to the Zionists.

        TL:DR – They (gov of US, Israel, Canada, Aus etc) are all equally heinous and will need to be brought down with equal haste and urgency.

      • Sibiriak
        March 17, 2016, 3:27 pm

        rugal_b: . The Zionists are not stupid […] and are devising all sort of exit strategies as we speak.
        *****
        Agreeing to a one-state solution with equal rights for all citizens is an “exit strategy”, as is nuking Palestine to oblivion along with themselves.

        ——————————

        Somehow I don’t think a 1S1P1V annihilation of Zionism or a suicidal nuclear holocaust are the kind of things the Zionists are busy devising at the moment.

      • Mooser
        March 17, 2016, 6:03 pm

        ” They (gov of US, Israel, Canada, Aus etc) are all equally heinous and will need to be brought down with equal haste and urgency. “

        And to concentrate on Israel first just wouldn’t be fair, would it? Oh, BTW, you didn’t mention the EU or Russia or China. Anybody over there equally heinous and needing a bring-down?

        I think we should go after Israel first, because it is, as you note, seething with social awakening and very weak. Attack where the enemy is weakest, isn’t that what the song “Sunrise, Sun-Tzu” says?

      • rugal_b
        March 18, 2016, 1:57 pm

        Somehow I don’t think a 1S1P1V annihilation of Zionism or a suicidal nuclear holocaust are the kind of things the Zionists are busy devising at the moment – Sibiriak

        Obviously not, but these two are the only two form of endgame that the Zionist will have to ultimately choose between, considering the rapidly change global geopolitics and the domestic politics of USA. What other options would be there realistically, if you are Israel, judging from the course of the game up till now?

      • Sibiriak
        March 19, 2016, 11:39 am

        rugal_b … if I am not mistaken,

        You ARE mistaken.

        [Annie Robbins] once tried to claim that Jews were responsible for the chattel slavery practiced by the whites in America [emphasis added]

        No she didn’t.

        how about providing some references for that outrageous claim first?

        How about providing an actual quote from the archives, rather than relying on your faulty memory, or, which is more likely, exercising your special talent for malicious distortion?

        In a recent exchange with you, Annie wrote:

        [the Washington Post writer] said nothing of the culture of slavery in america as it pertains to jews. perhaps he wasn’t aware of the negative contributions jews made to that culture. [emphasis added]

        http://mondoweiss.net/2015/12/reveals-special-relationship/#comment-819467

        You grossly distorted her statement: Acknowledging that some Jews made some contributions to slavery is a far cry from claiming that Jews were categorically responsible for slavery.

        And if had you spent five minutes checking the archives, you would have discovered that Annie had already explicitly rejected the very idea of Jewish responsibility for slavery which you tried to pin on her.

        One poster, MRW, had written that some Jews in Amsterdam had been involved in the slave trade; another poster, Tal, wrote that MRW had insinuated that “ the Jews are responsible for slavery in the US. ”[ emphasis added].

        Annie then wrote:

        i do not know enough about the history of slavery in this country to know how much truth there is in this statement but suffice to say i think we can all agreed it is highly doubtful he [MRW] was referencing all the jews from amsterdam. jews were involved in the slave trade tho but obviously it requires a public to support any trade. there’s no way one could blame slavery solely on ‘jews’ whether they were involved in the trade or not, that’s obvious

        […]we fought a war over slavery,what happened in the south wasn’t the fault of ‘jews’ it was the fault of an immoral public. [emphasis added]

        http://mondoweiss.net/2011/04/from-arrigoni-to-bernadotte-to-kennedy-to-911-how-much-global-suffering-has-this-conflict-produced/#comment-310166

        That just shows how far off base you were, whether it was from incompetence or malice.

      • rugal_b
        March 19, 2016, 1:26 pm

        @Sibiriak, thanks for providing the links and quotes in reference.

        Annie said the Jews made negative contributions to the practice of slavery in America, which very well can be interpreted as saying they hold (a level of) responsibility towards the despicable, inhumane practice. If you negatively contribute to the murder of a person, are you not responsible for his death to a certain degree based upon your contributions?

        Now, I do not dispute or agree with the claim hence I requested the source which she used to make that rather, serious claim which contradicts conventional thoughts on American chattel slavery.

        Also, I question her motives in making that statement in the first place. The subject of the conversation in which the claim was made was basically on the creation of white identity, little to do with Jews. The chattel slavery practiced by the whites in America was the worst practice carried out by any group of humans in the history of our existence. Nothing comes close to the level of trauma and hurt it caused which still affect the black community up till this day. As such, to try to associate such a historic, timeless act of injustice and cruelty on the Jews without robust references to back up the claim, in a conversation that is not centered on neither slavery nor Jews, is highly antisemitic IMO.

      • Mooser
        March 19, 2016, 7:27 pm

        “is highly antisemitic IMO.”

        “Highly antisemitic”? Try and get over it. You could try another website.
        Besides, did you see the statement from the Palestinian-led Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions people. Sorta contradicts everything you say about the nature of the movement to liberate Palestine.

        And everything, everything you say adds up to “leave Israel alooooone!”

      • gamal
        March 19, 2016, 7:52 pm

        ” “Highly antisemitic”? Try and get over it” but Mooser ( are you molting?)

        My Dershometer is reading 3megaIndyks of Antisemitism with an amperage of 7 Spencers per Geller. You may be contaminated!

        are you correctly callibrated?

      • Mooser
        March 19, 2016, 9:18 pm

        “are you correctly callibrated?”

        Of course! All my equipment is adjusted for the standard historic homeland current of 60 Herzls per second.

      • Sibiriak
        March 19, 2016, 11:01 pm

        rugal_b: Annie said the Jews made negative contributions to the practice of slavery in America [emphasis added]
        ———————-

        No she didn’t. She didn’t write “the Jews”. She referred only to “Jews”, i.e. the actions of some limited number of Jewish individuals .

        But you grossly distort her words by putting “the” in front of “Jews”, creating a collective actor upon which collective blame can be placed.

        That’s STEP ONE in creating a STRAW MAN.

        —————————

        STEP 2: Having created a collective actor, “the Jews,” where Annie had not, you now employ the pronoun “they” to refer back that collective actor and deceptively insert it into an otherwise logical assertion:

        …which very well can be interpreted as saying they hold (a level of) responsibility towards the despicable, inhumane practice. [emphasis added]

        ———————-
        STEP 3: You use another pronoun, “you,” that refers back to the same collective actor, “the Jews,” and deceptively insert it into an otherwise logical analogy:

        If you negatively contribute to the murder of a person, are you not responsible for his death to a certain degree based upon your contributions? [emphasis added]

        Of course, individual Jews and all other individuals who contributed to the practice of slavery are responsible for their contributions. But you twist that into a claim that “the Jews” as a whole have some collective responsibility.

        ————————

        STEP 4: You neatly sum up the STRAW MAN and you label it “highly antisemitic.”:

        … to try to associate such a historic, timeless act of injustice and cruelty on [sic] the Jews without robust references to back up the claim, in a conversation that is not centered on neither slavery nor Jews, is highly antisemitic IMO. [emphasis added]

        That’s some pretty sophisticated sophistry– not.

      • rugal_b
        March 19, 2016, 11:45 pm

        @Sibiriak, I concede that it was an error on my part to say “the” Jews rather just Jews, which was what Annie wrote.

        So, Annie actually said Jews contributed to chattel slavery, which is still no less of a problematic statement. What are the contributions and what’s the definition of “Jews” here? Did their involvement in any way had anything to do with them being Jewish?

        Also, why bring up the issue of purported Jewish contributions to slavery in the first place?

  8. Mayhem
    March 17, 2016, 9:02 am

    Never once the word ‘incitement’ mentioned. A totally deluded and disingenuous analysis. Extraordinary that forty-six percent of Palestinians are in support of knife attacks against Israelis.
    In the Washington Post read Terror by any other name = There is no justification for Palestinian attacks on Israelis
    “Terrorism begins with incitement and a constant brainwashing of people into a doctrine of hatred and murder, calculated to see their ‘enemy’ not as individuals or people, but as a dehumanized, false entity that must be eliminated. Every day we see examples of this on Palestinian television, where children’s shows talk of killing Jews, and sermons by religious authorities tell their faithful to raise up their knives. Yet these are not shows run by individuals with an illegal transmitter. These are shows that are commissioned and run on official Palestinian government channels. It is a carefully orchestrated campaign to launch an intifada against Israel by the highest authority.”
    Is nobody prepared to take responsibility for this? Everyone making excuses and justifying the unjustifiable.

    • Sibiriak
      March 17, 2016, 10:03 am

      Terrorism begins with incitement and a constant brainwashing of people into a doctrine of hatred and murder, calculated to see their ‘enemy’ not as individuals or people, but as a dehumanized, false entity that must be eliminated.

      —————————

      That would certainly seem to describe Israeli terrorism.

    • eljay
      March 17, 2016, 10:03 am

      || Mayhem: … “Terrorism begins with incitement and a constant brainwashing of people into a doctrine of hatred and murder, calculated to see their ‘enemy’ not as individuals or people, but as a dehumanized, false entity that must be eliminated. … ||

      That is a chillingly accurate description of Zio-supremacism.

      || … Is nobody prepared to take responsibility for this? Everyone making excuses and justifying the unjustifiable. ||

      You and your co-collectivists refuse to take responsibility for your past and on-going (war) crimes. All you do – day in and day out – is make excuses, try to justify the unjustifiable and commit more (war) crimes.

    • talknic
      March 17, 2016, 10:53 am

      @ Mayhem

      There’s actually no justification for Israel having taken one inch of territory other what it acquired gratis per UNGA res 181 and by which it was recognized.

      There is absolutely no justification for Israel having occupied one square inch of what remained of Palestine

      There is absolutely no justification for Israel to be in breach of the UN Charter or International Law or the Geneva Conventions

      There is absolutely no justification for Israel preventing Palestinian civilians from fleeing a war zone before bombing them to smitherines, leaving thousands homeless. In fact a war crime, against the Laws of War

      There is absolutely no justification for Israel having bombed unprotected Palestinian villages towns cities against the Laws of war, another war crime

      There is absolutely no justification for the illegal Israeli settlements in the Occupied Territories, another war crime

      There is absolutely no justification for Israel exploiting non-Israeli resources in the Occupied Territories, another war crime

      There is absolutely no justification for Israel having occupied generations of Palestinians for their ENTIRE lives

      There is absolutely no justification in demanding other folks territory for Israel’s security

      After having suffered the above, there is plenty of justification for Palestinian attacks on Israeli military in non-Israeli territory. The majority have been on military in non-Israeli territory

      And after having suffered the above at the hands of a brutal, rogue state such as Israel, go figure. There’s bound to be a few folk who’ll crack.

