-
-
- In electric atmosphere, Medea Benjamin takes over the president’s speech 0
- Bradley Manning blows chance to have a gay wedding 0
- Weiner’s Park Ave apartment belongs to man whose ‘only agenda’ … 0
- UN and Hunter College events feature plight of Bedouin refugees, … 0
- AIPAC promotes Netanyahu on two states (and ignores the statements … 0
- Jamal al-Dura calls on Israeli government to bring him his … 4
- Kerry faults Israelis for complacency — peace isn’t ‘on the … 8
- Cornell SJP publishes ‘Notes on Palestine/Israel’ as an antidote to … 0
-
- Two friends meet for 5 minutes in Jerusalem 1709
- Palestinian-American Raed Zidan plants flag on top of Everest, dedicates … 1361
- Christians denounce Israel’s manhandling of worshipers at Holy Sepulcher on … 952
- Barbara Boxer’s visa bill for Israel comes under concerted attack 809
- In photos: Gaza marches and rallies mark 65 years of … 442
- Washington Post’s racism map omits Israel 438
- Israeli report on al-Dura case is vengeful and ‘surreal,’ says … 401
- International Criminal Court opens preliminary investigation into attack on Mavi … 355
-
- Kennedy’s insistence on right of return prompted Ben-Gurion to rewrite … 104
- International Criminal Court opens preliminary investigation into attack on Mavi … 96
- Abulhawa declines to ‘balance out’ several Israelis in ‘Al Jazeera’ … 94
- Barbara Boxer’s visa bill for Israel comes under concerted attack 93
- Washington Post’s racism map omits Israel 73
- Uncompromising hope inspired by Ghassan Kanafani 63
- Biden says Jewish ‘influence’ behind American cultural politics is ‘immense… … 56
- Two friends meet for 5 minutes in Jerusalem 53
-
- Bradley Manning blows chance to have a gay wedding http://t.co/I6Luwltzkq, 36 mins ago
- Weiner’s Park Ave apartment belongs to man whose ‘only agenda’ is Israel http://t.co/tk6hNX36NR, 36 mins ago
- RT @DanielSeidemann: @AmbassadorOren You apparently treat American support for Israel the way your boss treats double beds in flight: a div…, 3 hours ago
- RT @TomJunod: 4 U.S. citizens killed by drone. 1 targeted; 3 "not specifically" so. Now apply that ratio to thousands of Pakistanis and Yem…, 3 hours ago
- RT @libzionistssay: Seen on Metronorth: Obama meets Miss Israel! I have been convinced that Israel is right about everything. http://t.co/V…, 3 hours ago
-
Recent Comments
click link to see last 100 comments- The etymology of anti-Semitism (11)
- Katie Miranda: lol ! I never liked gefilte fish. :}
- EUR1069: Joseph Massad’s piece appears to be instructive on the subject. http://www.counterpunch.org...
- Glenn Greenwald on the Woolwich attack and blowback from the ‘war on terror’ (33)
- Woody Tanaka: Yeah, I was thinking the same thing. All this does is give a blessing to any actions by state actors.
- seafoid: “The world expelled us for every country. The Holocaust. The Spanish Inquisition. The Destruction of...
- Annie Robbins: how is the requirement of “clandestine” value-neutral? doesn’t it just block any...
- Video: Medea Benjamin interrupts Obama speech on US drone policy (22)
- Wonder Bunder: “That woman?” Her name is Medea Benjamin, Mr. President. I suggest you learn it....
- Kerry faults Israelis for complacency — peace isn’t ‘on the tip of everybody’s tongue’ (8)
- Annie Robbins: Will they US policy be to pressure Palestinians to leave and be resettled in other countries? Will it...
- seafoid: It’s not complacency. It’s far more serious. They think the Shoah gives them the right to shaft...
- Jamal al-Dura calls on Israeli government to bring him his son (4)
- The etymology of anti-Semitism (11)
Our Writers
- Philip Weiss
- Marc H. Ellis
- Annie Robbins
- Alex Kane
- Adam Horowitz
- Kate
- Today in Palestine
- Allison Deger
Blogroll
The War of Ideas in the Middle East
American,
"Can you imagine the fury here and other countries if some black member of US congress got this kind of treatment in the US?"
Due to the preponderance of Security personnel who happen to be black, the cry of prejudicial treatment is largely silenced. Should a member of congress be treated differently because of the office he (or she) holds? Certainly in recent years their have been abundant reasons to question the Integrity of members of Congress. To give someone a free pass because of their political affiliation would in fact, be prejudicial and discriminatory in nature.
People, people, people...
Everyone that has the opportunity and privilege of going through "Airport Security" is experiencing (a level) of affliction to their Civil Liberties. Whether being questioned, or patted down, detained, searched, asked to remove articles of clothing AND it progresses from there (or digresses) to the point of the oral cavity search. This happens routinely around the World. In the United States, the only reason I can see that more complaints from black people are not being championed as discrimination is, that a number of Airport Security happen to be black.
This gentleman may "feel" singled out because of his political affiliation. However, due diligence must be exercised in the "prevention of a terrorist attack." Is this heightened security due to post 9/11 paranoia? Perhaps. However, Israel has been exposed to many more ongoing threats to their security, historically, then the freedom enjoyed by many Americans.
I was travelling with a team of 16 people in 1985 when en-route to Kenya, East Africa we stopped in at the lovely airport in Cairo, Egypt. All of our [Canadian] Passports were seized by Airport Security who were well assisted by members of the Egyptian Militia, uniformed and fully equipped with side arms and assault rifles. Members of my team noted that they spent additional time with me. Was that because of my prominent nose? being unshaven? or wearing an army fatigue jacket with bulging pockets? (from Kodak film) OR a combination of those visible traits?
To give you further perspective, over half the members of our team were under the age of 20. One of the women on our team made the mistake of taking a flash photo of another member of the team outside, on the tarmac and was quickly surrounded by a number of Egyptian Militia, with weapons drawn. After interceding in that event by declaring we were not Americans, we were Canadians...the camera was returned, the ladies were released and nobody took any more photos.
Was I given additional consideration because I look Jewish (in some opinions) Or because I look Arabic (in other opinions). I may never know, nor was I overly concerned or offended. Airport Security at Heathrow was perhaps more polite, when they patted me down, but every Airport had their Security Personnel who were executing due diligence based on their training, or lack of it.
The gentleman above. Is he taking an approach that says because of his political affiliation or because of his heritage, he should NOT have to undergo the drudgery of passing through Airport Security. Are they targeting him because he's "special" OR does he believe he shouldn't be targeted because he is, "special" and entitled to special and additional consideration?
Once upon a time,
Some people believed that
Iran was not a nuclear threat to (anyone)
They just wanted to have missiles of their own
just so they could "feel included." and play with other Nations
and be taken seriously, especially by their own Arabic relatives
who were filthy rich from Petroleum exports and far more "American"
than Iranian models of Islamic culture.
Americans with liberal ideas thought that Iran shouldn't be picked on
No more UN embargoes please! We are against Nuclear War BUT
Iran should be able to have Nuclear Weapons to raise
their sagging self esteem.
Cause every thing is fair, in love... and war... and politics!
NOTE: A Nuke wouldn't have to hit the United States to affect in in Catastrophic proportion. Remember the affects of Chernobyl? Does the phrase: "environmental terrorism" mean anything to you? How about after the air, land and Oceans are affected by Super Nuclear Stupidity?
This really bothers me. Max suggested I have O.C.D., which really has very little to do with noticing inconsistencies of details. My observations, agree or disagree, or agree to disagree or decide to Censor it, completely inconsistent with all the passionate comments supporting freedom of speech.
Photo One. Sad Children. Are they looking at the woman laying down? No. Any sign of empathy towards her? No. They look like they've been yelled at, scolded, they are more bewildered, confused, their expressions are very telling. What really irritates me is the use of children as props. You may say these children are not props. Fine argue that point but don't justify the use of children for advancing a political cause. It's moronic, insane to do that to children. These children. Look at their faces. Really look at their faces and see if you can discern what emotion is being portrayed. Do these children look like they want to be in this photo? They are looking at someone, not the cameraman and not the Women in the bed. So, who are they looking at? Why are they standing so awkwardly?
Next. Detail. Bullet from an M-16 "grazes her forehead" call it a "flesh wound."
Take your finger and touch your own forehead. Does it feel fleshy to you? No. If somebody struck you in the forehead with their elbow you would bleed profusely and require stitches. Miracle of miracles. This woman was "grazed" by a bullet from an M-16 Rifle. Uhm. Anyone know anything about M-16 Rifles? Nope. I didn't think so.
So, I'm supposed to believe that Israeli soldiers are taking shots at Palestinians while they are harvesting their wheat...right? They are taking shots with an M-16 and the harvesters just stay out in the fields harvesting, because that just makes sense, right?
Some of you hate it when I ask questions. You just consume every little story without much examination, without hesitancy, because it's all for the bigger picture.
What happens to an engine that gets hit by a bullet? Anyone? Bueller, Ferris Bueller?
What happens to an outboard engine on a boat that gets hit by bullets? Fuel, combustion, spark, heat, bullet(s)? K-Boom! That's my sound effect. Explosion.
Again, we are asked to believe that Israelis are randomly shooting at people in boats. They wouldn't approach a boat and say anything, right? They just take shots, M-16, indiscriminately, but hitting an engine because you see, the gentleman in the picture, holding out his hand to show bullets which have a "full metal jacket." Do you know what that means? They haven't been fired. Just an annoying detail. Inconsistencies and then strong consistencies. Maybe, just maybe, their are a couple of soldiers who lose it one day and start taking shots at civilians. That happens, usually from a tower somewhere someone is sniping because they lost their mind. However, (we) are supposed to believe that this is a common practice. This is regular stuff. Just shoot at Palestinians. I don't believe it.
Why? Soldiers are trained so they don't have to think too much. They react to various scenarios. Acting outside of those scenarios is largely unheard of unless (someone is genuinely mentally ill, PTSD, on serious drugs, etc) Here in two different locations, the same activity is taking place. Extremely unusual. Incredible, as in I'm questioning the credibility of these two stories.
Israel is known for dropping letter bombs advising civilians three days in advance that they will be targeting military outposts in a civilian area. They warn people to get out,, get to safety. Yet, I'm supposed to believe that there are a number of Israeli militia who are acting like a bunch of drunken cowboys from the Wild West. It just doesn't add up. Being in the military is not joining a College frat house. It isn't like that.
