Trending Topics:

How ‘trigger-happy’ soldiers killed an unarmed man walking to work

Israel/Palestine
on 45 Comments

azza.5When Jihad Aslan, Yunes Jahjouh, Rubin Abd al-Rahman Zayed were killed in Qalandia refugee camp on August 26, last year, Israeli soldiers were in danger. Still, if the occupying army’s own protocol had been followed, no one would have died that morning. From my interviews with neighbors and relatives of the deceased I found that a typical night-time arrest mission quickly descended into a massive clash with over 1,500 Palestinians involved, hurling everything from stones to furniture at nearly a dozen army and border police units.

The case is one of the 22 instances of Israeli soldiers killing unarmed men in 2013, outlined in  Amnesty International’s (AI) landmark report, Trigger-happy’ Israeli army and police use reckless force in the West Bankpublished two days ago. That report calls on the US and EU and other governments to suspend arms transfers to Israel.

The unfortunate events kicked off around 4 am when undercover border police dragged Hatem al-Khitab, the brother of the man the army came to arrest, to the street and beat him. The wails of al-Khitab and the smacking of fists to body awoke others, and a clash ensued while it was still dark.

My assessment was that the army acted with negligence when they drew attention to themselves by publicly beating a man. The undercover unit then found itself in a dangerous situation where stone throwing posed a real threat of injury. Even so, Israeli army regulations require a verbal warning in Arabic and two warning shots before live-fire is allowed– but only with an effort to preserve life, by aiming for the limbs. And in fact, no shots were fired at this time.

The trapped border police then called for back-up and ten cars arrived. What happened next is that the reinforcements began firing live rounds into the assembly of Palestinians, according to a spokesperson for the IDF. Two were killed and 20 injured during the clash. By all witness accounts, bullets were sprayed haphazardly, injuring many on their way to work. But with one soldier only lightly injured at the end of the clash and with the arrival of more soldiers and alternative dispersal weapons, AI suggests that at this point, there no longer was a threat to life.

By 7:30 am the clash had ended and army vehicles were trailing out of the refugee camp. Then Zayed, an unarmed man, was shot multiple times and killed. Here’s what I reported at the time:

At 7:30 am, Zayed peered around a corner that only five minutes before was in heat. He saw an Israeli Jeep driving away from him towards the exit of the camp. Then, according to witnesses, neighbors of Zayed, a soldier shot him in the chest. He died instantly.

“It was quiet before they shot him,” said Mohammed Leila Mizher, a neighbor who carried Zayed’s lifeless body off the street. “He looked slaughtered, the way an animal was slaughtered. I could put my hand in the bullet holes when I was holding him,” he continued.

The three killings in Qalandia had larger political reverberations. They nearly shut down the direct negotiations with Israeli officials and spurred two demonstrations in Ramallah against the Palestinian Authority. Protesters were beaten at random, and injured were arrested in hospital beds.

What the case of Jihad Aslan, Yunes Jahjouh, Rubin Abd al-Rahman Zayed shows, is that even when soldiers are at risk, this “trigger happy” mode of conduct trumps army regulations. Zayed posed no threat. He had a family, a mortgage and a steady job in a bad economy.

Allison Deger
About Allison Deger

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

Other posts by .


Posted In:

45 Responses

  1. just
    just
    March 1, 2014, 1:37 pm

    There is so much horror in this article. Why don’t the IOF arm themselves with stones instead of guns?

    It might begin to “level the playing field” just a teensy bit.

    “The unfortunate events kicked off around 4 am when undercover border police dragged Hatem al-Khitab, the brother of the man the army came to arrest, to the street and beat him. The wails of al-Khitab and the smacking of fists to body awoke others, and a clash ensued while it was still dark.

    My assessment was that the army acted with negligence when they drew attention to themselves by publicly beating a man. ”

    WHY were they beating his brother????????? Should they have done it in secret? Should they have done it at all? My own assessment is that the army acted with extreme malice, followed by termination with extreme prejudice– not negligence.

  2. just
    just
    March 1, 2014, 2:38 pm

    Another “trigger- happy” murder:

    “The Israeli military shot and killed a Palestinian woman in the Gaza Strip in an area near the border that Israel has declared a no-go zone for Palestinians, local hospital officials said on Saturday.

    Gaza residents said it was not clear why 50-year-old Amna Qdaih, who they said suffered from a mental illness, was near the security fence that runs between Israel and Gaza.

    Asked about the report, an Israeli military spokeswoman said soldiers identified a number of suspects in the area late on Friday and called on them to back away.

    After they did not, the soldiers fired at their legs and one was hit, she said.

    Qdaih’s body was found and transferred to a hospital early on Saturday.

    Israel and the Islamist group Hamas, which rules Gaza, agreed in 2012 to a ceasefire after an eight-day war. The border has remained relatively quiet since the truce, though violence flares occasionally.

    On Friday the Israeli military said one of its aircraft had struck a site in Gaza used to launch rockets into Israel. No casualties were reported in that incident.”

    http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/1.577242

    Shooting at legs, eh? As though that was gracious of them! Sounds like war crimes by terrorists to me………….