      However, it’s been so few it’s rather remarkable how peaceful and patient and forgiving the majority of Palestinians can be in the face of what they have suffered.

      ” Terrorism begins with incitement and a constant brainwashing of people into a doctrine of hatred and murder, calculated to see their ‘enemy’ not as individuals or people, but as a dehumanized, false entity that must be eliminated”

      Describes the Zionist Movement’s state to a ‘T’

      ” Every day we see examples of this on Palestinian television, where children’s shows talk of killing Jews, and sermons by religious authorities tell their faithful to raise up their knives”

      No we don’t you lying sack of Hasbarapoop. There have been a small number of thoroughly disproven Memri ‘translations’

      Every day we see Israel kill Palestinians. Everyday we see the Occupation continue. Every day we see Palestinians dispossessed, their homes bulldozed, their farms ruined. Every day we see the illegal Israeli settlements expand and every day we see Israeli propaganda spewed by the MSM and teams of paid Israeli proagandists

      You like all Israeli propagandists are making excuses and justifying the unjustifiable. Clearly supporting a criminal state. Clearly in complete contradiction to the basic tenets of Judaism … for the Jewish State? So pathetic, so sad and so @#%^& sick and twisted

    • Kris
      March 17, 2016, 12:41 pm

      Seriously, Mayhem? No justification for Palestinian attacks on Israelis?

      Do you mean that the Palestinians should not retaliate for the crimes of Israeli Jews against them, because Palestinians are less than human and have no right to fight back?

      Or do you mean that Israeli Jews are somehow so special that they must never suffer the consequences of their own actions?

      • eljay
        March 17, 2016, 12:52 pm

        || Kris: Seriously, Mayhem? … ||

        Mayhem’s very serious hypocrisy – the hypocrisy of all Zio-supremacists – says that Jews are entitled to do unto others acts of injustice and immorality they would not have others do unto them.

        So while Jewish Zio-supremacists are entitled to commit decades worth of (war) crimes to advance Jewish supremacism in/and a religion-supremacist “Jewish State” in as much as possible of Palestine (they praise this as “self-determination”), non-Jews have no right to respond with any form of violence to slow or stop the onslaught (they condemn this as anti-Semitism and “Jew-hatred”).

      • Mooser
        March 17, 2016, 5:39 pm

        “Or do you mean that Israeli Jews are somehow so special that they must never suffer the consequences of their own actions?”

        Let us now get past this unforgiving minute by singing that old hymn “The Holocaust Paid For It All”.
        Me, I better take that sixty second’s worth of distance run, if I expect to escape unscathed.

    • diasp0ra
      March 17, 2016, 3:44 pm

      @Mayhem

      Nobody needs incitement to hate the people making their lives hell. Understand this. It’s so simple.

      Nobody needs to be brainwashed to hate the troops crushing your life. Get real.

      • MHughes976
        March 17, 2016, 7:16 pm

        Your brain would need to be washed, rinsed, hung out to dry and ironed on the highest temperature if you were not to despise people who subject you to day in day out humiliation snd injustice. Is this really hard to understand?

      • diasp0ra
        March 18, 2016, 11:23 am

        @MHughes976

        It’s alright. Incitement is the new buzzword Hasbara central issued. Remember when it was delegitimization? We hear that so much less today than incitement.

        I wish they realize how transparent their whole enterprise is when defenders of Israel all at once change arguments together and start using specific words together.

  9. Marnie
    March 17, 2016, 10:31 am

    “The youngest attacker, a 12-year-old girl from the West Bank whose name is being withheld, became the youngest Palestinian prisoner in history to be sentenced in an Israeli prison. During her hearing in Israel’s military court in February the judge noted she had only reached the age of criminal liability by a few months. In the trial the lawyers and the judge all debated jailing the 12-year-old in an abandoned hotel, rather than placing her in the adult women’s prison.”

    Jailing the child in an abandoned hotel? Who comes up with this stuff? Can you imagine the uproar if this 12-year-old girl was a Jew? I don’t condone these attacks, period. These are mostly kids for God’s sake. Damn Abbas and double damn israelis. These kids have only known soldiers in their faces and in their parent’s faces their entire lives. I imagine most of these kids had given up and knew (I know I’ve said it before) that the israelis would happily and unhesitatingly end their suffering. Never seeing them as children. They aren’t allowed even that. They are ‘terrorists’. And the israelis are ‘saints’, ‘good people who never deserved to die’. And the Palestinians – what? Were they born for this ritual slaughter?

    • eljay
      March 17, 2016, 12:36 pm

      || Marnie: … Jailing the child in an abandoned hotel? Who comes up with this stuff? … ||

      You’re missing the glorious point: Israel jails children not in abandoned trailer parks or apartments blocks, but in abandoned hotels!!!

      Sure, it’s not normal procedure in the best “Western-style democracies” in the world – countries whose standards you would expect a “moral beacon” and “light unto the nations” state to strive to emulate and uphold – but, hey, it’s probably better than what goes on in Saudi Arabia, Mali and African “hell-holes”.

      • Marnie
        March 17, 2016, 2:47 pm

        I’m sure it is a bit better than the aforementioned ‘hell-holes’. Why there might even be room service and cable!

    • a blah chick
      March 18, 2016, 11:06 am

      I knew when they increased all this rock-throwing prosecution they would run out of prison space. Guess they expect us to pay for that too.

  10. James Michie
    March 17, 2016, 10:58 am

    I must ask, Phil Weiss and Adam Hororwitz, is Allison Deger a “moonlighting stringer” from the New York Times? An all too obvious attempt to levy guilt on the Palestinians for “attacking” Israelis–and without any context whatsoever. No mention of the many extrajudicial executions since last October by Israeli forces of alleged Palestinian “attackers”. Not a word about cases where knives were planted on Palestinian victims lying dead in the street. Nothing said about Israeli forces allowing Palestinian victims to bleed to death and not allowing Palestinian medics to tend to the victims. Worst of all of these blatant omissions of context is Zionist Israel’s six decades (and counting) of brutal, racist, genocidal, ethnic cleansing, fascist military occupation and rule over defenseless Palestine and its people. And is it possible for anyone, yes, anyone to wonder why there is anger among young Palestinians? Incredible, absolutely incredible that Mondoweiss would post such a piece attempting to levy guilt on the Palestinians–of all people!

    • Rusty Pipes
      March 17, 2016, 6:29 pm

      Exactly. We should always talk about these incidents as “alleged knife attacks.” Unless we have video of Palestinians attacking Israelis, for the most part, we are relying on allegations by Israeli soldiers or settlers.

      Apparently, some of the allegations about knife attacks do have a basis in fact. Many of the other allegations have witnesses or tape which dispute the claim or are so wild that they defy belief (like the settler who swerved off the road to run over a Palestinian girl at a bus stop because he claimed that he saw her holding a knife — even if she were a circus-performer, the greatest threat she could have posed to a passing car would have been giving him a flat tire).

      Perhaps we could talk more about why Israel has been trying to provoke a violent intifada for years and the most response they have been able to achieve has been a small number of stabbings. Israel’s hasbara machine has been able to capitalize on the fear of these stabbings (and motivate some Palestinians to emulate them), which has succeeded in taking Palestinian nonviolent resistance and sumud entirely out of MSM reporting.

      • Annie Robbins
        March 18, 2016, 12:03 am

        yes of course. israel made the first move instigating this, killing so many kids and making blatantly false claims.

  11. Jon66
    March 17, 2016, 12:31 pm

    As a society we have agreed that some tactics are unacceptable no matter the goal or the underlying reason. Biological warfare being an example.

    The question this panel is asking is whether or not the stabbing of civilians by children is an unacceptable tactic?

    We discuss the use of water boarding and except for Trump, most view it as unacceptable regardless of the perceived underlying rationale.

    • Annie Robbins
      March 17, 2016, 1:25 pm

      As a society we have agreed that some tactics are unacceptable no matter the goal …. The question this panel is asking is whether or not the stabbing of civilians by children is an unacceptable tactic

      i didn’t get that impression, at least not according to allison’s report. she mentions they are seriously concerned about what is happening to children in their community where an undeniable trend has sprung.

      i didn’t get the impression they were grappling about whether the tactic itself (stabbings) was acceptable or unacceptable. maybe you can use a quote to demonstrate what you mean.

      everyone on this panel does “not advocate violence”:

      But they understand why it is happening. In broad strokes the answer is: the occupation. Their view is while violence is not their answer they want employed, the context of what brought a person to carry out an attack should be highlighted.

      it seems to me this is more of what they are discussing — nothing to do with “As a society we have agreed that some tactics are unacceptable”.

      if this were in fact the point of the panel, it likely would have included some discussion of whether violent resistance was a viable means of resistance.

      • Jon66
        March 17, 2016, 3:11 pm

        Annie,

        The article starts with the quote,”Mariam Barghouti said of the attacks, “we may not agree with the tactics, but that doesn’t mean we should bring anyone down.” – See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2016/03/palestinians-grapple-with-knife-attacks-as-violence-enters-fifth-month/#comment-163466

      • Annie Robbins
        March 17, 2016, 3:47 pm

        thanks for the clarification jon. however, it still doesn’t sound like “The question this panel is asking is whether or not the stabbing of civilians by children is an unacceptable tactic”

        The roundtable was billed to discuss whether an “Intifada”—or uprising—has began (they all agreed that yes it has), but the conversation careened to their personal feelings about knife attacks on Israelis.

        anyway, perhaps during the panel they were questioning (rather than discussing) their personal feelings about knife attacks on Israelis. but i think (and i could be wrong) most palestinians recognize the right of violent resistance whether they agree with it or not. morally, i don’t think random knife attacks are any different than using a gun in a random shooting. so wrt “stabbing of civilians” as a “tactic” — the way you originally presented it “As a society we have agreed that some tactics are unacceptable” — i’m still not sure from what allison has written, whether it was questioned as “unacceptable”. i have read (the poll) the majority of palestinians don’t like them — understandably. [edit.. the majority supports them so my last sentence was possibly incorrect]

        but there’s a big difference between not liking something (or not supporting) vs finding it unacceptable. one is a judgement, the other not. it’s not that different than being pro non violent resistance — it doesn’t necessarily mean a person doesn’t recognize the right to resist w/violence (ie: unacceptable).

      • Jon66
        March 17, 2016, 4:56 pm

        Annie,
        I didn’t mean to imply it was the only question before the panel. The panelists seem to be agonizing over the right to resist, but the effects this is having on children. They neither want to condemn or condone children stabbing civilians. All of them were troubled by the involvement of the kids.