Oh well, people who throw stones shouldn't live in glass houses. Actually, even if you don't throw stones, if you live in a glass house there are fingerprints everywhere...that would be a lot to clean up...
How "American" of you.
Can you imagine what would have happened if the UN declared Israel as a Nation and then shortly thereafter they were attacked by surrounding Countries in an offensive manoeuvre? AND then in defence of Israel, a people that was scattered throughout the World, refugees returning to their homeland, fought valiantly and actually defeated the opposing forces, gaining more territory in the process?
How long would the United States tolerate rockets being fired into Civilian populated areas? Well, instead of imagining, how about thinking back to two atomic bombings against the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Japan. Fat man and Little boy, August 1945. BOOM!
There I go again, confusing historical events with imagination. They are quite distinct aren't they?
"I would pray to whatever god I believed in to dash the evil [of zionism] to the ground and grind it underfoot under nothing remains of it forever."
Brackets [mine]
Why just the "evil" of zionism? Why not just evil? Or are you concerned that when people are weighed in the balance, that some of your heroes may also be dashed to the ground and grind underfoot (until) nothing remains of them forever?
An unjust deity would just increase evil in the World through prejudicial, unbalanced judgement.
seafoid,
A Heckler is not magnificent. What was the point of protest at a theatrical production? Are the Palestinians against Art? Drama?
This wasn't creative. This is the kind of crap I did when I was in School, in junior high school. Immature and disruptive. Creative? Where is the creativity?
Civil disobedience should have a correlation to the law that is unjust. Viewing a theatrical production is not unjust but disrupting it is.
try, just try to stay on point without spewing information that is not remotely connected to this event. This was theatre. This was disrupting the peace. There are times and places for lawful assembly and demonstrating for personal rights while disregarding other peoples personal rights is arrogant and pointless.
The usual banter follows and sides are drawn, ridiculous. It was a private function. Are you going to stand up at a relatives wedding reception and start ranting about Israel and Palestine? Would that be appropriate?
This form of protest is not a methodology of gaining people's respect, it's a demonstration of being disrespectful and abusing another person's civil liberties. Flip the equation, make it a Palestinian theatre production, It still would not be an appropriate place to demonstrate.
Freddy V,
Freedom of speech is a right of an individual and or a group that does not override another individual's civil liberties. Law coincides with parallel laws. This was a private gathering, not a place for a public protest. Put aside your political views and think, just a little bit. Heckling in a theatre. Disrupting a performance. It is a common practice at venues to lock entrance doors prior to the start of a theatrical or musical production so as not to interrupt the performance.
If someone wants to protest "the content of the theatrical production." they should do so outside not by disrupting someone else's civil liberties. It's immature, pointless and classless to use these tactics and expect a positive outcome.
Making it law not to hire "illegal migrant workers"? This is an outrage! AND putting up fences, or walls, to establish borders AND keep people out, keep them from obtaining employment? What kind of Government would do that?
Certainly, the United States would not employ these tactics to keep illegal migrant workers from Mexico from obtaining gainful employment in the U.S., regardless of citizenship! The U.S. would not employ border guards or levy fines for hiring illegal workers or even talk about building "a big wall" to keep people out. Certainly not! That is something the Chinese would do but the United States? NEVER! The U.S. would not do what China did. They would just borrow {scad-zillions} of dollars from them to bail out failed private corporations, cause the CEO and all "them" shareholders? They are "legal immigrants" aren't they?
{scad-zillions} is a reasonable term to describe an unreasonable amount of debt. It is not a precise term nor need it be. Scad-zillions is beyond the comprehension of any reasonable human being. (SOURCE: Not Wikipedia)
It is common place among [diplomatic entities] to hold to two separate accounts of what took place. The public announcement reflects ambiguity, retractability, plausible deniability as to confirmed sources, in an effort to postpone immediate and decisive action. The actual factual record, is not announced publicly until a consensus of approval or disapproval is formed or to put in other words, the right people are lending their support. Personally, I believe the World would benefit more by the actions of leaders as opposed to the inaction of politicians.
The "right thing" to do is seldom popular or risk free. Does the UN need to declare who did it? Are (we) under the impression that private citizens have access to tanks and artillery ammunition?
As horrific as the murders of men, women and children are in Syria, Syrians killing Syrians, it's nice to take a break from that gruesome reality and focus on the "This jewish guy, may be, about to, possibly, get a perhaps, job at the UN." because that is definitely, more important then condemning the unilateral, dictatorial, actions of a "regime" that is killing it's own people. [note: sarcasm: MINE]
Fb, that has to be one of the most succinct statements you've written.
I'd like to test each one of them and see how they stand-up under closer scrutiny.
1. "All Peoples are invented." This is, historically accurate although some may assume that the use of the word; "invented" implies that they are made up, a figment of the imagination. I don't believe that is your context. Israel and it's people(s) came from an actual person, named Jacob, then Israel and his 12 sons, representing tribes named after them. You know those pyramid shaped structures in Egypt? They were built by Hebrew slaves, not Egyptian citizens.
2. "It's just a question of when."
The "Roots" of both Jewish peoples and Arabic peoples can be traced back to Abraham,"the Father of many nations" who had two sons; Isaac and Ishmael. From Ishmael came the Ishmaelite's (go figure) and from Isaac, the "Jewish" peoples. Ishmael was born first, he is the older brother, if birth order may be argued as a right to exist or not exist. Same Father, different Mother(s).
3. "the American People were invented about 2-3 centuries ago..."
Who discovered "America" is still being debated. The Indigenous people, native(s), tribes, either pre-existed before the arrival of the "pilgrims" OR are descendants from China. (I saw it on TV, a theory, but it was on TV)
However, America was founded on the same principles of other Nations. Wage war with the locals, wage war with "other" peoples from other nations, Wage war with each other, but please, be Civil, we'll call it a "Civil War." North against the South. Hatfields and Mcoys, family feud (not the game show) AND in the Middle East? Family feud on Acid (a lot, like a game show)
4. "... and the Palestinian People were invented after the 6 day war."
Fb, you're on your own with that one.
Annie,
My comments (predictable as always) were directed to the two vids posted here. I'm certainly not critiquing an entire body of work by an Artist or a Musician without seeing it or hearing it, that would be terribly presumptuous wouldn't it? As much as Udi Aloni is able to creatively articulate the meaning behind the production, I prefer to find the meaning of a Theatrical/Musical work by experiencing it, unguided. I think if someone has to explain; "what it's all supposed to represent" then the "art" is not speaking for itself.
(In my Opinion)
Amir-Ras,
Everybody has taste, some have good taste, others bad taste, somethings are tasteless in their entirety. You enjoy their music, it works for you, excellent.
But you lost be after "brilliant." Just not my flavour and my opinion has nothing to do with their Israeli heritage. The music speaks for itself and I checked out your link for another helping of Izabo...because, well, apparently I'm a glutton for punishment.
Now, as far as brilliant musicians go...Mandy Patinkin, Itzak Perlman, Sammy Davis Jr. (converted to Judaism) and their are many, many more extremely talented Musicians of Jewish heritage who have made outstanding contributions to the World of Music. As far as Izabo goes...Oy vey!
Annie,
Why? I don't care what their Nationality is. Cirque du So-Lame on Crystal Meth... Of all the vile things to put on this site. "Izabo" The best part was the cowboy camp clown visual in freeze frame. Then I pressed "Play" There should have been a warning, Annie. Come on! I just ate an hour ago, I shouldn't be swimming in mediocrity so soon after a meal. I'm not going to give you a frame by frame analysis, I didn't listen to the whole thing. It's kinda like when you bite into a pastry and then pull a nasty hair out of your mouth, the appetite is lost. As far a Juliano being a "Genius" yeah, him and gumby, geniuses, misunderstood in their own time. If Izabo was influenced by Juliano...that's no excuse. Julianos bit can be traced back to Fellini, who actually was an artist.
I like Blondie. But, a black guy in drag lip syncing is not my idea of Music or Art. Eventually, I hope I can forgive you Annie, for exposing me to this, I'd just like to put the whole thing behind me. Suffering humanity!
Comments almost exclusively depict Israel as an instigator of war with Iran however, has anyone considered the belief within the Islamic Community that creating a war will escalate the appearance of the Mahdi. (an Islamic Messiah)
Also, Iran having a sense of moral superiority over the wealthier Arab Emirates who are decadent, westernized, and morally ambivalent, outside of compliance with Islamic law and certainly shall not rule over Iran unrighteously in spite of their powerful financial resources. Islam has war from within and factions abound based on political or religious subtypes. The one thing that Iran is obviously tired of is having the World set boundaries on behaviour reinforced with the threat or the actual boycott of imports/exports.
Israel isn't paranoid. They have a realistic view and an awareness that they are surrounded by their enemies and historical context that indicates defensive measures need be in place to ensure their survival.
Yagil Levy has some ideas but I cannot follow his reasoning. "Also...running quotes...make me curious as to...what he may have said...before and after."
Piotr,
Although, information about a civil case may be gathered by a member of the public, criminal cases and the evidence that guides a conviction is not often shared with the public. The exception being the grandiose media coverage of the O.J. Simpson Trial and most recently 20/20 type murder mystery segments.
Still, Abu Sisi, from your information appears to be someone who perpetrated a threat towards Israel, not just an individual and those matters that are relevant to his conviction, even the evidence used to convict him may have a privilege of limited disclosure because it may, for instance pose a threat to National Security or Outing Agents in the field.
Israel is not under any legal obligation to disclose evidence used to convict a person who may be considered; committing an act of aggression or war against the Country.
A similar jurisdictional loophole exists for the United States and those imprisoned at Git-mo. Under an Act of War, the legal rules change dramatically.
I'm very happy to read that you do not see a correlation between an electrical engineer and rockets or weaponry in general. One exists, However, I'm glad you are not aware of it.
Kathleen,
"If the Corrie’s lose this case. What is their next step? Can they go to the International Criminal Court?"
In answer to your question. The case is tried in a Civil Court, not a criminal court. If the Family lost the Civil Case, the next step would be to file an Appeal based on the Judge's Reasons for his Decision. There would have to be Errors made by the trial Judge that were Findings of Fact and/or Findings of Law and they would need to be significant enough to result in a different decision if they weren't made.