  3. eGuard
    eGuard
    March 1, 2014, 2:58 pm

    [The killings] … spurred two demonstrations in Ramallah against the Palestinian Authority.

    John Kerry, you can be proud for bringing it this far. Obama is practicing his smile for the “agreement” signing festivities.

  4. seafoid
    seafoid
    March 1, 2014, 3:10 pm

    If trigger happy Jewish soldiers can’t kill civilians like this Judaism will die

    Surely Judaism can do better than this.

    • peoplearepeople
      peoplearepeople
      March 2, 2014, 8:48 pm

      Israel must no longer be a representative of Judaism. Israel is an illegal bully that uses religion as a front to alienate critics. Anti-semitism will rule if Israel continues to publicly represent Judaism. I hope to see the end of this brutal apartheid in my lifetime.

  5. seafoid
    seafoid
    March 1, 2014, 3:48 pm

    @ Tree
    the last thread seems to be shut

    You say that the Dutch position is no different to that of any other EU country. Sorry, I don’t buy that.

    Here’s another example
    http://www.globalpolicy.org/security-council/index-of-countries-on-the-security-council-agenda/israel-palestine-and-the-occupied-territories/50654-new-palestinian-strategy-document-will-make-it-difficult-for-us-to-oppose-un-vote-.html?itemid=id

    “The wording of the draft, crafted in recent days by the Fatah leadership, is designed to enable even “problematic” countries such as Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and the Czech Republic to climb on board, or at least abstain.”

    What links Germany, Italy, The Netherlands and the Czechs and WW2. Why were they all “problematic” in 2011 ?

    Why would they not support a Palestinian State at the UN ?

    • tree
      tree
      March 1, 2014, 5:28 pm

      You say that the Dutch position is no different to that of any other EU country. Sorry, I don’t buy that.

      No, I said that it was within the realm of opinion of the EU. It sometime agreed with Britain or France, sometimes not. (In terms of the UN vote, both Britain and the Netherlands abstained, BTW.) It is not a particularly strong supporter of Israel, compared to some other countries. It has a more conservative government at this moment than some other European countries. I take that as a possible factor in the Dutch government position.

      What links Germany, Italy, The Netherlands and the Czechs and WW2. Why were they all “problematic” in 2011 ?

      This is a supremely stupid question, seafoid, and you should know that. What links every friggin country in Europe and WW2? They were all affected by it 70 years ago. Germany and Italy were Axis powers, the Czechs were forcibly invaded by Germany as were the Dutch along with a dozen other European countries or so that you don’t bother mentioning. The entire basis for your theory is post hoc ergo propter hoc, very selectively applied to the Dutch and Polish only.

      Why did Austria support Palestine as an observer state and the Netherlands abstain ( and when is an abstention considered rousing support for Israel)? Your guilt theory doesn’t stand up. It doesn’t stand up to the historical record of the time, and it doesn’t stand up as a plausible explanation of today’s reality. Isn’t it wiser to actually study and understand the current political situations rather than come up with a theory based on ignorance of both yesterday and today?

      Here are a few headlines from the BDS link I posted which apparently you didn’t bother reading:

      Dutch pension giant divest from 5 Israeli banks
      Dutch water company terminates relationship with Mekerot following government advice
      Dutch government urges local firm to cancel East Jerusalem project
      Netherlands: Retailers ban goods from settlements

      None of this indicates strong support for Israel. The Dutch government may be conservative in its criticism of Israel but I doubt you can call any of the above actions “support” for Israel. The British government lags behind the Dutch on actions like this, as does the French government.

      And BTW, your “another example” was merely a rewording of the same example you gave earlier.

      The Netherlands abstained on the UN vote for Palestine observer status. Here’s a list of all the countries who abstained.

      Albania, Andorra, Australia, Bahamas, Barbados, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Cameroon, Colombia, Croatia, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Estonia, Fiji, Germany, Guatemala, Haiti, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malawi, Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, Netherlands, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Poland, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Rwanda, Samoa, San Marino, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Tonga, United Kingdom, Vanuatu.

      I’m sure Fiji, Cameroon, Mongolia and South Korea are wracked by Holocaust guilt, and that must be the only reason for their abstentions.

      And here’s the list of those who voted against:

      Canada, Czech Republic, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia (Federated States of), Nauru, Palau, Panama, United States

      Nauru and Palau must be absolutely torn asunder by Holocaust guilt. Their votes couldn’t possibly be explained by current political realities, right?

      I think we’ve talked this point to death. You ignore everything I say and cling to your theories that nobody in Europe wanted Jews to stay after WWII, and that the Netherlands and Poland have some greater complicity in WWII atrocities than any other countries despite the fact that they were both under harsh occupation. I strongly disagree. I also strongly disagree that one can explain all current politics in regards to Israel and Europe by dredging up 70 year old history. I know that’s what Israel likes to do, but that’s because it has no defense for what it does, so it has to change the subject. I don’t think we need to oblige Israel in that respect.