      • Annie Robbins
        March 17, 2016, 6:44 pm

        yeah, understandably it’s very troubling. it signifies the kids have either given up hope or never had it. which seems somewhat natural after a few generations. like being born in a prison — if that’s all you know then it’s natural to assume that is the inevitability of their life. and in a way, it’s smarter to realize your oppressors have no intention of ever letting up, as opposed to being fed this idea of hope where none exists. i think the gaza slaughters have an effect too which is why gazans are more likely to support the attacks. but all parents worry about their children, so this must be very worrying as a society.

        also, the randomness of the violence against them. it’s a human laboratory there, so it says a lot about human nature. both of the oppressors (over time) and the victims of oppression.

        and to know what rights are and how they can’t have them, i can understand making this choice as a youth. it makes logical sense, which only adds to the tragedy.

      • Jon66
        March 17, 2016, 8:49 pm

        Annie,

        At least with respect to the adults, ““I reject the idea of desperation. Most of them if you look at the information are from middle income families and highly educated,” Zomlot said of the attackers, adding he believed they–at least the adults–saw themselves operating in “self-defense not desperation” against “unprecedented violence and brutality.” – See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2016/03/palestinians-grapple-with-knife-attacks-as-violence-enters-fifth-month/#comment-163466

        I don’t know if this applies to the kids as well.

      • Annie Robbins
        March 17, 2016, 11:54 pm

        i didn’t reference desperation. i also didn’t see an indication of “agonizing over the right to resist”. all palestinians know they have right to resist i would imagine. why would it occur to me they do not.

        i think, at some point one must, especially wrt to the youth, consider the impulse towards bravery. i think bravery and courage — as they perceive it — plays a strong factor for those who make these choices. but again, i think many of these kids have just been slaughtered outright. it serves the state to kill these kids and make after the fact allegations.

        some have made conscious decisions and for all we know, maybe in the long run it will lead to a tipping point. global attention? i really don’t know. but i don’t judge their sacrifice. it’s not a decision a child should feel compelled to make, but some are.

        http://www.middleeastrising.com/from-stones-to-knives-settler-crimes-unpunished/

        BREAKING REPORT: ISRAELI MINISTRY FALSIFIED EVIDENCE TO WHITEWASH SETTLER CRIMES AND FRAME CHILD AHMAD MANASRAH ON FALSE CHARGES

      • Kay24
        March 18, 2016, 1:02 am

        Annie, if that report is accurate, it is what we have always suspected, and it is despicable. It seems strange that kids walking to school, would suddenly pull a knife to dare attack adults.
        These zionists are basically dishonest, their leader lies blatantly, they doctor tapes (Gaza flotilla incident) and calling them disingenuous is putting it mildly. There should be outrage about this, and the media, especially the US media, should be covering this highlighting how the occupier keeps deceiving the world, and American leaders pretend their word is gospel.
        Unfortunately we know who controls the media.
        This will never make it to the American people.

        These zionists are masters of deception and changing facts into fiction.

      • Jon66
        March 18, 2016, 8:16 am

        Annie,
        “the kids have either given up hope or never had it”
        “i didn’t reference desperation”

        Full Definition of desperation
        1
        : loss of hope and surrender to despair
        2
        : a state of hopelessness leading to rashness

      • Mooser
        March 18, 2016, 11:51 am

        “Full Definition of desperation…”

        WTH is your point “Jon s66”? Are you telling us, that based on your experience of occupation and illegal settler colonialism that Palestinian people, of any age, have no right to be desperate?

        Yes, “Jon 66s” you are right, by any definition, the Palestinians exist in a state of desperation.

        Was it a hothouse or a cave they grew you in?

      • Annie Robbins
        March 18, 2016, 12:00 pm

        jon, i know what the definition of desperate is. but the reverse isn’t always true. for example, a squirrel is a small rodent. it doesn’t mean a small rodent is necessarily a squirrel. i’ve given up hope the israeli government will ever (on their own volition) end the occupation, but i am not desperate. again, i didn’t reference desperation.

    • Mooser
      March 17, 2016, 5:34 pm

      “As a society we have agreed that some tactics are unacceptable no matter the goal or the underlying reason”

      Like settler-colonialism? Like long illegal and exploitative (The Greater Israel Co-Prosperity Sphere) occupations?

      • MHughes976
        March 17, 2016, 7:23 pm

        Annie’s remarks are very sensible, very perceptive, very clearly stated and very true – yet with a kind of truth that is really rather obvious if you think about the matter for a couple of minutes. Yet they would seem outlandish to most people in the United States/Kingdom. Why are we so bewitched?

      • Mooser
        March 17, 2016, 7:44 pm

        “yet with a kind of truth that is really rather obvious if you think about the matter for a couple of minutes.”

        That put me in mind of this 2008 “Lawrence of Cyberia” post: “The Arab-Israeli Conflict: Too Complicated For Our Beautiful Minds”.

    • Keith
      March 17, 2016, 6:39 pm

      JON66- “As a society we have agreed that some tactics are unacceptable no matter the goal or the underlying reason. Biological warfare being an example.”

      Putting aside the question of who in society makes these decisions, perhaps you would care to explain why biological warfare is unacceptable, yet white phosphorus, napalm, bombies, flechettes, depleted uranium and nuclear weapons are apparently acceptable? I believe that Israel has all of these weapons and, except for nukes,uses all of them on civilians. Yet, your outrage is restricted to Palestinian children, driven to desperation by their occupiers and tormentors, who then strike back with a knife? It is difficult to find words to adequately describe your moral debasement, therefore, I leave the last word to Noam Chomsky.

      “There is, evidently, much satisfaction to be gained by careful inspection of those writhing under our boot, to see if they are behaving properly; when they are not, as is often the case, indignation is unconstrained.” (Noam Chomsky)

      • Mooser
        March 17, 2016, 7:03 pm

        Thanks, “Keith”.

      • Jon66
        March 17, 2016, 8:58 pm

        Keith,

        Did I say that the attacks are unacceptable? It was the panelists who are raising the question about tactics.

        You seem to be better versed in the subject, which forms of killing civilians,if any, do you find acceptable?

      • Keith
        March 18, 2016, 12:05 am

        JON66- “You seem to be better versed in the subject, which forms of killing civilians,if any, do you find acceptable?”

        When it comes to killing civilians, who is the primary culprit? How many Arabs were slaughtered in Israel’s invasion of Lebanon? How many civilians were slaughtered in Operation Cast Lead, Israel’s mass murder of Palestinians? Cut the bullshit. You are a Zionist apologist for mass murder of non-Jews. White phosphorus is okay, kids with knives verboten.

      • Annie Robbins
        March 18, 2016, 12:20 am

        It was the panelists who are raising the question about tactics.

        you’re repeating this in reference to “acceptable” or “unacceptable” again. why? what questions did the panel raise about the tactics as it pertains to acceptability? none. i thought we already had this conversation.

      • Kay24
        March 18, 2016, 12:51 am

        Keith you ask good questions for which the hasbarats usually have no factual answers, and they will suddenly go MIA after making their lame comment.

        Any slaughtering of UNARMED civilians, by an well armed, well trained army, of an oppressor, is UNACCEPTABLE, but it seems the apologists keep pretending it is fault of the victims.

      • echinococcus
        March 18, 2016, 1:05 am

        which forms of killing civilians,if any, do you find acceptable?

        All those forms that you surely do approve, seeing that you, personally, are an accessory to them. Happy?

        Let us count the ways:

        Shooting them after forcing them to dig their own graves, as in Tantura
        Braining them after raping them as in Deir Yassin
        Burning them wholesale as in 67
        Transforming them in little brown shadows on the concrete, as in Beirut Children’s Hospital. I still have the pictures.
        Getting them strangled, beheaded, gutted and piled up by your dogs, as in Sabra and Shatila
        Vaporizing them with Fléchette rockets when they run to help those wounded in a first rocket strike
        Blowing whole families to itty-bitty pieces while they sleep in their apartments
        Burying them under the rubble while “not bombing them”, aka the Second Miracle of Cana
        Blowing little kids up while playing ball in the world-renowned luxury resort of Gaza Beach
        Torturing the heck out of them in the Russian compound, then selling their corneas and viscera on the black market to profit the Zionist entity
        Carpet bombing Gaza neighborhoods to disappear entire families –not even leaving a single bedbug. As effective disinfection as Zyklon, even if on a more modest scale.
        Burning the remainder with phosphorus bombs (seeing that you claim to be an MD, I recommend a close look at some of the victims –phosphorus is not enough to explain such lesions, so an ode to Zionist technological progress is in order)
        Annihilating entire neighborhoods with new weapons while Israelian armament clients watch the sales demonstration
        Forcing teenagers to drink lighter fluid then burning them, like the Al-Kheir kid
        Pirating humanitarian help ships on the high seas and executing unarmed passengers in cold blood, stealing the belongings of the surviving victims and demanding an apology from the survivors
        Shooting teen-age girls for sport, then dropping a knife close to the body you kicked and dragged for more fun

        There are many more, of course, but one gets tired of counting.

        Those we don’t approve at all and anyway loudly condemn: even cutting the pinkie nail of any Jew, to paraphrase the much-regretted official Grand Chacham. Perish the thought.

        Afraid of vengeance, Jon66?
        Only a moron wouldn’t be.

        Especially considering that occupied peoples have the right to resist by all means available.
        More especially considering that civilian populations settled in officially occupied areas are not protected persons under international law.
        Even more especially that no “Israel” citizen over 20 is properly speaking a civilian except if she or he deserts.

      • Jon66
        March 18, 2016, 8:26 am

        Annie,

        The reference in this thread to acceptable or unacceptable was in response to Keith’s use of the word.

        Keith,
        Other than the sarcasm I didn’t see an answer to the question. Can we agree that intentionally targeting and killing any civilian is wrong?

        Kay,
        Is it OK to kill civilians if your not in an “army”?

        Is there a principle with respect to the killing of civilians that anyone can articulate that could apply to this or any conflict?

      • Mooser
        March 18, 2016, 11:32 am

        I wish “Jon6s6” would cut it out with that “civilian” BS. I don’t know, you might be able to define some of the settlers as “non-combatants” (not really, of course, but you can hide a lot under all that hair and peyess) but “civilians”? Uh, no, not by a long shot.

      • echinococcus
        March 18, 2016, 11:53 am

        Jon66,

        Before you start spewing your usual nonsense about civilians (who aren’t really so), you have to answer about your own murders of uncounted civilians. Your insistent whingeing and sniveling is intolerable coming from an accomplice of mass murderers.

      • Annie Robbins
        March 18, 2016, 12:14 pm

        like the geneva convention, the only civilians i recognize in occupied palestine, are palestinians or people palestinians want there. it is against international law for israel to move their civilians into occupied territory and once they are there, i don’t recognize them as civilians nor are they afforded the protection of civilians in the geneva convention.

        the settlers are a colonizing force acting at the service of the state, they are not civilians.

      • Mooser
        March 18, 2016, 12:19 pm

        “i don’t recognize them as civilians nor are they afforded the protection of civilians in the geneva convention.”

        Thanks, “Annie”.