Criminal charges are laid via Law Enforcement, they are not laid by individuals. An individual notifies the Legal authorities, forwards allegations and evidence but ultimately, the Police pursue criminal charges and the State (or Crown) Prosecutor tries the case in Criminal Court or cuts a deal with the Defense attorney, plea bargain.
However, If the Case was based on an allegation of wrongful death and the Court ruled that it was, in fact a wrongful death there may be entrance into a forum of Criminal Law. It depends on the Legal strategy employed by the Corrie Family's attorney to ensure that double jeopardy is not in play.
Double jeopardy is the rule that No One can be tried for the same offence twice. If someone was tried for Murder and found not guilty, they could not be re-tried for the same crime. The case could be appealed or reopened upon the discovery of "new evidence."
Should read: I agree with your assertion that "samples" snowballs into "body parts" as an exaggeration. Also, Organ harvesting is not done at an autopsy, ladies and gentlemen. The window of opportunity is much narrower then that and major organs lose their viability to be used in a donor situation.
Cause of death is pursued for legal reasons [talknic] it does seem unnecessary when the cause of death seems readily apparent. Yet, a coroner will make an incision in the chest that is more prominent then "the zipper" one receives for open heart surgery. Poke, prod, weigh, measure organs and record their findings in a report.
On a personal level, an autopsy performed on a Family member seemed grossly intrusive and unnecessary to me AND if I learned that (anyone) involved in the process did something that was a violation or breech of their professional conduct, I would see to it that the Coroner was held accountable.
Annie,
Just sharing an overview of how the "legal system" in a Civil Case operates. When I say (most likely) to proportion responsibility between the two parties it is because of the legal nature of "negligence" and the defences against negligence may adjust the balance of "probabilities."
Unlike criminal cases where convictions are based upon beyond reasonable doubt the standard for weighing evidence in Civil Cases is based on "probabilities" the likelihood of what happened, PROBABLY, not possibly. This line of weighing evidence may disregard actual facts that may have actually occurred however, seem to be improbable. Redundancy on the word "actual" is intentional.
In earlier comments, I clearly expressed that everyone (myself included) carries whether consciously or unconsciously, a bias. Jwp asks if Judges are always impartial and I can answer that in my view and experience. NO.
I was also delighted to read a Supreme Court Justice's view on the nature of bias and the Justices exercise to recognize and make efforts to neutralize personal bias. She was saying: Yes, even at the top, bias exists. Dershowitz has a book where he names Lawyers, Prosecuting attorneys, Police and Judges who have undoubtedly, disregarded material evidence in cases and ruled in opposition to its existence.
In Civil Court you win at 51%. That is all you need for a win. So, even if a Judge proportions responsibility between the two parties, Rachel Corrie's family could receive a ruling in their favour.
I'm not saying which way the Judge should rule. I don't have all the facts of law Or the evidence in front of me. I do hate using terminology such as; win, in their favour or may be rewarded compensation. Rachel Corrie is dead. There is no "win" here, there is no adequate "compensation" for the loss of a life. The Legal System is imperfect and at times severely flawed, personally, I have a love/hate relationship with the Law and the pursuit of Justice.
However, if you asked me, if I had a choice to represent either Rachel Corrie as the Plaintiff OR the IDF, I would choose to advocate for Rachel Corrie and her family. AND so would an attorney of the caliber of Alan Dershowitz. I would hope that the Family is well represented by legal counsel.
Regardless of Political views favouring any position, this incident was a tragedy and cut short the life of 23 year old woman.
The questions of Law and Fact will be determined by the Judge who will weigh the preponderance of evidence before him or her and then based on a balance of probabilities, render a decision.
Was the driver of the Bulldozer negligent? Was the incident intentional, foreseeable and/or to what degree did any party contribute to the negligent act.
At the end of the day, the Judge may rule that the death was accidental OR rule that the young woman was the cause of her demise OR (more likely) proportion, between the two parties, a measure of responsibility.
My heart goes out to Rachel Corrie's family.
Fredblogs,
Autopsies are by their nature, intrusive. Organs are removed, examined, weighed and yes, tissue, fluid, and other "samples" are removed for histological testing. Now, if the Doctor, in this particular case made errors that points to his negligence, whether intended or not BUT it certainly cannot be objectively used to slander (Israelis, Jews, or anyone else) that was not directly responsible, professionally to do the autopsy.
I agree with your assertion that snowballs into , the practice was so common that the Doctor did not make additional considerations or adhere to the SPECIFIC CONSIDERATIONS Forwarded by the Family. Those considerations were outside of the norm, however, they were both reasonable and lawful from the material that I read.
Annie,
Well spoken, I agree, the familial familiarity is quite distinctive. I would make a distinction between what "religion" does to some people and also what has been and continues to be done under the blanket of religion and in the name of [insert deity here] is both sad and at times, blatantly counterintuitive to the tenets of the prescribed faith.
ykohen,
I appreciate your thorough examination of the facts and your rationalization that links them together. Unfortunately, the likelihood is that observations from a factual basis are largely ignored in favour of emotional irrationality from (some) commenters.
However. Logic need not argue with incongruent emotionalism.
There is a suggestion that Fires were lit by the use of RIFLES. That is simply naiveté, ignorance or wishful thinking. Any spark or combustion happens within the chamber of a rifle, it does not come outside of the barrel of a rifle, nor does it follow the path of the projectile.
Annie, attempts below to "minimize" the relevance of the fire. The clouds of smoke in the air are evidence that this is a serious fire. Why are the Palestinians being pursued when the fire is behind the settlers? Gee. Maybe, the Palestinians were spreading the fire and had to be chased away. They certainly outnumbered the settlers didn't they?
Shmuel,
"the very presence of the settlers there is an ongoing act of violence, "
Someones presence is an act of violence? Really! Wow. Does that concept work for all people regardless of their political views or is it just a self serving, one-sided, myopic, bigoted justification of inflicting violence towards a specific people group which in your narrowest of views appears to be them Jews.
Woody Tanaka,
Are you certain that you aren't confusing "civilians" with "citizens"?
Also you reframe circumstances to fit your own dogma, A big steaming hot pile of dogma. "They're all settlers and therefore..." You know if you keep repeating something often enough it may be easier to remember but it doesn't make it True.
dimadok was observant enough to make a distinction between offensive and defensive actions. You blindly support your "home team" and justify their violent actions BUT condemn anyone else that resists or defends their own lives or property.
WOW!
Census/Demographic Results reports [Minority or Non-white] Births exceeded [White or really, really white Births] for the first time.
What is wrong with that statement? White being one category and everybody else, apparently being a minority? One article mentions: Hispanics and Latinos but fails to even mention a specific category for Beyonce who is reportedly a mix of black, asian and Native American Indian...or maybe that's Tiger Woods, I get confused. If your background consists of three minorities shouldn't you automatically be bumped up to majority status?
One article mentions how this Census may be used to relax immigration regulations for access into the U.S. and challenging anti-immigration legislation in Arizona, where, trust me, if you forget your sunscreen, you ain't white for long. Dense, really dense, as if a Census that is racist by it's categorization is going to open the doors for immigrants. White vs. Everybody Else.
I'm sorry, I just don't understand categorization of ethnicity based on skin colour. How useful is that? Especially in a Country that displaced it's indigenous peoples and was founded by immigrants? Fascinating yet all to familiar how comments are able to insert "Jewish" significance into this generalized demographic.
Are Jews white or a minority? Better check your Aryan handbook for confirmation. What about Jews who are black? OR virtually every other colour in the world? What about the other tribes,, that are not of Judah? Make me a Benja-mite sandwich on Rye please.
Just when you thought racism was over cause a (fairly) Black President was elected because Obama is a mix of African, Asian, and if I'm not mistaken..white or whitish.
Or maybe that's tiger Woods, I get so confused with categories sometimes.
Many years ago I was working in Bedstuy although I am not a native New Yorker and I asked the woman who was accompanying me what nationality she thought I was. (Because I have been tagged as everything from Lebanese to Italian, French to yes, considering my nose, Jewish) Her answer? You look WHITE.
The absence of colour, vanilla, and perhaps in a rich and diverse populace that Brooklyn is known for, maybe just maybe, I was WHITE by comparison. But to me, it wasn't a compliment, it felt a little insulting, just like the parameters of this U.S. Census.
Have you heard the Mainstream media reporting that rockets fired from Gaza into Israeli Civilian Targets since January 2012 total over 265?
Do you remember seeing photos of Israeli Civilian casualties? No? They must not exist, right? No. The casualties exist. The damage is real. It's just that the Israelis still treat casualties with discretion and respect, not just another photo op to: "Advance the Cause."
If you think that Israeli Soldiers are indiscriminately firing tank shells you are misinformed as to how the military works. This will be investigated. You just won't hear about it because the "actual cause" of the firing may not adequately serve the Palestinian people.
giladg,
You appear to be citing history as a relevant source. Outstanding!
British Mandated Palestine was of course under British Rule.
Historically, the origins of Jerusalem are intact, regardless of the fact that; Jerusalem was, at times, under the Rule of other nations; from Babylon>>>to the Roman Empire>>>Remember the "Crusades." and on, on we go.
However, unless one is a fan of revisionist historians, (I am not) the fact that the Jewish peoples were displaced from their homeland and scattered to the far reaches of the World, refugees, hated with impunity and without a home, seems to be completely irrelevant to (some) people who are advocating for Palestinians, who have been displaced from their homeland, scattered, refugees, hated with impunity and without a home.
Is that irony or hypocrisy or simply cognitive dissonance?
Prof Richard A. Posner?
I'm sorry, I'm not familiar with any cases that he has actually won. Any Supreme Court cases. He sounds a little jealous of what is known as being "successful" possibly due to his own shortcomings or lack of accomplishments in his chosen profession. Everyone has the right to a defence, that is a principal vital to due process.
Big difference between being accused of a Crime and being found guilty of a crime. The presiding Judge makes that decision. If a prosecuting attorney is incompetent (Like the O.J. Trial) then defence attorneys, lawfully, advocate for the civil liberties of their clients and WIN.
Woody,
NOTE: There is a distinct difference between a legal system and a legal result, or ruling on a case AND Justice. If you think that O.J. was an important case for Dershowitz, you are likely very unaware of the cases I was referring to.