      • Kay24
        March 18, 2016, 12:54 pm

        Kay, Is it OK to kill civilians if your not in an “army”?

        What kind of question is that? What weird conclusion to my remark “by an well armed, well trained army, of an oppressor, is UNACCEPTABLE”

        Because I criticize the murdering military in Israel, does not mean I condone any stabbings by civilians. It is the fake justifications by Israel, for the killing of children, that is appalling, and that those uniformed killers get away with it most of the time.

      • Jon66
        March 18, 2016, 3:20 pm

        Annie and Echi,

        Your opinion concerning settlers is directly opposite that of both Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, neither of which is generally considered pro-Israel.

        HRW states, “The illegal status of settlements under international humanitarian law does not negate the rights of the civilians living there. The fact that a person lives in a settlement, whether legal or not, does not make him or her a legitimate military target.”

        AI states, “However, the unlawful status of Israeli settlements does not affect the civilian status of settlers. Settlers, like any other civilians, cannot be targeted and only lose their protection from attack if and for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities.”

        Civilian Residents of Illegal Settlements as “Legitimate Targets”

        Palestinian armed groups that have targeted Israeli civilians argue that Israeli settlers in the Occupied Territories have forfeited their civilian status because they reside in settlements that are illegal under international humanitarian law.139 Leaders of Hamas and Islamic Jihad, the groups that pioneered the use of suicide bomb attacks against civilians, have further stated that they consider all of Israel to be “occupied territory,” all Jewish Israelis to be settlers, and thus all Israelis to be legitimate targets.

        This position is exemplified by statements such as those of Hamas’s leader, Shaikh Ahmad Yassin. In August 2001, in the aftermath of the suicide bombing attack on the Sbarro pizzeria, Yassin said, “The Geneva Convention protects civilians in occupied territories, not civilians who are in fact occupiers. All of Israel, Tel Aviv included, is occupied Palestine. So we’re not actually targeting civilians-that would go against Islam.”140

        Even Palestinians who criticize attacks against civilians frequently excuse attacks against settlers. The fact that many individual settlers carry arms, arguably for their own defense, appears to have given a new argument to armed groups to justify attacks against civilians. “They are not civilians,” Islamic Jihad spokesperson Ismail Abu Shanab told Human Rights Watch.
        Not because the settlements are not legal but because the settlers are militias. They are not civilians. They have guns and are armed. Every home and settler has a gun, and all these people are militants and targets. They can’t hide in the uniform of a civilian…. If I see women and children I must not shoot. We can’t behave without humanity. But in principle, settlers are considered targets, legally.141
        In an interview with Human Rights Watch, Hussein al-Sheikh, a Fatah official, made the same distinction. “We sent a message to al-Aqsa: `Don’t touch Israeli civilians. Never. Focus on the army and settlers. We don’t consider settlers to be civilians.'”142

        These assertions are inconsistent with international humanitarian law. The illegal status of settlements under international humanitarian law does not negate the rights of the civilians living there. The fact that a person lives in a settlement, whether legal or not, does not make him or her a legitimate military target. Under international humanitarian law, intentional attacks on civilians, or attacks that do not distinguish between military targets and civilians, are prohibited under all circumstances. Israeli civilians living in the settlements, so long as they do not take up arms and take an active part in hostilities, are noncombatants.

        When individual settlers take an active part in hostilities, as opposed to acting in legitimate self-defense, they lose their civilian protection and become legitimate military targets during the period of their participation, just as Palestinian militants who take an active part in armed conflict become legitimate military targets during that period. However, even in a situation in which armed settlers were to become combatants, their presence among the larger civilian settler population would not negate the requirement that Palestinian combatants distinguish between military and civilian targets during that time, desist from attacking civilians, take all feasible precautions to avoid harm to civilians, and refrain from attacks that cause disproportionate harm to civilians.
        https://www.hrw.org/reports/2002/isrl-pa/ISRAELPA1002-04.htm
        Palestinian armed groups and their supporters have suggested that the prohibition on attacking civilians does not apply to settlers in the Occupied Territories because the settlements are illegal under international humanitarian law; because settlements may have military functions; and because many settlers are armed.
        Many settlements do indeed have military functions. Settlements account for one third of the total area of the Gaza Strip. Each of these settlements holds military bases and are heavily militarily defended. Although the militarization of settlements is strongest in Gaza, some of the settlements in the West Bank also have military functions. The I DF may use them as staging posts for their operations or to detain people in their custody. A large number of settlers are armed and settlers have sometimes attacked Palestinians and destroyed Palestinian houses and other property. However, settlers as such are civilians, unless they are serving in the Israeli armed forces.
        Fatah considers attacks against settlers within the Occupied Territories to be legitimate. Fatah Secretary General Marwan Barghouti has stated to Amnesty International delegates that Fatah considers that no Israelis in the West Bank and Gaza are civilians because “it is all an occupied country” and Palestinians are fighting for their independence. He has also stated publicly that while he and the Fatah movement oppose attacking civilians inside Israel, “our future neighbour, I reserve the right to protect myself and resist the Israeli occupation of my country and to fight for my freedom.”lxix
        Israeli settlements in the Occupied Territories are unlawful under the provisions of international humanitarian law. The Fourth Geneva Convention prohibits the transfer of civilians from the occupying power’s territory into the occupied territory (Article 49 (6)). However, the unlawful status of Israeli settlements does not affect the civilian status of settlers. Settlers, like any other civilians, cannot be targeted and only lose their protection from attack if and for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities (Article 51 (3) Protocol 1)lxx. Similarly, Palestinian residents of the West Bank and Gaza are civilians benefiting from the protection of the Fourth Geneva Convention unless and for such time as they take direct part in hostilities.
        https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/mde02/003/2002/en/

      • Annie Robbins
        March 18, 2016, 5:16 pm

        jon, HRW and AI are NGOs focused on human rights. iow, this text is an interpretation of the law. and this:

        However, the unlawful status of Israeli settlements does not affect the civilian status of settlers. Settlers, like any other civilians, cannot be targeted and only lose their protection from attack if and for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities (Article 51 (3) Protocol 1)

        i checked article 51 of the Fourth Geneva Convention (referenced in this section)– it makes no such claim. it references “protected persons” but makes no mention of settlers being protected people nor any reference to “Israeli settlements does not affect the civilian status of settlers” as far as i know, protected people during an occupation are those placed under the authority of the hostile army. settlers are not placed under the authority of a hostile army.

        ART. 51. — The Occupying Power may not compel protected persons to serve in its armed or auxiliary forces. No pressure or propaganda which aims at securing voluntary enlistment is permitted.
        The Occupying Power may not compel protected persons to work unless they are over eighteen years of age, and then only on work which is necessary either for the needs of the army of occupation, or for the public utility services, or for the feeding, sheltering, clothing, transportation or health of the population of the occupied country. Protected persons may not be compelled to undertake any work which would involve them in the obligation of taking part in military operations.
        The Occupying Power may not compel protected persons to employ forcible means to ensure the security of the installations where they are performing compulsory labour. The work shall be carried out only in the occupied territory where the persons whose services have been requisitioned are.
        Every such person shall, so far as possible, be kept in his usual place of employment. Workers shall be paid a fair wage and the work shall be proportionate to their physical and intellectual capacities. The legislation in force in the occupied country concerning working conditions, and safeguards as regards, in particular, such matters as wages, hours of work, equipment, preliminary training and compensation for occupational accidents and diseases, shall be applicable to the protected persons assigned to the work referred to in this Article.
        In no case shall requisition of labour lead to a mobilization of workers in an organization of a military or semi-military character.

        maybe you could site directly (quote) the section of the Fourth Geneva Convention you think protects settlers.

      • oldgeezer
        March 18, 2016, 3:38 pm

        @jon66

        Ah you finally snuck in the word intentionally into the question. That of course will be followed by the argument that Israel never intentionally targets civilians with demands for proof with Israeli documents classified and unavailable.

        History now shows the true aims and support for war crimes of the zionists.

        Israel has shredded IL, IHL and the GC. Whining and crying for it’s protection is laughable.

        Israel routinely kills, murders, executes civilians including women, children and babies. There can be no excuse for the act being untintentional when it’s civilian population centers are attacked with highly mechanized forces. There can be no excuses when wounded people are merely killed despite not being a threat.

        Israelies are engaged in violations of the GC by the mere virtue of their presence in other peoples territories. Israel proudly states publically that these illegal settlers are part of the defense of the nation.

        Your question is a fair question in an abstract sense but until there is adherence to law, or even a shred of decency in the GoI then Israelies only have their own government to blame for these attempts by the Palestinians to free their land. Their land. Not Israel’s.

        Suck it up criminals.

      • Mooser
        March 18, 2016, 5:12 pm

        “Your question is a fair question in an abstract sense but until there is adherence to law, or even a shred of decency in the GoI then Israelies only have their own government to blame for these attempts by the Palestinians to free their land. Their land. Not Israel’s.”

        Careful, “oldgeezer”! If “Jon 66s” ever considers that anybody except Zionists are entitled to the protections of IL, IHL and the GC, or that these things weren’t made expressly for Zionist use, his mind will explode.

        “Israel proudly states publically that these illegal settlers are part of the defense of the nation.”

        The GoI does a lot more than that for the illegal settlements and outposts, doesn’t it? Lot’s more.

        OMG, I just thought of a sick joke. There’s a whole lot in there (IL, IHL, and GC) about “a plainly marked insignia”. Can’t accuse the settlers of trying to get around that!

      • echinococcus
        March 18, 2016, 7:47 pm

        Annie,

        Absolutely right. Analyzed, dissected and presented in digestible pill form. Thank you.

        [For Jon it may have to take another formulation than a pill, as he is an obvious bad faith propaganda agent who knows perfectly well what the protected person status is about –witness his lack of response re 90 years of mass murder of civilians by his friends and loved ones while he continues to snivel about condemning kids murdered while running with NO knives in their hands.]

      • echinococcus
        March 18, 2016, 7:54 pm

        Jon66,

        Go climb a tree. Mass murder of civilians protected under international law is what you are certainly directly helping as an accessory. Perhaps or I should say probably you have been committing it with your own hands.

      • talknic
        March 18, 2016, 8:14 pm

        Why is it that apologists for the Zionist Federation’s colonization of Palestine are such boring f*ckwits, who’s evidence always seems to contradict their stupid Ziospeil crappolla?

        @Jon66 March 18, 2016, 3:20 pm

        ” Settlers, like any other civilians, cannot be targeted and only lose their protection from attack if and for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities (Article 51 (3) Protocol 1)lxx “

        A) Israel is not a signatory to the protocol

        B) If the illegal settlements are a part of Israel’s defense strategy, neither man, woman or child are civilian.