Piotr,
I think it's very important to recognize that when Dershowitz explains legal concepts based on what has been, "legally tolerated" He is not endorsing those Concepts nor is he responsible for their creation. Pointing out the misapplication of Law, is a matter of Law, not personal preferences or political views.
Krauss
Thanks for sharing the Link. Dershowitz is a brilliant Professor of Law at Harvard, the Legal cases he has championed over his career speak for themselves. His understanding of the relationship between International Law and the legislative authority of Israel is correct. Yet, he distinguishes between legal and illegal settlements and he specifies certain locations as examples. He does not give a black and white answer, because depending on which standard you use; the law, moral law, etc the answer would be different.
Regardless of legal rights, Dershowitz makes the distinction that compromise in the favour of Palestinian people(s) is the right thing to do. He also calls B.S. on the host of human rights allegations against Israel and asks that the same standard be applied to all Nations. He then cites China and zero tolerance of demonstrations in favour of the Dalai Lama and that Syria would not allow for student protests that are allowed in Israel.
He also makes a clear, legal distinction regarding Jordanian land that was captured in 1967, in defence of an attack against Israel. After the Jordanians had lost the war they started, they attempted to sign over"rights" to the land to the Palestinian peoples. "Rights" that were non-existent. Israel tried to give the land to Egypt as part of a Camp David Peace negotiation but they didn't want it.
Even after clearly declaring certain legal factors, he maintains that achieving peace and compromise is not a matter of law, it's the right thing to do.
What is the benefit of attaching the label of Liberal to Dershowitz? or to anyone?
As Liberal as Liberals are, apparently they are conservative in recognizing when someone is actually supporting their position.
I don't see the point of the Peter Berg interview. Let me rephrase that. It's pointless.
Everybody has bad hair days, gets over exhausted and looks less than "fresh". My question is: don't you have the sense to stay away from cameras and microphones on those days?
TMZ, that brave journalistic source is going to run this clip and lampoon Peter Berg and mention the movie. That's the point. Generate publicity for the movie. Hurrah!
Sure to be the cultural event of the season, somehow, I will miss it.
Remember the good old days when Godzilla threatened Tokyo? Classic. Now, it's all about the United States and some "thing" threatening to destroy it, again. Aliens...again. (Independence Day) Earthquakes, Tsunamis, Volcanoes, Aliens, again.
The Cold War was good for Hollywood. Democracy against Communism. Good guys and Bad guys. Now, Hollywood imports the enemy from outer space. (Again) Aliens pose an existential threat to the United States and the World! (Again) Of course the Good guys will, somehow triumph...(Hurrah!) AND personally, I'm left with the rhetorical question: "Has Hollywood run out of (good) ideas?" (Again)
A Movie based on a board game. The board game is decent, I play it with my kids, complete with our own sound effects of explosions. A Movie based on the board game? I think the pitch for the movie went something like this:
Pitch Guy: "AND then the Navy comes.. and it's submarines, and aircraft carriers, destroyers AND BATTLESHIPS! "
Studio Executive: "BATTLESHIPS?...Like the board game?"
Pitch Guy: YEAH! Just like the board game!
Studio Executive: "I hate that game, my brother always won, cheat, cheat, cheat...
I think we'll pass on this one."
Pitch Guy: AND...There's Aliens!
Studio Executive: Ahhh... Aliens? O.k. Let's do it!
I hope this trend continues because I really want to see the Movie, "Snakes & Ladders" starring "the Rock" and Jim Carrey. The Plot? Unnecessary!
How about Monopoly? Starring Donald Trump as the Realtor Magnate who owns Park Avenue and Boardwalk Place and co-starring a number of equally talented B-list celebrities. Bring it on Hollywood! Make it a comedy!
Or Monopoly with a twist. More dramatic. Like the Banker approves Mortgages to homeowners that don't have an income! No Income, No Job Approvals! We'll call them "NINJA" Loans. AND then the Banks sell their investment to other Banks, AS IF, it's guaranteed and fully insured! The Big Banker, you know the guy with the top hat and cigar, he gets huge bonuses for screwing everybody over, the President gives him a "get out of jail free" card and BAILS OUT THE BANKS with everyone else's money!
What a farce! Is it a tragedy or a comedy...maybe both, but definitely fiction cause that would never happen in real life, would it? Anyways, while your considering that, I should call Judd Apatow with some more ideas.
FOOTNOTE: In the End, Michael Moore squeezes out; one more "documentary" A disaster Movie that depicts the United States being utterly destroyed, not by Aliens but by their own stupidity.
Meaning that a 1917 Map
does not reference 1948 territory as asked by a comment.
seafoid,
The Jews came from the Tribe of JUDAH and Israelis came from the Tribe of ISRAEL. Israel ruled the North and Judah reigned in the South. Borders have always been significant to the 12 Tribes, represented by 12 sons of Jacob (whose name was changed to Israel) Later in History the two Kingdoms came together. Did they know their borders? Yes. Do you remember riding in the back seat with your brother or sister and drawing a line and saying; "Stay over there, this is my side."?
Well, there is an oversimplification of the need for borders due to conflicts within
a Family. Both Arabs and Israelis waged war for territory with the exception of the nomadic tribes who moved often.
The Map is dated as 1917... Back to the Future,
good movie, but it was Fictional.
Hostage,
Your comment that "Sharon has put on weight despite being fed intravenously" is according to his SON. Do you think he picked up his Dad and put him on a scale and checked his current weight? Son, Dad, this is a Family matter. For you to add "obscene" to your comments weighs in on your ignorance and your complete lack of empathy towards any ONE who has had a Family Member debilitated from the affects of a stroke.
Annie,
Is the messenger guilty of CYBERHATE? Is the internet only filled with CYBERHATE? Certainly this site would not want to be associated with spreading hatred towards any specific group of people(s) Palestinian or Jews. There are laws that govern the use of free speech and what amounts to Libel or defamation, these are Legal Concepts and can't be entered into without evidence, on some subjective whim, by any other group. Maintaining personal freedom also implies taking personal responsibility for our views and our actions. Nothing wrong with that equation because it applies to all.
Does his spokesman have a name, perchance? Not that I am doubting that a blogger of such world renown authority could have access to the Minister's Office, surely, we all do. It's the idiotic statement that this "spokesman" is reported to have made, that if he in fact made, is his own and can not be attributed to the minister.
If you have a comment from a source in Government, quote your source, otherwise it's credibility is certainly suspect. If you printed his name, and this source maintained this position, I'm quite sure he would be in the ranks of the unemployed.
Also, are (We) attempting to translate a language? That creates all sorts of problems, especially if you did not "hear" the pronunciation OR if perhaps, you don't even speak the language. I'm just saying...
Perhaps the Minister is referring to the extreme wealth of certain members of the Arab Emirates and the extreme poverty and affliction experienced by other Arab peoples. All that Money from OIL and yet the Palestinians are unsupported by their own extended family.
Seanmcbride, may I call you Sean?
Are you saying that Israel poses an existential threat towards... everyone?
Israel was recently criticized as adopting a viewpoint that "others" posed an existential threat towards them. That Iran did not state they wanted to wipe Israel of the map but rather; the pages of time, and further quoting Khomeini, that Israel was a Cancer and other warm, fuzzy, sentiments.
Sean, you sound like a conspiracy theorist. Let me respond to your overall concept that "all the Jews are in this together" I'm offended you didn't mention Spielberg or Jerry Seinfeld in the mix. One directs what you watch in Movies and the other invaded North American culture trying to tell us what was funny for about 10 years.
Have you even considered that Adam and Philip may be on the inside of the Palestinian Movement but actually giving intel to Israel about all the negative publicity on this site, all the Palestinian "news sources", journalists, activists, etc?
Why not? Is that irrational? After all, it is my source that they are (whisper) "Jews".
I'm sure you have done stellar research and have newspaper clippings on the wall with lines drawn connecting all the Jews working in agreement towards the cause of "zionism."
Here is my rebuttal. Take three Jews and put them in the same room and ask them to define what "zionism" is. Come back in an hour. You will find that they have come up with at least 5 or 6 different definitions in that time but the three of them do not agree that one definition accurately describes "zionism."
The United States owes Gazillions of dollars not to a Jewish bank but to the Chinese Government. That is the Bank that holds the mortgage on your future, hopefully they never foreclose. The article was about dealing with "Cyber hate" there are laws that exist that make a distinction between freedom of speech and an abuse of freedom of speech. If this site doesn't reflect inspiring hatred towards a specific group of people, race, creed, colour, etc It should be fine.
Have you ever heard the term Judahphobia? Probably not, I just made it up and you know why you haven't heard that term? Just say it; "Ju dah phobia" why not? We have homo-phobia, Islam a phobia, so why not fear the JEWS?
I even read a book, (well several books) where there was a claim that; "Jewish Insiders" were one of the first nations to be Monotheistic, they believed in One GOD and they claimed further that HE chose them to be HIS People. Of course if you read further, you will find that GOD is not always pleased with HIS chosen, they are His Children and He disciplines them for their behaviour because He loves them. BUT still, if GOD is on their side, who cares about Zuckerberg?
Please, Sean, open the blinds on the window, let some sun shine in or better yet go for a walk outside. It's Mother's Day, get some fresh air even if it's just to show yourself that Israel is not controlling your every move.
Chocopie,
I heard that 50 cent borrowed a cocktail napkin and a ball point from on of his jailers and knocked out a rap song while he was in jail.
Might want to look into that.
Crack open a book,
don't get booked for being on crack
Peace out. Yo.
SOURCE: something "I heard."
Will this be in those history books alsoIn return,
"Palestinian prisoners' leaders have "signed a commitment to completely halt terrorist activity inside Israeli prisons", including recruitment, practical support, funding and co-ordination of operations, according to a statement released by the Israeli security agency, Shin Bet."
From the linked article below
Denis,
You wrote:
"My point is that the Palestinian propagandists do not honor these people — and may damage their cause — by concocting fraudulent, hyper-emotive, “letters” that they claim were written by the striking prisoners when they clearly could not have been."
On that point, I agree.
As far as questioning my right to call myself a Father.
I gave my view as a Father and the affect on my children.
Denis, when I was single and without children there were many things I would have given my life for. I'll call that mix foolishness, youth and zeal.