        You’re yabbering at the wrong people you stupid propaganda spouting useful Zioidiot

        Take your long meaningless contradictory drivel to the Israeli Government and the vile Zionist Movement for purposefully encouraging Jewish Israelis to be in breach of International Law, the UN charter and the Geneva Conventions to which Israel actually has subscribed and by which the UNSC has condemned it for its illegal activities under the binding Laws, UN Charter and conventions reaffirmed and emphasized in those resolutions. All of which BTW remain binding no matter what type of UN resolution they appear.

        You’ll be laughed at and probably fired and, if your posts here are any indication of your competence, have to go back to earning a living botching surgery on unfortunate patients

      • Jon66
        March 18, 2016, 8:15 pm

        Annie,
        The GC articles are not specific to any particular conflict. Like our Bill of Rights, the application depends upon interpretation and usage.

        I’m not a lawyer, but I assume that the interpretations of both HRW and AI are valid and consistent with ICRC. These sources are clear that in their opinion that settlers are more accurately classified as non combatants and so not legitimate targets. Do you have any support for the opinion that they are legitimate combatants? I have presented mine.

      • Mooser
        March 18, 2016, 9:09 pm

        “Like our Bill of Rights, the application depends upon interpretation and usage.”

        SQUELCH!! Ewww, that one really stinks! Not even close.

        Oh, BTW “our” Bill of Rights? So you are an American, and not an Israeli?

      • talknic
        March 18, 2016, 9:34 pm

        @ Jon66 “Do you have any support for the opinion that they are legitimate combatants?”

        From the horse’s fat mouth

        Through the “Nahal” (Hebrew acronym for Fighting Pioneering Youth), the army established in outlying and border areas, military settlements that combined farming with regional defense. These settlements were usually founded and maintained by Zionist youth groups that spent time in a more established kibbutz before moving to the new outpost. After an initial period, these outposts were turned over to civilian groups and generally became kibbutzim or moshavim. Many of the Israeli settlements in the Jordan Valley and the Arava were established by the Nahal. http://www.jewishagency.org/society-and-politics/content/36591

      • Jon66
        March 18, 2016, 11:31 pm

        Talknic, Echi,

        You appeal to the GC and international law and then ignore it when it suits your purposes. So far I haven’t seen you able to cite any opinions other than your own that unarmed settlers are legitimate targets. Only deflection that the other guy is worse and then some name calling. I’m happy to admit I’m wrong if you have some sources. Please provide some links.

        Simply because some settlements were founded as military outposts that does not mean that current inhabitants are not civilians.

        Do you have any citations that classify all Israeli inhabitants of occupied territories are legitimate targets?

      • Annie Robbins
        March 18, 2016, 11:32 pm

        Do you have any support for the opinion that they are legitimate combatants?

        jon, i didn’t make the argument settlers were necessarily combatants. they are actively facilitating a war crime by their very presence — as colonizers. their presence in occupied territory is a crime. they are in the act of committing a crime.

      • oldgeezer
        March 19, 2016, 12:16 am

        @jon66

        Israel as a state ignores the GC all the time so why the hypocrisy from you?

        Clearly the illegal settlers are not protected persons under article 51.

        My view somewhat leans towards the view of HRW and AI to some extent but not completely.

        As Annie points out these criminals, as that is what they are, are actively engaged in war crimes. In addition to that they are supplied with access to automatic weapons, hand grenades and idf terrorist training.

        They are visibly not a civilian population. Many of them are a civilian militia and legitimate target. To the extent they bring their families with them they effectively are using them as human shields. Let us not forget that te idf has a large documented record of using human shields and the GoI has argued in front of the high court of justice in Israel that it is a policy they wish to continue.

        The supplied weapons have been used in attacks on Palestinians and there are both photographic and video evidence of this. Additionally the idf has provided protective forces for the scumbags on many occassions which is evidence of coordinated efforts.
        To my mind they are the equivalent of Hamas. Unlike Hamas who are the valid people of the region the criminal settlers are there by choice and for the sole purpose to commit war crimes.

        You can call them illegal combatants or terrorists. Whichever floats your boat. But certainly the few innocents which are being callously and immorally should be not harmed where it is avoidable.

        It is still risible that you, zionistz or the GoI want to use GC as an argument for protection when you have shredded it in its entirety from the protection of civilians to providing for the health welfare education and economic activity of those who are protected persons. Let alone the theft of land and resources. But the zionists have a criminal mindset to begin with. Even the liberal ones.

      • Sibiriak
        March 19, 2016, 1:08 am

        Keith: …yet white phosphorus, napalm, bombies, flechettes, depleted uranium and nuclear weapons are apparently acceptable? I believe that Israel has all of these weapons and, except for nukes,uses all of them on civilians. Yet, your outrage is restricted to Palestinian children, driven to desperation by their occupiers and tormentors, who then strike back with a knife.
        ————-

        Eloquently stated; cuts to the heart of the moral issue.

      • talknic
        March 19, 2016, 2:21 am

        @ Jon66 March 18, 2016, 11:31 pm

        “Talknic …

        You appeal to the GC and international law and then ignore it when it suits your purposes”

        Bullsh*te pal.

        So far I haven’t seen you able to cite any opinions other than your own that unarmed settlers are legitimate targets”

        So far I’ve never said unarmed settlers are legitimate targets!

        “I’m happy to admit I’m wrong”

        You’re wrong and a liar.

        ” if you have some sources. Please provide some links”

        For what? I’ve never said unarmed settlers are legitimate targets

        “Simply because some settlements were founded as military outposts that does not mean that current inhabitants are not civilians”

        Again for the Zionist shill

        Through the “Nahal” (Hebrew acronym for Fighting Pioneering Youth), the army established in outlying and border areas, military settlements that combined farming with regional defense

        “Do you have any citations that classify all Israeli inhabitants of occupied territories are legitimate targets?”

        I should supply a citation for something I’ve never claimed?

      • Sibiriak
        March 19, 2016, 6:34 am

        Jon66: Do you have any citations that classify all Israeli inhabitants of occupied territories are legitimate targets?

        —————————————–

        In my opinion, many settlers—but not all—are combatants and thus legitimate targets. I base that conclusion on the following considerations:

        1)Attacks on civilians are legally prohibited. That’s a consensus view. As HRW put it, “under international humanitarian law, intentional attacks on civilians, or attacks that do not distinguish between military targets and civilians, are prohibited under all circumstances.”

        2)The critical legal issue is whether the settlers are civilians, i.e., non-combatants.

        3) The settlements are illegal, but that by itself does not mean the settlers aren’t civilians.

        4)Apart from the general illegality of the settlements, the settlers, some or all, are engaged in a number of other crimes.

        [HOSTAGE:] …In many cases corporations and corrupt government officials exploit armed conflicts to pillage public and private resources. There are on-going efforts to hold corporations culpable for the role they play in war crimes, in particular pillage, by going after their officers under the criminal codes and obtaining forfeiture of their profits or proceeds by using the right of private or government action in the laws of their home countries. Many of them have adopted laws that are designed to address racketeering and corrupt organizations. The UNHRC and all of its mandate holders are beginning to apply that program to the companies doing business in the occupied State of Palestine. link to mondoweiss.net link to nytimes.com

        There are parallel efforts to hold responsible Israeli officials and settlers accountable for wrongful acts of state, crimes against humanity, and for pillaging, colonizing, and persecuting Palestinians in the ICC and ICJ.

        Those efforts began with the 2003 ICJ Wall case and the 2009 complaint that Abbas filed with the ICC after Operation Cast Lead. The Obama and Kerry talks are aimed at delaying the inevitable next steps in that legal battle from unfolding. [emphasis added]

        http://mondoweiss.net/2014/04/vainglory-pursuing-finkelstein/#comment-660829

        5)There are also all the individual and organized crimes of assault, destruction of property, arson, murder.

        6) But as bad as those crimes may be, they are only a part of two much larger ones: the imposition of an apartheid regime of occupation and the obstruction of the Palestinian people’s right of self-determination. The settlements are central, indispensablel elements of those crimes, and every settler is complicit in them.

        7)The fact that a settler is a criminal, however, does not automatically mean he/she is not a civilian. Those crimes are legally punishable, but not by summary execution.

        8) Civilians become combatants if and only if they actively or directly engage in hostilities. That is a consensus view. There is definitely a state of armed hostilities in the West Bank and Gaza; the Israeli supreme court itself has affirmed that. (http://elyon1.court.gov.il/Files_ENG/02/690/007/a34/02007690.a34.HTM)

        9) There is, however, no clear consensus on a precise definition of “actively” or “directly” taking part in hostilities. HRW, for example, claims that “ Israeli civilians living in the settlements, so long as they do not take up arms and take an active part in hostilities, are noncombatants”, yet it is by no means clear that “taking up arms” is a necessary condition—there are many ways to actively participate in hostilities without actually bearing arms.

        What exactly constitutes actively or directly engaging in hostilities is debatable. I believe many settlers—but not all— are doing so.

        In a separate post I will quote some comments from legal scholar “Hostage” that back up that conclusion.
        ———————-

        Apart from the combatant/non-combatant issue, there is the question of extenuating circumstances , a concept which bridges legal, social, psychological and moral dimensions.

        In law, extenuating circumstances in criminal cases are unusual or extreme facts leading up to or attending the perpetration of the offense which, although an offense has been perpetrated without legal justification or excuse, mitigate or reduce its gravity from the point of view of punishment or moral opprobrium. (Wikipedia)

        If some of the Palestinian attacks on settlers do in fact qualify as criminal acts, it must be said that the extenuating circumstances are so overwhelming as to almost entirely invalidate any moral opprobrium they might otherwise deserve.

        When weighing the vast, unending Zionist enterprise of ethnic cleansing, murder, oppression, apartheid, and denial of fundamental human rights against the relatively few and minor acts of illegal resistance, the scales of justice tip so quickly and so violently against the Zionist oppressors that a categorical moral judgment against them should be almost instantaneous.

      • Sibiriak
        March 19, 2016, 7:03 am

        As I stated, I believe many settlers–but not all–are actively taking part in hostilities and are therefore combatants, not civilians.

        Here are some quotes from “Hostage” that back up that conclusion (emphasis added).

        ——————————–
        Wouldn’t the law make a distinction between Hamas combatants defending their homes by shooting at Israeli soldiers, and Hamas combatants firing rockets at cities in Israel?

        Yes, it does. In addition, Goldstone noted that uniformed armed police officers are not a valid military objective and that Israel’s attack on the Police graduation ceremony was a crime.

        As for Israel, would their vastly larger crimes and disregard for the law give any legal cover for someone to shoot at Israeli civilians?

        No. In international law two wrongs only make two wrongs. Tu quoque arguments are no defense against prosecution. Common Article 3 of the 3rd and 4th Convention and Article 33 of the 4th Geneva Convention essentially prohibit reprisals against civilians or prisoners at all times and in all places. None of that applies to settlers or other civilians who are actively engaged in hostilities.

        http://mondoweiss.net/2014/07/slaughter-corruption-language/#comment-695833

        ———————————-

        I think that’s a highly dubious notion. There is no valid military objective to slice a baby’s throat open or to shoot at people on the road.