Denis, I don't know if you'll get this or not. It's easy to DIE. That would end my pain, my suffering wouldn't it? It's much harder to stay alive and fight and be a Father and BE THERE and DO then to leave a note that says: "I'll make it up to you some day, this was for a greater cause, hope you understand my beautiful daughter. Be proud of your Father. It's easy to make babies Denis, It's much harder to raise them and to protect them and I certainly would not include them as "participants" to a political cause they never consented to. My children's lives are worth something, Denis. They enjoy freedom because they were born in a free Country, They also enjoy freedom because their Grandfather survived concentration Camp, he ate grass to stay alive, he suffered and was brutalized but he stayed alive. It would have been easier to die. Their Grandmother and her family survived. There hand pulled ox-cart was struck my a military vehicle and my children's great Grandfather suffered a massive head injury but he cried out to his GOD and he SURVIVED, he stayed alive and he brought his family to a Country that was not at War. He gave opportunities for his children to have children of their own, to build something better for the next generation.
"It's easier to hate than to forgive, it's easier to die than live"
He isn't a casualty of war. He is choosing to starve himself. Do you know why people commit suicide? It stops the pain. It's a permanent solution to a temporary problem. Are you a Father, Denis? He isn't protecting anyone by dying from self inflicted means. You have to be alive to fight. Suicide does not make a martyr.
That letter isn't worth it. The political cause is not worth it. He is more valuable alive to his children then a non-existent Parent, a noble memory.
Palestinian and Arab people(s) have been known to indoctrinate their children to Hate the enemy, they have been known to use and leverage their children to promote their cause. AND you know what? The majority of people aren't buying it. So, what is that worth?
Do you think the Jews should have just laid down and given up in Nazi Germany? Just disobey the authorities and take a bullet. Should they have written letters and committed suicide as a legacy to their people? They were being tortured and starved and they survived. You don't get it, do you?
"When the [Arabs] love their children more than they hate [Israel] there will be peace in the Middle East."
Take away the reference to Arabs and Israelis and the statement is still true.
Where would South Africa be if Mandela died in prison?
Of course if you have children and went and did some time in Iraq or Afghanistan for service to your Country, I'd be most eager to hear that.
Even if you did. The goal is always to "stay alive." That's how you win.
Denis,
I can not agree with you Denis, for your sake, it would not be desirable. That being said: Raising the mental status of someone who willingly denied themselves food (and in some linked sources: water) reportedly over 75 days is valid. Personally, if my blood sugar drops too low, my ability to articulate a clear sentence is severely compromised.
So to address your explanation
#1. someone else wrote the letter.
So what if they did? The point here is to gain "something" for the cause.
The cause is Political. Does the President of the United States write his own speeches? Not always, there are speech writers who do that. Right?
#2 The suggestion that Halahleh wrote this letter weeks prior to his reported current mental and physical deterioration is to imply that he wrote his daughter a suicide note. The letter clearly specifies the end of his life and providing an explanation, or making it up to his daughter, somehow in the afterlife. Anticipating a negative outcome ahead of time does not give Halahleh the status of Martyr because his death would be the pre-meditated result of his own actions. Starving himself.
3. Israeli Doctors using Medical Intervention to keep Halahleh alive or improve his health status? Isn't that an abuse of his Human Rights?
What about his daughter being two years of age? Can she read? A personal letter such as this may have value for his daughter, in the future.
As a Father, I am troubled severely by the letter. I would wonder if my child would think that I wasn't important enough or valuable enough in relation to a political cause. Being faced with the question: "Dad why did you kill yourself?" Why weren't you here for me? Didn't you love me, Daddy? Why did you leave me, was I bad? The letter attempts to address some of these questions, however, that does not alleviate the tragedy of a daughter growing up without her Dad.
As a Father that shakes me to the core. If I was in Prison, my priority would be to do whatever was necessary to get back to my children.
Bottom line: This is self-inflicted. How do you attach responsibility to Israel? Even a child can reason, you chose to die, you quit eating under your own terms and died by your own choice. It's much harder to fight the fight when you are alive. You quit, Daddy don't you dare tell me to be proud of you.
The hunger strike is self-imposed. Israel is not refusing food or water to the prisoners are they? Israel is not in control of if the prisoners eat or not are they?
The hunger strike ceasing is contingent upon Israel Authorities meeting the demands of the strikers. One of those demands is the immediate release of at least 8 prisoners. Agree or Disagree, in my opinion, this may create some attention but does not change the legal elements of this situation. This may be better pursued through correct legal channels then public opinion to bypass a foreseeable and self-induced tragedy.
Shunra, Inanna...
"That woman is despicable" AND "This makes me really angry too."
She is sharing from her personal experience, from her memories as a child, She shares her personal struggle with inconsistencies in Liberalism. She shares her personal decision not to be silent, to advocate her personal views. AND You Shunra, after calling her "despicable" also declare that she does not care a whit for the "actual" people in the "actual" country. WOW! Even playing hide and seek as a child is twisted into something sinister.
So, Shunra. Is She NOT one of the "actual" people in the "actual" Country you mentioned? OR does she become a non-person, the enemy in your view because she is different, isn't she? AND that is offensive to you, right? You who declare: "What a failure of humanity" Where is your humanity? Does it extend to all humanity or to "actual" humanity, that selective group by your own choosing and prejudices?
Inanna? This makes you really angry too? Really angry? Please consider the possibility that you were angry before you ever read her speech.
Does hatred and anger justify hatred and anger? No, it just spreads it like terminal cancer. You mentioned many possible solutions, I would like to hear them. I'm all about solutions. Like, you know, how does anything justify firing rockets from the Gaza Strip into civilian populated areas of Israel (Over 265 since January 2012, Source: U.S. Intelligence) And how does that fact coincide with one-sided victimization and oppression of the Palestinian people? A sincere question Inanna, you mentioned the concept of mass delusion so I thought you may be able to explain that to me.
Philip,
I note that some are questioning the relevance of your article as to the Middle East equation. Is this article pro-this or anti-that? Does it support Jews or Palestinians?
If I may, from my perspective, share my thoughts on your article. I see it as an exploration of those who are in trusted and sometimes authoritative position(s) Whether that be within the Denominational boundaries of any Religion that does not properly weigh the gross injustice perpetrated upon the life of a child, through the act(s) of a sexual abuse which scar and victimize an innocent both physically, mentally and emotionally and through haunting trauma, perpetually.
It is criminal and an abhorrent abuse of [Human Rights] towards the life of a child, regardless of that child's ethnicity or birthright. Can one advocate for crimes against humanity and then selectively and disproportionately balance that view based on heritage, which is a gift given to, not chosen by a child.
Others may not be able to appreciate the level of trust that is imparted to those which give counsel to others in their relationship to God. Whether the abuser is in a position of such trusted authority or is granted an ambiguous position of silence by that trusted authority they have taken part in a notorious evil.
Silenced by the shame of the act, instead of awakened in fury and contempt on behalf of the innocent child, vehemently condemning the action(s) regardless of any religious affiliation a pedophile may have.
Jesus, (a Jew) said It would be better for (the abuser) if a millstone were hung around his neck, and he were thrown into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones.
Do you stand up for what is right and condemn what is wrong or do you cover up, and ignore, the action(s) of your own belief systems? Political, religious, personal or otherwise...
tear-stained uzi,
The World is paying attention. Over 265 rockets were launched from the Gaza Strip into Israeli Civilian areas since January 2012. In response to your remark: I think enough S**t has been blown up.
The hunger strike is a self-imposed form of protest. Nobody is forcing the prisoners not to eat, are they? Are the demands of the prisoners reasonable? Who from the U.N. or an independent source has investigated the claims of the prisoners?
Please, understand that asking this question does not include any inference that the stated claims are invalid or valid.
One of the demands in the video are: "To act immediately to release the prisoners, especially 8 hunger striking prisoners" and then their names are given.
I don't think that is a reasonable goal for this demonstration. If there remains a legal basis for the release of these 8 prisoners, then that is what should be pursued.
The fact that the prisoners and strikers are hungry is self-evident and self-imposed.
The Israeli authorities are more than likely, willing to wait out this situation.
Sometimes one or more of my children refuses to eat what I've made them for a meal. Most of the time I am an accommodating Father and I end up preparing an alternative meal because I want my children to eat and be happy. That has lead me to preparing three separate meals for mealtime. You can guess how many children I have. Other times, I say no, that's what I prepared, if you're not hungry, don't eat it.
One of two things happen, they eat or I make a compromise.
What does that have to do with this specific issue? Maybe, the photo of the children reminded me of my own. Personally, I would not use my children to protest or place them in public view, or even introduce them as a witness in a Court trial, if it could benefit myself, or "the greater good." They are children, sure they may miss Mom and Dad but they are not the reason that Mom or Dad is in Prison or entrenched in the Legal System. As a Father and a Mother who are divorced, (we) are guarded not to invite our children into that legal conflict or any of the issues that surround it. Even so, they are not unaffected by the action(s) of their Parents.
Alison, not as a critique of your writing and just from the point of a reader I would be interested to know what Israel's official position or statement to this situation is.
Exactly, what Palestinian authorities are you suggesting have Jurisdiction and Legal Authority to prosecute Israel? We have not heard anything from the Israelis in this article that would confirm or speak to this event. Due process allows for both a prosecution and a defence. Quickly attaching feisty labels only requires a tacky surface, and only on one side.
Pamela Olson
Actually sociopaths don't have the need to justify anything at all. They are void of an active conscience and lack empathy and actually have no internal need to rationalize their irrationality. So, Whom are you pointing to as a Sociopath? That wasn't clear to me. Is it Fredblogs, the Israeli expert, the United States Justice system or something else?
Perhaps, if the Palestinians were able to clean up their backyard, so to speak, and did not have over 265 rockets being launched from the Gaza Strip into Israeli Civilian Areas (since January 2012) attributed to...whom? Many charities have been used as fronts for laundering money for all sorts of things, not just terrorism, also for US Lobbyists like "Casino Jack."
I do agree with you that sometimes people are incorrectly labeled because they are too close in association with illegal activity and may have been completely unaware of the illegal activity. This goes back to 1988 in my personal experience, when a woman told me that she had inadvertently given a charitable donation to a "terrorist associated group" and was the laughing stock of the neighbourhood.