        Hophmi you’re trying to reframe the conversation again. The IDF originally established many Nahal military settlements in the occupied territories. It has always distributed weapons and other equipment to the illegal settlements. From time to time it has threatened to mobilize settlers and they have undertaken unilateral actions and price tag reprisals. See:

        *Israeli Army to Mobilize Settlers Against Attacks link to nytimes.com

        *NBC News Hundreds Of Angry Jewish Settlers Set Up Roadblocks To Protest Recent Death Of Settler & PLO Peace Agreement link to nbcuniversalarchives.com

        The settlers are not non-combatants. A long line of UN and Israeli Commissions have reported that the military authorities have routinely closed out reports of serious war crimes committed by settlers without any investigations or charges ever being filed.

        The settlers are a paramilitary force under the laws and customs of war. No one is talking about killing babies except you. I’m talking about targeting any Israelis for such time as they take a “direct” or “active” part in hostilities in the occupied territories.

        The Settlers routinely attack Palestinian farmers, villages, destroy property and crops, water supplies, & etc. They do not enjoy any legal protection when they are doing those things.

        http://mondoweiss.net/2012/06/latest-demographic-threat-43-million-arabs-on-facebook/#comment-466307

        —————————————

        …Nothing in the decision gives the Palestinians a right to resist by killing Israeli civilians.

        We all knew that you would attempt to reframe and divert the discussion. FYI, the term “Intifada” is not defined as “killing Israeli civilians”. It simply means to shake off colonial and alien domination. The Court decision did say that the Wall, the settlements, and the associated Israeli administrative regime in the Occupied Palestinian territory were all illegal.

        The settlers have been implanted in the area of an armed conflict and actively participate in the hostilities there using IDF-supplied arms. They’re a valid military objective, just like any other paramilitary force.

        Conversely, Israeli civilians living on their own side of the Green Line in the territory of the State of Israel are not a valid military objective. The IDF is not safe from attack anywhere, so long as it still engages in armed conflict on either side of the Green Line.

        The 2004 ICJ decision also cited resolution 2625 (XXV), “Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States” (paragraph 87) and noted that its Judgment in the case concerning Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua stated that it reflects customary international law. That resolution stipulates that “Every State has the duty to refrain from any forcible action which deprives peoples of their right to self-determination and freedom and independence.”

        It also allows the affected peoples to take action against, and offer resistance to, such forcible action in pursuit of the exercise of their right to self-determination. In addition, it entitles them to seek and to receive support from others. — link to un.org

        In that connection the Court ruled that Israel was violating an erga omnes obligation with respect to the Palestinian right of self-determination. The General Assembly has repeatedly defined the customary law governing that particular right as “jus cogens”, i.e. “compelling law”. For example, in resolution 2649 (1970), the UN General Assembly affirmed
        “the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples under colonial and alien domination recognized as being entitled to the right of self-determination to restore to themselves that right by any means at their disposal
        . . . . Condemns those Governments that deny the right of self-determination of peoples recognized as being entitled to it, especially of the peoples of southern Africa and Palestine” — link to un.org

        In the subsequent 2005 targeted killings case, the Israeli Supreme Court accepted the government’s position that “a continuous state of armed conflict has existed between Israel and the Palestinian militias operating in Judea, Samaria, and Gaza since the first intifada.”

        The High Court said that the entire area is part and parcel of an armed conflict. See the subsection of the ruling under the heading “The General Normative Framework, A. International Armed Conflict”

        So the government of Israel is consciously violating a jus cogens norm by using force and an illegal regime to subject the Palestinians to colonial and alien domination. The Palestinians can use any means at their disposal to put a stop to that situation in accordance with customary international law.

        – See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2012/06/latest-demographic-threat-43-million-arabs-on-facebook/#comment-466307

        ———————————-

        “Jewish Zionist settler-colonists in the Occupied Territories cannot be considered protected non-combatants by any stretch of the imagination.”

        That was part of the ruling in the 2005 Israeli High Court of Justice Gaza Coastal Council decision. However, that finding is inapplicable to the civilians killed in the recent terror attacks in southern Israel.

        Collective punishment is a grave breach of the Geneva Conventions and its protocols. Bear in mind that “[T]he Executive Committee of the Palestine Liberation Organization, entrusted with the functions of the Government of the State of Palestine by decision of the Palestine National Council, decided, on 4 May 1989, to adhere to the Four Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 and the two Protocols additional thereto”. Egypt is also a party the the four conventions and the protocols. link to icrc.org

        In my view, the adults among them are belligerents and are legitimate targets.

        Under the “law of nations” in force in the pre-Clara Barton era, one of the legal consequences of the state of war between two countries was that every national of the one State becomes an enemy of every national of the other. In the current era, it’s a generally recognized rule of international law that civilians must not be made the object of attack directed exclusively against them.

        Nonetheless, the military codes of the US and many other countries prohibit any unauthorized communication with the enemy, including enemy civilians, as a possible source of “supplying aid and comfort to the enemy”, i.e. treason. Obviously, I wouldn’t recommend a legal system in which Palestinians might be subject to the death penalty for “unauthorized communications” with humanitarian NGO volunteers (e.g. B’Tselem, Peace Now, & etc.) or vice versa.

        Every adult among them is a member of an occupying army, and should be considered as such.

        Yes but you can’t overcome the targeting and proportionality criteria and turn then into a valid military objective with a sweeping generalization. Deadly force shouldn’t be authorized against unarmed reservists who aren’t participating in combat operations, unless they offer resistance to capture or present some kind of imminent danger.

        The members of the Yesha Council and the Rabbis responsible for the price tag terror campaigns are government officials. They can be prosecuted for war crimes or crimes against humanity. The latter require no connection to a war or armed conflict. There are penal responsibilities for expropriating or destroying private or state property in occupied territories under the Hague rules of 1907, but that doesn’t warrant summary execution.

        Raphael Lemkin and others who wrote about the German colonial enterprise during WWII said that the Liquidations Treuhanders (liquidation trustees) and other civilians that the Axis occupants entrusted with the expropriated property were individuals who were voluntarily imported for that purpose. Lemkin said that the fact some of the settlers had been moved against their will, might exclude their penal responsibility in assisting the enemy in acts of dispossession.

        But that simply isn’t the case with the Israeli settlers. See “6. The Problem of Colonists” and “7. The Responsibilities of the Administrators of Sequestrated Property” in Raphael Lemkin, “Axis rule in occupied Europe”, 1944, Carnegie Endowment, page 45

        – See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2011/08/read-the-post-for-which-derfner-was-fired-the-awful-necessary-truth-about-palestinian-terror/#comment-355657

        ——————————–

        The peace talks are all but dead in the water, even John Kerry seems to be inching away from the matter; and this time it appears that the Israelis may get blamed

        Here is a snippet from the latest update to the 10th Emergency Special Session of the General Assembly and the Security Council:

        Palestinian children continue to be targeted by the Israeli occupying forces, which continue to act with excessive and brutal force and blatant disregard for human life. Yesterday, a 14-year-old Palestinian boy, Yousef Nayif Al Shawamreh, was shot and murdered near the village of Dura, south of Al-Khalil, where he and other youths had been foraging for local plants in an area near the wall. The occupying forces arrested the two youths who were with him and have yet to release the body of yet another innocent Palestinian victim of such senseless violence. . . . in only the period since the resumption of peace negotiations in late July 2013, the Israeli occupying forces have killed 57 Palestinians and injured 897 other civilians.

        There have also been more than 500 attacks by settlers on Palestinian civilians and their properties. Moreover, in the same period, the occupying forces have carried out over 3,767 military raids throughout the Occupied Palestinian Territory and arrested more than 3,000 Palestinians, including children. In this regard, we must once again draw attention to the critical human rights situation of the more than 5,000 Palestinians who remain captive in Israeli prisons and detention centres.

        . . . The fact is that Israel has declared its intent to proceed with more than 11,000 units in just the period since negotiations began. The decisions to proceed with such illegal actions not only seriously undermine the peace process and Israel’s credibility in this regard, but are directly and physically harming the prospects for realization of the two-State solution. . . .

        This letter is in follow-up to our previous 489 letters regarding the ongoing crisis in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, which constitutes the territory of the State of Palestine. These letters, dated from 29 September 2000 (A/55/432-S/2000/921) to 12 March 2014 (A/ES-10/620-S/2014/180), constitute a basic record of the crimes being committed by Israel, the occupying Power, against the Palestinian people since September 2000.

        For all of these war crimes, acts of State terrorism and systematic human rights violations being committed against the Palestinian people, Israel, the occupying Power, must be held accountable and the perpetrators must be brought to justice. — A/ES-10/621 link to un.org

        http://mondoweiss.net/2014/03/zionists-promoting-netanyahus/#comment-652376

        *****

        Hostage’s posts are confetti, worthless cites to ‘international fairy law’. . . . Nations obey International Law only when it’s in their own interests to do so.

        Quite obviously then:

        * There are countries in Europe who think it is in their interest to investigate former President Bush for crimes against humanity. Bush’s Shrinking World: George W. Bush Cancels Europe Trip –link to democracynow.org

        * There are countries in Europe that are willing to investigate claims one of the world’s major gold refiners committed a war crime by buying plundered gold link to online.wsj.com

        * There is a long list of persons who are currently being prosecuted for pillaging and other serious crimes who could obviously use legal advice from a smart ass like you Obsidian: Republic of the Congo: Germain Katanga, Bosco Ntaganda, Callixte Mbarushimana, Sylvestre Mudacumura, and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui; Central African Republic: Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo; Uganda: Joseph Kony, Vincent Otti, Okot Odhiambo and Dominic Ongwen; Darfur, Sudan: Ahmad Muhammad Harun (“Ahmad Harun”), Ali Muhammad Ali Abd-Al-Rahman (“Ali Kushayb”), Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir, Bahar Idriss Abu Garda, and Abdel Raheem Muhammad Hussein.

        So how many countries in the international community still owe Israel favors after they’ve repeatedly warned it for decades that its annexations and settlements are illegal and constitute flagrant violations of international law?