Regarding families from any part of the World desiring to, or actively helping the Palestinian people, I find it incredibly confusing why the surrounding Arab Nations, some of which are wealthy beyond one's imagination, (to build an indoor ski hill in the middle of the desert,) due to Petroleum revenues will not assist the Palestinian People. Why is that? Does anyone have an answer for that abandonment towards Palestinians?
Anti-semitism. What is bigotry, racism, or hatred? When (we) justify the exaltation of one member of humanity and correspondingly justify diminishing and degrading another member of humanity based on criteria that rationalizes the irrational into emotional reasoning and produces fear, ignorance, oppression, violence and all that is wicked that lives in the heart of mankind.
Semitic peoples are much more then just those of Jewish origin but that provides little reasoning to love or to hate a group of people(s) based on "criteria."
(We) advocate, we cheer for the freedom of the oppressed, yet feel entitled to disparage those that have been oppressed, that suffered bondage and abject cruelty, so needlessly that as they embrace freedom and soar we seek to cut their wings.
Let the weaker, the oppressed survive, let them grow, flourish and become increasingly strong, let them rule over the oppressor and let them deal with violence
and hatred until vengeance is satiated like a drunken crack whore.
Then will (we) cry out for Justice? For the oppressor has become the oppressed and the ones who were weak are now strong and return cruelty for cruelty and teach their young to hate that which they have not known.
Vengeance is never filled and mercy? Has mercy become an orphan? Wandering the desolate streets alone until humanity learns that my brother and your brother had different Mothers but the same Father.
Sumud,
A Palestinian Majority with a jewish minority.
So just reverse the equation?
Talknic,
Although I can appreciate your attempt at interpretation of the law and defining real estate and territory under your own terms. It falls short.
Your citing legal authorities from October 18, 1907 which is absolutely fine, however, former legal authorities must coincide with current legal authorities, which have been amended, over time, or changed entirely.
According to your explanation (hasbara) Israel is responsible for the wellbeing of Palestinians [under Article 73] However, as such (Palestinians) have a right to attack the military of the Occupying Power.
So, then violence is justifiable...wait a minute! you're the same person that talked about legal and illegal wars?
My understanding of the word "hasbara" is that it is hebrew for explanation however, that is taken by people to mean that hasbara explain away the issues to remove responsibility from themselves.
Now, that's my info. I'm not saying it's right and I'm not intending to assume that is the thinking here. People have different points of view.
My thing with that is how do you communicate a point of view without an explanation? Then we're just firing off unsubstantiated opinions, aren't we? Anyways, I speak for myself, not a group of any people(s), or organizations. Believe what you will. But I invite you to read my comments on their own merits and see what's actually there.
Annie,
My mind is intact. You are a writer, READ, get informed instead of throwing an inflammatory opinion out there. That's just lazy.
OR you could just READ what I wrote;
"ITS AN ABUSE OF POWER (IN MY OPINION)
Does that sound like I approve of this practice, Annie?
How far back in history do you need to go before you have a case of Government exercising it's right to assume ownership of Land or Property? A dictatorship? A Monarchy? Surely not in a democratic society?
I can go all the way back to... right now. Where a family that has had farmland for generations is now subject to re-zoning of surrounding land as Commercial use because of the encroaching development of a Municipality. Why do they want to change the zoning? Corporations want to build their factories there. Apparently, agriculture is a lower priority. Motivation?It's all about the money. That's the deal, boys and girls.
A County recently changed the zoning laws and placed restrictions on what you can build on your own land. A friend of mine is outraged.
My Family is selling a property in that County for significantly less money because of land usage/zoning restrictions, (we) can no longer subdivide the land and sell individual parcels. What do I think about that?
ITS AN ABUSE OF POWER (IN MY OPINION)
I stated it CAN BE SEIZED, that GOVERNMENT DOES THIS for whatever purpose is legitimized by (whom) THE GOVERNMENT.
I'm speaking as a landowner. I bought it. I own it. I don't owe money to the bank. Clear title. AND yet the GOVERNMENT can exercise the broad discretion to take away what is legally mine under a provision in the LAW. Because they want to change road usage from single lane to double or put in a highway, or source a waterway or any other reason that the GOVERNMENT Legitimizes.
I'm expressing empathy.
You do a "reverse spin" and take my comments, out of context,
good for you, that certainly builds your credibility Annie.
Then you appear to, advocate against racism, prejudice?
Annie, you already decided who I am and what I stand for even if,
I write to the contrary.
The argument forwarded is>>> The rights of the individual must be balanced with the rights of Government to act in the best interests of its Citizens.
Its an abuse of power (In my opinion)
talknic,
You are blowing my mind. Acquiring land as spoils of war is illegal?
An illegal war. This legal concept would also provide for the alternate scenario; a legal war. What would be an example of a Legal War? Self defence perhaps? Like, lets say a Country that surrounded your borders declared War on you, so, of course you have to defend yourself, right? What if you drove the enemy so far back that you obtained more territory, would that be o.k.? Self Defense! Is that a Legal War?
I'm just guessing, please, you tell me and source your references to this philosophy or branch of law or ethics or wherever it comes from.
Shmuel,
Let's begin with your last statement: Your “forwarded argument”
I wrote The argument forwarded is >>>
(“The rights of the individual must be balanced with the rights of Government to act in the best interests of its Citizens.”)
That is the argument, the rationale that may be forwarded by The Government. What part of; "Its an abuse of power. (In my opinion)"
didn't you understand?
Please read the content and context of my comment(s).
I used Texas and Canada to make a point. Your retort is the West bank is not Texas or Canada? Governments of Countries, States, Provinces, or Municipalities all around the World exercise the right to take away the land or property of the legal owner. My point, need I be explicit, is that this happens all around the World, It is common, it is a lawful function of Government(s).
Do I think that is fair or right? NO. I believe that is AN ABUSE OF POWER. (In my OPINION)
You mentioned; International law. What jurisdiction does International Law have specifically, as to the Government(s) right to assume ownership of land or property? Please, let me know, apparently (we) are completely ignorant in Canada, being unaware of the jurisdictional authority of International Law so, (we) have had Government(s) assume ownership over our land and property. Yes, this is sarcasm.
Law is one area where a little knowledge can be very dangerous.
Briefly, Law is made by Government(s) who can also amend the Law(s) they have instituted. International law does not hold jurisdiction or authority over "land usage." Whether it defines "Occupied Territory" is irrelevant. That is NOT the branch of Law that has authority over land usage.
As far as defining the West Bank as "occupied territory" according to International Law. Please enlighten me as to the Judge or Justice who presided over that case and made that ruling. I am completely ignorant of such a Court case, so, cite the case and I will look into it, hopefully to diminish my complete ignorance of circumstances. Otherwise, its just an opinion and I sense, Shmuel that you are not a Student of Law or a practitioner, although I could be wrong about that. Lets just say I have reasonable doubts.
Human Rights legislation is a fascinating beast because it imparts hope that there can be a balance of rights, fairness, equality, justice for all. However, Human Rights legislation does not have overriding authority over other areas of law.
Shmuel, you say that" Israel used to care..." What a wonderful sentiment. Feelings. Governments are a functional institution, they only appear to have feelings when politicians advocate for people, usually just before an election.
Governments make the law, they can change or amend the law, the law is not black and white, it is not a rigid structure it is a living, breathing organism that is interpreted, argued and advocated but at the end of the day, it is the RULING that comes from THE COURT with JURISDICTIONAL AUTHORITY that decides the CASE.
If the Decision is not favourable to one party, that is not enough grounds to APPEAL, there must be errors made by the original trial Judge or Justice; specifically, ERRORS in Findings of Fact and Findings of Law. Also, these errors must be significant enough to have made a difference to the end result of the case. Changing the verdict. Otherwise, it doesn't matter. An Appeal is filed based on specific grounds.
New evidence is one of the very few grounds that may result in a retrial. However, the Government in Israel has Filed and APPEAL. That is not a bad thing. There is something called a "cross appeal."
Most of your statements Shmuel " asking the Court to ignore the law?" "taking illegal political considerations"? "illegal ideological aspirations"
Quite inflammatory yet with little real evidence... What branch of law deals with illegal ideological aspirations? Who provides enforcement, The Idea Police?
Cynicism aside, The Courts dealing with Claims of Property and Land on a case by case basis better serves due process as it affords the individuals a right to be heard and to advocate there position.
Government(s) exercise a broad overiding discretion over an individual's right(s) of land usage or property ownership even if the land or property was legally obtained.
A Municipality may decide to zone or rezone both publicly and privately held land to satisfy its own interests.
Regardless of the level of Government, land or property can be seized from the lawful owner for whatever purpose has been legitimized by that Government.
In Texas, if you find oil on your land, it's yours! In Canada, if you find oil on your land, the Government assumes ownership. They own the mineral rights. They own any marsh, lake, creek or natural water source on an Individual's property.
The argument forwarded is>>> The rights of the individual must be balanced with the rights of Government to act in the best interests of its Citizens.
Its an abuse of power (In my opinion)
Dear Reader,
1.] I am amazed. Truly amazed at how: personal, or political, or religious, (or otherwise) beliefs can create indoctrination, dispose of critical thinking and deny any premise of objectivity.
A] I am still amazed. Truly amazed at this concept. The (beliefs: personal, political, religious or otherwise) act as filters (we) use consciously or sub-consciously to interpret and understand messages, information.
B] This statement was misinterpreted (by some) AS IF: I was placing myself as the all seeing, all knowing sole owner of objectivity. AS IF: by introducing this concept, (somehow) the concept did not apply to me, I was immune to this affect.
Dear Reader, is it reasonable to assume; that I, Samuel T, being human would also have, (at least to some degree) personal, or political, or religious, (or otherwise) beliefs? AND IF: It is reasonable to assume I would have beliefs, THEN How could I, Samuel T, possibly, reasonably hold to a position that my beliefs have absolutely no affect on my ability to think critically, or objectively or even that my beliefs can create indoctrination?
My answer is NO, absolutely not, I cannot and I do not hold to that position.
It is apparent that (some) believed that somehow, I held to this unreasonable position and reacted with tags that inferred; self-deluded, pseudo messianic tendencies.
The point I was attempting to make is that; (Our) belief systems can affect how (We) Think, and form both objective and subjective conclusions.
Both Palestinian and Israeli people(s) will not achieve reconciliation or any lasting peace, until both parties begin to recognize the influences of their belief systems.
Even, a two state solution will not provide any resolution between the two parties. It will create nothing more than drawing a line in the sand between two brothers who know that they are in the same sandbox, and have not changed their attitudes.
tree,
Apparently, our "conversation" was pointless.
Why don't you POST exactly what I wrote AND let the reader decide?
I didn't insist it was a proofreading error. I said I MADE AN ERROR, I went back to my original post and re-read it, I took a second look and I FOUND AN ERROR.
I didn't deny it. I owned it. Even said thanks for pointing that out to me.
Then I wrote that; as a writer I should have known to proof read, of course, instead of posting that conclusion, I could have CORRECTED IT.
AND THEN I CORRECTED my statement.
That's called taking responsibility, ownership and demonstrating integrity.
I teach my children that its o.k. to make mistakes, that making mistakes is one of the ways we learn.
Now, if you are of the belief, that regardless of what I write, it really means "something else" and given your heightened perception that I am [APPLY LABEL HERE] then you have once again provided clear, concise evidence
to support my initial Concept or IDEA as follows.
"I am amazed. Truly amazed at how: personal, or political, or religious, (or otherwise) beliefs can create indoctrination, dispose of critical thinking and deny any premise of objectivity. "
Thank you, tree
"He couldn't even acknowledge that he clearly exhibited a bias..."
(WE) all have [bias] that is influenced by our belief systems.
That was my original point. Did you miss that?
Citizen,
News used to be a trusted institution. You want to know what’s going on in the World; watch the News. Walter Cronkite, now there is a guy you can trust.
Investigative journalism in the form of 60 minutes came along. Now, the viewing public was being exposed to the story behind the story, things were not always as they appeared. This was good journalism and it built an audience. The US Media has held on to only one of those attributes; building an audience. Over the last 25 years I have observed the trend of the “news” disintegrating into a form of “entertainment.”
Stories are reported based on appeal to a given demographic. More viewers = higher ratings=increased Advertising revenue=happy shareholders. So, what drives the NEWS MEDIA today? Money. News isn’t an institution it’s a business and a successful News business operates to make money.
With increasing revenue as the #1 priority, yes, the media has, at times lacked objectivity, lacked a fair and balanced view of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Although, I agree with your assertion that the US mainstream media’s #1 priority should be to provide information to the public so that they can be citizens exercising fully informed consent or objection to their, the US government’s policies and conduct I also have to say, that personally, I also believe that each citizen has to actively do their own research to achieve a balanced view or even to be aware of what the Government is doing or not doing; and specifically, yes, as it relates to the Middle East.
Will the Media re-align their priorities to be of public service instead of a privately owned Corporation even if it means earning less revenue for their shareholders? Not very likely, unfortunately. (in my opinion.)
Daniel Rich,
Thanks for the compliment, Daniel!
But, I'm not quite physically agile enough (anymore) to deal with a Bull.
However, I am still mentally agile enough recognize Bull.
You don't get "it."
Not even close.
Tree
I had written earlier:
It was antagonistic, pure and simple and yet hard to see for the uninitiated.
The authorities were provoked >by a spray bombthe spray bombby a Spray Bomb<
I wasn’t intending to deny what I had written. I wasn’t aware of my error.
Thank you for pointing that out to me. I should have proofread, and edited, like any competent writer, before I Posted.
Further, just to clarify (we) myself included, are prone to lacking objectivity or at times favouring emotionality over rationality, especially on subjects that are as passionate, vital and divisive as the Middle East conflict
Encouraging investigation, taking a closer look and putting aside preconceived ideas applies to both sides of the issue. I was under the impression that both Palestine and Israeli viewpoints were expressed
on this site. My comments on hatred, prejudice, apply to humanity.
talknic,
Can we agree that both side(s) communicate a Political Agenda
AND if something supports their position, it's used.
AND if something doesn't... it's ignored?
Thanks for your link to a Palestinian Source that looks at Israeli actions frame by frame. I understand that you questioned the content and context frame by frame. Isn't that what I was doing?
Annie, If I refer to you as "Orphan Annie" or "Annie Oakley" as in "Annie get your gun" a song from the musical "Oklahoma." Is that o.k. with you? Just by the use of words, attaching labels that reference your first name together with; other known (or possibly obscure) references, a picture is painted.
Annie you labeled me immediately with the term "hasbara-bang" and when I asked what that meant... you didn't tell me, right? Obviously, I knew, being a "hasbara-brat" I looked up those terms this morning.
I was somewhat confused with the onslaught of comments that depicted me as Pro-Israeli but now I understand. You decided I was "undesirable" not worthy of respect, I was like that odd kid in school, the one who was a little too different and somehow that legitimized taking away his backpack and playing "keep away" Can you relate to that picture, Annie? Did you ever see that at school? I did. Was I taunting and bullying the different kid because everyone else was (group think, mob mentality) No. Even as a little kid I knew that would be wrong. So, I must have been the different kid, the odd one, c'mon, you know right? They stand out as prey for the early education of predators. That "kid" too fat, too skinny, too short, has a lisp, a limp, the wrong haircut, something worthy of a label, geek, freak, nerd, something.
So, is that similar to what you did? Label me. Not explain. (inside joke) and then play "keep away", isolate me, mock me personally, and attach further labels? It was justifiable to play me as "the fool", after all, in your mind, I was a "hasbara-brat." Members of your community followed your lead, joined in, (group think, mob mentality) you formed a basis for you prejudice, personal attacks were justified, diminishing an individual was o.k., there was no need to THINK independently, after all as "hasbara" when I wrote THINK, it meant something entirely different didn't it? I was "pro-Israeli" and I was telling you what to think. Is that correct?
I am against cruelty, bullying, diminishing others, abuse, oppression regardless of any label that others may place on them, regardless of race, creed, colour, disability, gender, etc
Am I making myself absolutely clear? Is that statement exclusionary or inclusionary of all people(s).
That school yard scenario that I recalled earlier? I wasn't the odd kid and I wasn't the bully, I was the kid who interceded on behalf of the odd kid.
Wait a minute. I guess that does make me odd, different, weird, because I was the smallest kid in school and I did that alone.
Of course feel free to "hasbara" my comments. This is a War of Ideas isn't it? It's o.k. to be disgusted by the "enemy" and their behaviour and then do the same thing, right? Because that is war, it's justifiable.
Since I referenced Orphan Annie, a cartoon and a musical AND Annie Oakley from the musical Oklahoma, that is two musicals, so I must be Gay, right?
AND the song "Annie get your gun" so, I'm probably all about violence, weapons, brutality, feel free to [EDIT] add or subtract, spin, "hasbara" me.
because maybe I'm just a fag that likes guns...right?
So Post my Comment Or act like the Main Stream Media, if it doesn't serve your agenda, if the idea isn't yours. DELETE, EDIT, Hasbara! O happy day!
Denis,
War of Ideas. Attack the idea not the person. I enjoy being the subject of ridicule, name calling, and discrimination as much as the next guy. So, why wouldn't I abide?
I encourage an open mind, open ears and an open heart AND the level of defensiveness is so high that people react to that statement AS IF: I stated they had a closed mind, were deaf and blind.
Abide. Denis, is it a secret among the members of this group that demonstrators, activists and the like frequently, strategically employ a staged confrontation, film the encounter and Edit it to align with their perspective?
Not only were a number of people offended at the suggestion, they appear to be naive that this is an established methodology. Propaganda machines exist on both sides of a conflict.
Personal attacks are an example of overriding and diminishing a minority for being different. As much as this behaviour is deplored when directed towards Palestinians apparently, it is o.k. to treat another person, who may or may not be Palestinian in a discriminatory, prejudicial manner.
I will abide. Whether it is within this forum or not remains to be seen.
I appreciate your comments. Thank you.
dahoit, may I call you dahoit?
I agree. Whether someone finds themselves aligned liberally on the right or conservatively to the left...
When a cowboy gets on a Bull to ride it and gets thrown headlong into the dust. Some would call that courage, an act of bravery and others would call that foolishness.
As for me dahoit, In my younger days I was (actually) a Rodeo Clown.
My job was to protect the rider, distract the Bull and entertain the crowd
that watched from the safety of the stands.
Perhaps, some people thought me courageous (because of the Bull)
Perhaps others thought me a fool (well, there was all that clown make-up)
However, If the Protester knew of the danger, the consequences
and faced that fear and experienced the consequences.
I would not call that foolishness.
eljay, I appreciate the directness of your questions.
However, I find them to be polarizing and at this time, I do not want to be classified as a PRO-This or an ANTI-That.
I will say that I observe and believe to be true that
All Germans aren't Nazis. All Arabs aren't terrorists.
When an earthquake hits, the rich and the poor shake alike.
Annie, thanks for linking to that news-source regarding the WTO protest in Seattle. The news footage that I viewed displayed unrelenting and unnecessary use of force against people who were engaged in peaceful and lawful protest. There was a handful of anarchists, rioters, looters that created a significant disturbance but my recollection is that of average people, of all ages, experiencing a gross violation of their civil rights, subject to unlawful use of force in contradiction to their constitutional rights, subject to unlawful arrest (or detainment) and unlawful imprisonment. That the City agreed to pay out $250,000 to about 175 protesters and their lawyers, approximately $1400. per person, was far too low, (in my opinion) to compensate them for the violation of their personal rights and freedoms.
Tree. May I call you tree? Editing is also in my background. I narrated what I saw on the video. I did not characterize what I saw or who I saw on the video. I did not label protestor or military as being bad or good.
I asked questions. I described what appeared to be red spray paint with solvent dripping from it. I did not say>THE protestors threw a spray bomb at the military vehicle< I observed something and asked questions, I did not form conclusions I encouraged the viewer to look closer and put aside preconceived ideas that may influence the message.
Tree, you speculate that the spray bomb may actually be pepper spray. Did you take into account the height of the spray area in relation to a person, or ask yourself; Why would a pattern from pepper spray be so high up on a vehicle? I'm calling for deductive reasoning. If someone deploys pepper spray high above their head, drift will occur and the spray will possibly come down upon the person who deployed it. That would be a theory based on probabilities.
I didn't say that there was anything nefarious going on. I reported my observations. Initially I thought the vested, helmeted, protestors or journalists were soldiers. Then, I enlarged the screen and found something different.