        * There were 120 countries that voted to adopted Article 8(2)(b)(viii) of the Rome Statute after they listened to the head of the Israeli delegation to the Rome Conference, Judge Eli Nathan, complained that it would make Israeli settlements a war crime. link to iccnow.org

        * When Attorney General and current Supreme Court Justice, Elyakim Rubinstein, warned that Israeli Settlers could be prosecuted by the International Criminal Court he didn’t sound as confident as you do. See “A-G: New Hague court may indict settlers for war crimes”, Jun.11, 2002

        http://mondoweiss.net/2014/02/political-destroying-intentionally/#comment-644300

      • Jon66
        March 19, 2016, 8:33 am

        Srib,

        Thanks for the reply.
        As to what constitutes hostilities, Hostage said,”The Settlers routinely attack Palestinian farmers, villages, destroy property and crops, water supplies, & etc. They do not enjoy any legal protection when they are doing those things. – See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2016/03/palestinians-grapple-with-knife-attacks-as-violence-enters-fifth-month/#comment-163466

        Therefore when the settlers are not engaged in these activities they are protected. He also said civilians within the Green line are never legitimate targets and 30% of attacks are within the Green line
        In addition, Palestinian crimes are not excused by Israeli crimes. “Two wrongs make a wrong”
        I am not claiming that Israel has not committed any crimes.

      • Jon66
        March 19, 2016, 8:47 am

        Talknic,

        “So far I’ve never said unarmed settlers are legitimate targets! – See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2016/03/palestinians-grapple-with-knife-attacks-as-violence-enters-fifth-month/#sthash.syeggNkA.dpuf

        We agree.

      • echinococcus
        March 19, 2016, 8:58 am

        Talknic

        I’ve never said unarmed settlers are legitimate targets

        You don’t have to be armed to perform essential duties for the occupation. Not an essential condition.

      • oldgeezer
        March 19, 2016, 9:43 am

        @jon66

        Not all attacks have been against civilians and not all have been unarmed. Not sure where your 30% stats came from though I have no basis to question the accuracy.

      • talknic
        March 19, 2016, 10:03 am

        Jon66 shows us what pathetic liar he is…

        Jon66 March 19, 2016, 8:47 am

        ” We agree

        Bullsh*t pal!

        Jon66 March 18, 2016, 11:31 pm

        Talknic, Echi,

        You appeal to the GC and international law and then ignore it when it suits your purposes. So far I haven’t seen you able to cite any opinions other than your own that unarmed settlers are legitimate targets
        … …
        Do you have any citations that classify all Israeli inhabitants of occupied territories are legitimate targets?
        http://mondoweiss.net/2016/03/palestinians-grapple-with-knife-attacks-as-violence-enters-fifth-month/#comment-163466

      • talknic
        March 19, 2016, 10:13 am

        LOL Watch the Zioclown jump mouth first into the Ziopoop

        @ Jon66 March 19, 2016, 8:33 am

        “As to what constitutes hostilities, Hostage said,”The Settlers routinely attack Palestinian farmers, villages, destroy property and crops, water supplies, & etc. They do not enjoy any legal protection when they are doing those things

        Therefore when the settlers are not engaged in these activities they are protected

        OK. Let’s apply that to the Palestinians Mr Zioclown!

      • Mooser
        March 19, 2016, 10:53 am

        Simply because some settlements were founded as military outposts that does not mean that current inhabitants are not civilians.”

        “Jon 66” there is a really great Bible story you should read. It’s all about cities on a plane and finding “ten good men” and pillars and salt and stuff. Quite instructive.

      • Mooser
        March 19, 2016, 11:02 am

        “they are actively facilitating a war crime by their very presence — as colonizers. their presence in occupied territory is a crime. they are in the act of committing a crime.”

        That’s it! “Jon 66”, you’ve got her!
        Dead to rights! Oh, that all sounds so good, but notice, “Annie” left out the one word (goes before “colonizers”) that would make all the difference and blow all that war crime stuff out of the water.

        You know the word, “Jon 66”! Lay it on us.

      • Mooser
        March 19, 2016, 11:48 am

        “Therefore when the settlers are not engaged in these activities they are protected.

        No, they are not “protected persons”! We’ve already knocked down that BS, why are you going back to it.

        “Jon 66” why not tell the truth? These are Jewish colonists, engaged in reclaiming their historical homeland from Palestinian “ringers”, and their protection is absolute, and they have the right, by God’s authority, to all the land!
        The hell with all this legal argyle-bagel, tell us the truth, so that antizionists will know what they are up against in their antisemitic endeavors: they are defying God His Own Bad Self!

      • Jon66
        March 19, 2016, 4:48 pm

        From B’Tselem-not exactly a right wing group.
        “Attacks by Palestinians on Israeli civilians have taken various forms over the years, chiefly: throwing stones at vehicles and people; firearm attacks; detonating bombs in populated areas and on buses; firing rockets at settlements in the Gaza Strip; and – since the evacuation of the settlements in the Gaza Strip as part of the Israeli withdrawal – firing rockets at Israeli communities near Gaza. These violent attacks have killed hundreds of Israeli civilians and injured thousands in Israel and the Occupied Territories.

        Attacks aimed at civilians undermine all rules of morality and law. Specifically, the intentional killing of civilians is considered a “grave breach” of international humanitarian law and a war crime. Whatever the circumstances, such acts are unjustifiable.

        Palestinian organizations raise several arguments to justify attacks on Israeli civilians. The main argument is that “all means are legitimate in fighting for independence against a foreign occupation. “This argument is completely baseless , and contradicts the fundamental principle of international humanitarian law . According to this principle, civilians are to be protected from the consequences of warfare , and any attack must discriminate between civilians and military targets . This principle is part of international customary law; as such, it applies to every state, organization, and person, even those who are not party to any relevant convention.

        Palestinian spokespersons distinguish between attacks inside Israel and attacks directed at settlers in the Occupied Territories. They argue that, because the settlements are illegal and many settlers belong to Israel’s security forces, settlers are not entitled to the protections granted to civilians by international law.

        This argument is readily refuted. The illegality of the settlements has no effect at all on the status of their civilian residents. The settlers constitute a distinctly civilian population, which is entitled to all the protections granted civilians by international law. The Israeli security forces’ use of land in the settlements or the membership of some settlers in the Israeli security forces does not affect the status of the other residents living among them, and certainly does not make them proper targets of attack.

        B’Tselem strongly opposes the attempts to justify attacks against Israeli civilians by using distorted interpretations of international law. Furthermore, B’Tselem demands that the Palestinian Authority do everything within its power to prevent future attacks and to prosecute the individuals involved in past attacks.”

        Does anyone here have a source, outside of the commenters opinions or links back to Mondo, from a recognized impartial organization that backs the position that settlers are legitimate targets just because they live in Occupied territories? So far no one has posted one. AI, HRW, and BT all agree.

      • MHughes976
        March 20, 2016, 5:33 pm

        Machiavelli advises a prince who has acquired a new province to secure it by means of colonies, rather than have an expensive army range all over it – much the more efficient method. This suggests – and it’s all quite plausible – that colonists, at least if systematically armed with the consent of what M calls their ‘prince’, are a kind of army, reducing the prince’s costs by living off the land.: that is to say combatants at least as long as they are have weapons in their hands and and ready for combat at the prince’s word of command. This would be acceptable if the prince is in fact the rightful ruler of the province. If he is not a rightful ruler then they are, if part of his army, invaders and marauders – still combatants. If they are not an army but still an illegal presence they must be armed criminals in execution of a robbery.
        ‘The Prince’ chapter 3 – colonies as shackles on a new province.

      • Annie Robbins
        April 15, 2016, 10:07 pm

        Do you have any support for the opinion that they are legitimate combatants?

        sorry to be posting this so late but i ran into this comment of hostages i thought i’d share.

        Here are a few more examples from Opinio Juris and The European Journal of International Law: Talk! (See both the articles and the comments – including a few of my own):
        http://opiniojuris.org/2013/01/06/are-israel-and-turkeys-colonizations-comparable/
        http://www.ejiltalk.org/settlements-territory-and-the-icc/
        http://opiniojuris.org/2013/01/07/whose-alleged-settlement-is-bigger/

        The insurmountable problem that Kontorovich fails to address is that in most cases, Jews born in the West Bank are legally considered “Israeli nationals” or “enemy civilians” and can be dealt with according to the terms of the Geneva Conventions like any others born elsewhere.

        The terms of Article IV(3) of the 1949 Armistice Agreement with Jordan stipulated that

        Rules and regulations of the armed forces of the Parties, which prohibit civilians from crossing the fighting lines or entering the area between the lines, shall remain in effect after the signing of this Agreement with application to the Armistice Demarcation Lines defined in articles V and VI.

        –http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/arm03.asp

        UN Security Council resolutions 62 and 73 require the State parties to the conflict to implement and observe that agreement until it is replaced by a mutually agreed upon final settlement. Israel still routinely shoots persons it considers to be “enemy civilians” when they so much as approach its frontiers or security fences.

        So lets sum up:
        *Israelis born in the West Bank are “nationals” of a State bound by the Geneva Conventions; the Armistice agreements, and Security Council resolutions.
        *Israel is a party to an on-going armed conflict and a military occupation;
        *Any Israeli nationals on the territory of Palestine are enemy combatants, enemy civilians, or both according to the explicit terms of the Geneva Conventions.
        *Nothing prevents the Palestinian authorities from repatriating, or resettling enemy nationals elsewhere according to the terms of Article 6 of the 4th Geneva Convention after the conflict or occupation has ended.
        *Nothing prevents the Palestinians from applying penal sanctions to illegal immigrant or resident alien enemy nationals on its territory.
        *After WWII, Israel itself adopted an ordinance which criminalized collaboration with the Nazis retroactively. Nothing prevents Palestine from doing the same thing to settlers who serve in the IDF or civil administration.

        http://mondoweiss.net/2013/01/settlements-international-governments/

    • Mooser
      March 17, 2016, 7:07 pm

      “As a society…”

      Aww, isn’t that nice, all the Palestinians got a promotion. To “society”! They’ll never miss a single Bar/Bat Mitzvah.

    • talknic
      March 17, 2016, 7:52 pm

      @ Jon66

      “As a society we have agreed that some tactics are unacceptable no matter the goal or the underlying reason. Biological warfare being an example”

      The SHIT from illegal Israeli settlers is so clean you can eat it, right?

      Go take a hike Jon66 you’re full of it

      https://www.google.com.au/search?q=Settlers+sewerage+palestinian&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjs3Izi9cjLAhUkrKYKHQHPDOwQ_AUIBygB&biw=1920&bih=926

      • Jon66
        March 17, 2016, 9:01 pm

        Talknic,

        Did you have a chance to look at the Palestinian refugees in Jordan census issue we were discussing in the other thread? UNHCR definition vs UNRWA.

      • talknic
        March 17, 2016, 10:46 pm

        @ Jon66 Immediately deflects, straight out of the Hasbara handbook

        “Did you have a chance to look at the Palestinian refugees in Jordan census issue we were discussing in the other thread? “

        The other thread? There a hundreds of ‘other’ threads. Provide a link FFS

    • oldgeezer
      March 17, 2016, 11:26 pm

      @jon66

      As a society we have agreed, and codified in law, that ethnic cleansing, colonialism, acquisition of territory, collective punishment, amongst many other things are not acceptable. All of these are practised by the criminal barbaric savages known as zionists.