Tree, you also actually assist in proving my point. You are arguing against things I did not write. In your mind you have placed me as an anti-protester and you draw the conclusions that support your point of view and characterize my observations or my questions as being a product of my imagination. Is there a need to minimize my voice because it (appears to be) in opposition to your personal views?
Tree, you claimed to be in Editing. Did you look at the video frame by frame? If you did you would have seen that a man grabbed the shoulder strap that was attached to the rifle. Also I mentioned a flash, apparently from a camera because I could not see a canister.
I did not pre-judge what I was seeing. I simply made observations, reported them without characterizations to either protestors or military.
Tree, you draw conclusions on what I did not say. I did not comment on the pepper spray attacks and you cast that as a "fail" on my part.
Next, Tree once again you draw a broad inference from a factual statement. No, I'm not claiming the soldier/police officer was a fake, nor did I say the soldier was poorly trained. Please consider that you may be "reading into" some of what I wrote to draw inferences or implications (which are not mine) and then vigorously defend against them. Also, the burden (of writing) within this forum is that clarification on a point is not instantaneous, we are not chatting or having a dialogue in person. One person expresses themselves in written communication and misunderstandings within that communication between two parties that do not really know each other are common and perhaps, inevitable.
Take Shmuel's comment for example. It appears to me to reflect sarcasm in the opening lines...however, I don't know Shmuel do I?
Annie, just taking a look around and I am again amazed at the immediate characterization of being pro-this or anti-that or applying spin to the video.
I can't spin the video. If I wanted to "spin" it, I would require the entire footage that was shot, the raw footage, then I could "spin" the story in a chosen direction. Someone, please tell me why a portion of the video loses audio? There is no sound? Why? Are you curious or are you dealing in confirmatory bias? You have already presupposed your affiliation or allegiance to a specific people under the roles of Oppressor and the Oppressed. Any information that upsets that bias is disregarded and only information that confirms your bias is regarded.
This is the basis for developing a strong false belief, or [a delusion] which is a Psychiatric term. I will state now the witty reply of the reader: It is Samuel T who is deluded! Yeah! You need Psychiatric help! Thank you for those constructive and intelligent responses.
The construct of a [delusion] is so powerful that layers upon layers of false beliefs are stacked on top of one and then the other in a manner that the person who is constructing, creating a delusion believes that they are gathering empirical evidence.
When an outsider, challenges the empirical evidence or removes a few layers the individual(s) who have participated in forming and living, as if; these strong, false beliefs were true are threatened and respond or react, in kind through hostility and denial.
Read the comments, check the reactions. Hostility and denial. Why?
People can hold so steadfastly onto beliefs that are fuelled by hatred, become so entrenched in bitterness, that they convince themselves that the construct of delusion is vital to their survival, to their very existence. It is not tradition but an innate evil to pass this practice on to children. To teach them in their innocence and naiveté, that certain people are to be feared, to be hated , to be despised. They are the enemy.
A truly sad picture in my view, when a misguided purpose is pursued by an individual or a group at all costs and without regard or acknowledgement to truth or error.
So, comment, speak your mind or from the abundance of your heart. Is it a reflection of my words, of my beliefs or am I just simply holding up a mirror and the reflection is (you), the reader?
Am I an Arab or Am I a Jew? Am I a Christian or Am I of Islam?
Is Abraham my Father or the Father of us all?
How much, or rather, how little, do people need to know to release hatred?
Annie. Please refer to me by my given name which is Samuel. If someone wants to address me as "Sammy" they have to be considerably, 15 to 20 years older than I am, carry a combination of loose change, lint, and peppermint candies in their pockets and smell like old people.
EDITS happen in a blink of an eye. The feeling and context of a story can be manipulated through this process. The posted video when examined by an impartial viewer revealed elements of the story that were not reported.
You don't have to be Scorsese (Film Director) to know that.
Blake I am comparing the action(s) of activists and the corresponding action(s) of Soldiers, Police, Civil Authorities. The point of comparison was that Activists that engage in civil disobedience or civil protest, even in, a Country such as Canada may receive consequences that are similar to those portrayed in the EDITED Video.
Even in the United States, going back to the protests in Seattle concerning the WTO, people who were peacefully demonstrating and exercising their civil rights to engage in public civil protest were subjected to arrest by law enforcement who also deployed pepper spray. Check out a documentary of the live footage then compare that with the posted video and decide which one is real and which one is not.
Annie, I don't know what a #hasbarabang is. Please enlighten me.
ToivoS I see calling me Sammy as an attempt to belittle me personally and I find that disrespectful. It was my understanding that this was a forum to exchange ideas, enter into intelligent discourse, etc.
The Video is EDITED. Fact. If you want to refute any of the noted observations then do so.
Further, I don't see your point, exactly what do you take exception to? Open eyes, open minds or an open heart?
Annie, you are demonstrating my point. You choose to see from a certain perspective that aligns with your bias. That is called "emotional reasoning" OR "confirmatory bias" Any evidence that may contradict your bias is eliminated or ignored in favour of any evidence that may confirm your bias. In the Video, confirmatory bias is demonstrated by strategically editing the footage, removing the actual context, deleting the instigation, the antagonistic actions, etc You SAW what the EDITOR of the video wanted you to SEE. Check the footage, check my noted observations.
I am amazed. Truly amazed at how: personal, or political, or religious, (or otherwise) beliefs can create indoctrination, dispose of critical thinking and deny any premise of objectivity. What did you see when you watched the video? Qualities like bravery, courage, of the oppressed and the oppressor, who some of view have described as thugs, and by extension to some other event> (that most likely, realistically, did not involve anyone who is actually on the posted video) maim, beat, torture, etc
Such classifications are myopic, promote fear and ignorance, which upon consummation create the offspring named PREJUDICE. This offspring is alike to it's Parents and carries with it the genetic predisposition of fear and ignorance combined with further qualities like blindness, deafness and sensory deprivation and retardation of a diminishing intellect. The offspring feeds off the real and imagined wounds of itself and others in a symbiotic relationship like unto a maggot devouring a rotting carcass. The stench, is formidable and assaults any [one ] who has not filled their nostrils with the putrid, divisive, and intolerable scent of hatred and vengeance.
Back to the Video... PLAY> Scene: A woman scales what is described by Adam Horowitz as an [Israeli] Military vehicle, raises a [Palestinian] Flag and....EDIT at 10 seconds. What? Didn't notice that? EDIT again at 13 seconds. So, now we are unaware of the actual passing of time from one event to the next event. Why is that important? Shortening the time, the actual time before the [Israeli] militia arrive? THINK
Lets continue PLAY> STOP! at 15 seconds we have the 3rd EDIT. That's right 3 EDITS in 15 seconds. Scene: The soldiers arrive
O.k. Lets Roll! PLAY> alright now STOP! EDIT at 18 seconds, new camera angle we are on the opposite side of the vehicle. 3 members of the military are at the truck and the remaining soldiers are now standing farther away. There is a red spray bomb that has been just recently released on the white truck. Take a look. It's fresh. See the red paint, o.k., now, notice the slight pinkish trail running down the side of the truck? That is solvent. That is how I know, it's a fresh red spray bomb. THINK
PLAY> The soldiers or (Police) talk to the woman on the vehicle (there is no shouting) they talk to each other as they begin to walk to the front of the vehicle and...
STOP! EDIT at 26 seconds. New camera angle. LOOK. What do you see?
It appears to be four soldiers standing in a row...
ENLARGE THE SCREEN. Now what do you see?
Those 4 soldiers aren't soldiers, they are wearing protective vests, 3 with helmets, two have cameras with huge telephoto lenses... (Of this, I am jealous, personally)
There is one soldier in pursuit. ONE SOLDIER. and 8 protesters, (not including our 4 vested, helmeted guys there for the Photo Op.
There are two sizeable men that are protestors. WHY didn't they scale the Vehicle and raise the Flag? Are we to assume that Men are cowards and women are heroes? That would be a dangerous assumption, and gender bias. However, I ask you WHO appears to be more sympathetic to the camera? In your subjective opinion.
At 28 seconds we hear a scream, collective screams from the other women and watch this next scene very carefully.
How many protesters? 8 men. One Police Officer many more women and I'm not counting all of the people male or female in yellow vests, because I'm tired, o.k. being objective, critical thinking, really looking to SEE... it takes effort.
Back on track> NOTE: I said Police Officer. That is because I am going to compare the scenario in the video, with what would happen in CANADA,(we all love Canada, don't we) AND how a Canadian Police Officer would act in this situation, if it happened in Canada, O.k.?
The ratio is 8 MEN to One Police Officer, The protesters surround the woman, lock arms, and scream. The camera guy moves in close to get the footage. AND at 33 seconds in we can observe that a man grabs the "Police Officer's" rifle.
There is also a noticeable "flash" apparently from a camera.
AT 33 seconds, the time when a non-Police Officer reaches for and touches a Police Officer's weapon, in Canada, a democratic and free Country, He would be shot, centre mass, killshot and after a lengthy investigation after the incident, it would be pronounced as reasonable and necessary force. A Police Officer in Canada is trained to respond and react to certain situations so that it doesn't require any guess-work if and when it should happen. Somebody goes for your gun. The reaction is clear. Also, in Canada, One Police Officer would not be in such a ratio of 1 to 8, neither would he enter into such close proximity with a group of protestors.
In Canada, where we are free to use the democratic process, entitled to due process and even, participate in CIVIL PROTESTS. As long as we abide by the law which gives us the freedom to Protest. The Occupy Canada Movement has students marching in the streets in Civil Protest of hikes in tuition fees.
What happens in this video, is a stunt, it isn't civil disobedience. It was antagonistic, pure and simple and yet hard to see for the uninitiated. The authorities were provoked by a spray bomb,, their instructions were disregarded and the incident, the catalyst that caused one soldier to pursue was, yes EDITED from the content. This is Propaganda, not journalism, it is NOT part of a "war of ideas" it is deliberate and misleading and for a desired affect.
I encourage you to open your eyes, your minds and your hearts toward what is TRUE. Not what supports a particular, even twisted, contrived perspective.
This was a stunt, self-promotion and wreaks with the same authenticity of "reality TV shows" featuring Kim Kardashian and Company.
If anyone is interested in the dissemination of the entire video.
Post a response to this Post. OR, take initiative, slow it down, anyone can edit footage to favour a desired result, it's called Marketing, Advertising, Corporate Culture, all those things that a number of genuine activists despise.