      We have also determined and put into law that colonialism may be resisted by all means possible.

      Let’s see the scum zionists discuss whether using wp on civilians is acceptable. Or idf terrorists emptying their magazines into children who pose no threat. Ihave yet to see that.

      The criminal zionists did have a conference last year to see how protections for civilian populations could be reduced as they find it annoying to not be able to slaughter women and children on a whim.

      I don’t support any violence but thay is a choicr for the Palestinians. The violence they mete out is negligible compared to the barbaric savage israelis.

  12. Ossinev
    March 17, 2016, 1:38 pm

    @Mayhem
    “Terrorism begins with incitement and a constant brainwashing of people into a doctrine of hatred and murder, calculated to see their ‘enemy’ not as individuals or people, but as a dehumanized, false entity that must be eliminated”

    Spot on description of Israeli Leaders from 1945 onwards.

    A few choice snippets for your delectation can be found at:
    http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/palestinians.php#axzz43BOCkqIC

    Any comments at all on some of the absolute corkers contained therein Master Mayhem.

    I`m waiting.

    Spoilt for choice ? Try having a go at eg this nice little gem:
    “We declare openly that the Arabs have no right to settle on even one centimeter of Eretz Israel… Force is all they do or ever will understand. We shall use the ultimate force until the Palestinians come crawling to us on all fours.” Rafael Eitan, Chief of Staff of the Israeli Defense Forces – Gad Becker, Yediot Ahronot 13 April 1983, New York Times 14 April 1983″

    Oh and since you are morally repelled by the “dehumanisation” of a people try this little snippet:
    ” [The Palestinians are] beasts walking on two legs.” Menahim Begin, speech to the Knesset, quoted in Amnon Kapeliouk, “Begin and the Beasts”. New Statesman, 25 June 1982.

  13. ritzl
    March 17, 2016, 2:26 pm

    So make a rocket from Gaza an analog for Occupation and contrast the resulting responses.

    It’s truly astounding in a heartening sort of way that such minor Palestinian responses to their ongoing/ interminable, murderous repression are the subject of such collective angst-filled debate on the Palestinian side. It’s almost like the discussion should be subtitled: “How collective sainthood would benefit our struggle.”

    It’s just such a contrast for one side to aspire to a proverbial higher plane, while simultaneously the other side unrepentantly (or worse, equally aspirationally) kills them off. Says everything about this conflict and who will ultimately prevail.

  14. matt
    March 17, 2016, 6:26 pm

    I have to make a factual correction to this article: you have misread or misrepresented the poll you cite from the Jerusalem Media and Communication Center. Check it again. Here’s what it says:

    Q3. To what extent do you support or oppose the continuation of knife
    attacks against Israelis?
    Total West Bank Gaza
    n= 1200 n= 750 n=450
    Strongly support 25.3 18.1 37.1
    Somewhat support 30.9 24.0 42.4
    Somewhat oppose 21.4 25.1 15.3
    Strongly oppose 19.7 28.8 4.4
    No answer 2.7 4.0 0.8

    In other words, only 41.1% of all Palestinians polled oppose the knife attacks, while 56.2% of them support the attacks. The support figures are much higher for Gaza and somewhat lower for the West Bank.

    • Annie Robbins
      March 17, 2016, 7:24 pm

      thanks matt. allison wrote

      And it can’t be ignored that there are voices in the West Bank who do celebrate the deaths of Israelis, or justify the killing of American Taylor Force last week, although polls suggest this is a fringe position.

      Fifty-four per cent of Palestinians said they are opposed to “the continuation of knife attacks against Israelis,”

      18.1% in the West Bank strongly support and 24.0% in the West Bank somewhat support the continuation of knife attacks against Israelis (and i am not sure “somewhat support” characterizes to “celebrate” so this 18.1% was probably the “fringe” she referenced)

      25.1% in the West Bank somewhat oppose, and 28.8% in the West Bank strongly oppose.

      28.8 plus 25.1 = 53.9% in the WB oppose. so when Allison wrote “Fifty-four per cent of Palestinians said they are opposed” i think it’s likely she was only referencing the WB, but thank you for pointing this out because i agree it was unclear and inaccurate as it was written, especially as the followup sentence began a new paragraph. i have edited it accordingly. it now reads

      Fifty-four per cent of Palestinians in the West Bank said they are opposed to “the continuation of knife attacks against Israelis,”

      thank you for bringing this to our attention.

      • Rusty Pipes
        March 19, 2016, 9:47 pm

        In other words, the majority of Palestinians living in the areas where the knife attacks are occurring (the West Bank and Jerusalem for the most part) oppose them.

  15. Marnie
    March 18, 2016, 8:50 am

    The responsibility for “knife attacks” lies squarely with israel. For anyone to claim otherwise is the height of disingenuousness. Also, I don’t think there is some gold standard of behavior of occupied people, especially when their occupation has been almost 70 years – almost 5 generations. So please Jon’s S and 66, Mayhem, and the other regulars, please describe what would be acceptable in terms of fighting one’s occupation, which is their right according to the UN (settler squatters and israelis living in occupied territory including Jerusalem and IOF are legitimate targets)? Obviously, if there was a Palestinian army we’d be having a different discussion and see different stories; however, these occupied people don’t get to have an army. Or assemble peacefully to protest. Or walk to school on a razor wire/settler-free path. Or go to the beach. Or freely speak their mother tongue without fear. Or any other freaking thing we israelis do every freaking day without a care in the world. The side that has done the most damage, killed and maimed scores upon scores of CIVILIANS, demolished thousands of homes and left thousands homeless, yeah those people, us, are crying rivers of crocodile tears because a few of theirs were killed. Cry for the real victims (hint: They aren’t Jews; this time the Jews are the murderers). Now please, on with the cries of antisemitism! I can’t wait to hear you weep and wail.

    • a blah chick
      March 18, 2016, 11:11 am

      “Also, I don’t think there is some gold standard of behavior of occupied people…”

      Well, according to Bill Maher having an insufficient number of Gay bars is reason enough to get bombed.

      • Marnie
        March 18, 2016, 12:46 pm

        Doesn’t he know he can get bombed at any bar? Sheesh, what a tool.

  16. yonah fredman
    March 18, 2016, 12:06 pm

    One of my partners on the NYC yellow cab was a Palestinian by the name of Ibrahim. (We leased the cab on a weekly basis. He had it nights and I drove it days and we’d personally hand it over to each other every 12 hours.) He introduced me to the phrase “very deep politics” which came out sounding like “very deep bolitics”.

    The conflict is brutal and ugly and stabbings by teens seems like another chapter of insanity, but one cannot call the occupation sane, since it is crazy. And although Ibrahim used to use the phrase “very deep politics” to refer to secret machinations behind the scenes, the depth of the craziness of the occupation and the craziness of this response, elicits the phrase in a different meaning.

    On a more technical point: Allison Deger has reported that many of the stabbings have occurred either in Jerusalem near the Damascus Gate or in Hebron, “two areas with long histories of conflict between Israeli settlers, military and Palestinians.” It occurs to me to wonder how many of the regular commenters here have spent more time than me near the Damascus Gate. To most here it is as foreign as Hebron is to me. (Even though I studied less than twenty miles away from hebron when i was a teen, i only passed through there once on a bus without stopping.)
    My parents moved to Jerusalem in ’97, when my father retired and they moved to a neighborhood which is less than a few hundred meters inside the Green Line. The city train passes right behind their apartment complex, right on the old border between East and West Jerusalem and after I visit them I catch that train to the city center and the train passes the Damascus Gate. The train’s PA system and announcement “board” (scrolling script on a digital display), announce the stops in 3 languages: Hebrew, English and Arabic. I n hebrew the gate is known as sha’ar Shechem which means the Gate of Shechem (the biblical name for the West Bank city of nablus is Shechem and the gate is the terminus of the road which comes from the north and both Damascus, a major city and Nablus a smaller closer city can be reached on that northbound road.) In Arabic it is called Bab al Amoud, the Gate of the Pillar. There is a stump, a remnant of a Roman pillar a few hundred feet inside the Old City which gives the Gate it’s Arabic name.

    The gate itself and the neighborhood of the gate is not an area of conflict involving the settlers. Inside the old city the quarter one enters when you enter the Damascus gate is the Muslim quarter and there are buildings of settlers there that are conflict hot points.

    The shortest path between the religious ultra Orthodox neighborhoods of West jerusalem and the primary destination for those religious jews who enter the old city, which is the kotel or the Kotel Hamaaravi or the Western or the Wailing Wall, the shortest path as the crow flies (and most are men dressed in crow-like black) is through the Damascus Gate. The primary “Western” or tourist or Israeli gate to enter the old city is the jaffa gate, which adds easily twenty minutes to a walking jew on his way to the kotel or the wall. The Damascus Gate is by far the busiest gate of pedestrian and primarily Arab traffic between the old city and the city beyond the old city’s walls. Nearby is a bus station with buses and primarily mini buses taking Palestinians to West Bank destinations.

    The significance of the Damascus Gate to the Palestinians is that it is the primary gate of the old city and the significance of the gate to most of the Israeli jews who use it is that it is the shortest path from their homes to the kotel.

    • Mooser
      March 18, 2016, 12:14 pm

      Hey “Yonah”! What grey and always carries a trunk?

      And is an illegal settler and squatter a “civilian”?

      • yonah fredman
        March 18, 2016, 6:57 pm

        It seems to me that settlers are civilians. When the teens were kidnapped and murdered on the west bank 21 months ago, I felt that it was an attack on civilians. Yet I also felt that to mention the episode without reference to the fact that they were in occupied territory (past the 67 armistice line) was to omit an essential fact/factor. The kotel is in occupied territory, as is the Damascus Gate, as is the Jaffa gate.

      • talknic
        March 18, 2016, 9:43 pm

        “It seems to me that settlers are civilians”

        If they’re armed, they’re a combatant andthey can be legitimately targeted even if they’re hiding behind their wife & children who unfortunately might become collateral

        IOW they’re f*ckwits and so is anyone who supports them or a Government that purposefully encourages them to be in harms way

        Take your pathetic whining to the people who’re responsible for the ongoing colonization of Palestine, the Jewish Agency, The Zionist Federation and the Israeli Government

  17. Mooser
    March 18, 2016, 7:30 pm

    “It seems to me that settlers are civilians.”

    Thanks! It’s always good to have an objective, disinterested and, unprejudiced ruling on the matter.

    But you do realize that “civilians” is a big climb-down, don’t you? Merely “civilians”? I mean, is it any old kind of “civilian” which deserves protections while doing illegal colonizing in co-operation with the IDF and the GOI? We’ve got to get their “civilian” protections extended to bearing arms in defense of their illegal settlement!

Leave a Reply