      • seafoid
        seafoid
        March 2, 2014, 6:54 am

        @Tree

        Why wouldn’t Holland openly support a Palestinian state?
        The abstention was better than past behavior. So a minor improvement.
        Why did Holland historically find it so hard to support Palestinian rights? What right did the Netherlands have to help Israel to deny the Palestinians self determination?

        I think when the history is finally written Holocaust guilt is going to be the prime mover of EU intransigence over Israel and the Palestinians.

        Yes, this is real progress

        ” Dutch pension giant divest from 5 Israeli banks
        Dutch water company terminates relationship with Mekerot following government advice
        Dutch government urges local firm to cancel East Jerusalem project
        Netherlands: Retailers ban goods from settlements”

        But why so late ?

      • seafoid
        seafoid
        March 2, 2014, 7:43 am

        @ Tree

        http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?pr=71&code=mwp&p1=3&p2=4&p3=6

        By thirteen votes to two

        ” All States are under an obligation not to recognize the illegal situation resulting from the construction of the wall and not to render aid or assistance in maintaining the situation created by such construction; all States parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 12 August 1949 have in addition the obligation, while respecting the United Nations Charter and international law, to ensure compliance by Israel with international humanitarian law as embodied in that Convention”;”

        The 2 states who voted against were the US and the Netherlands

        Why did the Netherlands vote no ?
        Nothing to do with WW2 ? Or did they just want everything to be resolved in the peace process ?

        BTW the position of Austria is incoherent. Austria never fully accepted its role in the Holocaust. The official line is that Austria was a victim of the Nazis.

        Europe didn’t really want to look too deeply into what happened. Germany accepted the role of sinner in chief and everyone else more or less went along with that. It was sad that all those Jews died but it was time to move on.

      • tree
        tree
        March 3, 2014, 2:06 am

        This is probably a pointless endeavor on my part, but here goes:

        The 2 states who voted against were the US and the Netherlands

        Why did the Netherlands vote no ?
        Nothing to do with WW2 ? Or did they just want everything to be resolved in the peace process ?

        First off, you are being incredibly sloppy with these statements. It was not “states” that voted on the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice, but individual appointed judges, one of whom was Judge Pieter Kooijmans, a distinguished Dutch jurist. And the ONLY segment of the majority decision that he disagreed with was the section you quoted from. He voted with the majority on every other part of the decision, finding the Wall in breach of international law, finding that Israel should terminate its construction and dismantle it and make reparations for damages, and finding that the UN “should consider what further action is required to bring to an end the illegal situation resulting from the construction of the wall and the associated régime, taking due account of the present Advisory Opinion.””

        If you were really interested in the reason why Kooijmans voted against that one subparagraph you could easily look up his separate opinion on the decision, here:

        http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/131/1683.pdf

        He explains in brief his disagreement with 3D in his first paragraphs.
        If you want detailed specifics on his opinion on 3D of the Court’s decision, you could go to paragraphs 37 -51 of his opinion to read his reasoning.

        But you didn’t bother to look it up, which is why anything I say is not going to make a difference to you. You’re too lazy to actually answer your own question with any other “answer” than “WWII guilt”.

        Europe didn’t really want to look too deeply into what happened. Germany accepted the role of sinner in chief and everyone else more or less went along with that.

        I hope you realize that you have just negated your own theory of European guilt with this sentence. But probably not.

        Why wouldn’t Holland openly support a Palestinian state?
        The abstention was better than past behavior. So a minor improvement.

        So I assume from this that you weren’t even aware that Holland abstained? As far as I am aware, Holland’s position in favor of the “2 state solution” has been just as long-standing (and likewise just as politically meaningless) as any other Western state, including those in Europe, North America and the Australian continent. Why do you keep singling Holland out as if it is at great variance from the regrettable norm when it clearly is not? You have this pet theory about deserved Dutch guilt which seems to prevent you from finding any answer to your own question, because the answers don’t fit your theory without a giant shoe-horn and baseball bat.

        Here’s the official statement from the Dutch government regarding its decision to abstain.

        http://www.government.nl/news/2012/11/30/the-netherlands-and-other-eu-member-states-abstain-from-vote-on-un-status-for-palestine.html

        What political pressures may have been exerted behind the scenes from the US, Great Britain or Germany on the Dutch decision is unknown to me, but seems much more likely to have had a bearing on the Dutch decision than your fanciful theory that the Netherlands is trapped in a guilt-laden time warp from 70 years ago. I notice you don’t bother coming up with an answer to why 40 other countries likewise abstained, over half of them non-European countries.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        March 3, 2014, 3:02 am

        He explains in brief his disagreement with 3D in his first paragraphs.
        If you want detailed specifics on his opinion on 3D of the Court’s decision, you could go to paragraphs 37 -51 of his opinion to read his reasoning.

        I always found his argument which said that the General Assembly had not asked for an opinion about the legal consequences for other states to be more than a little far-fetched. International law consists almost entirely of the rules that the international community of states have adopted to govern their mutual relations. You can’t request an opinion about the legal consequences of the Geneva Conventions without asking at the same time for an opinion about the consequences for third states, since it is a multilateral treaty between states and the UN isn’t even a contracting party.

      • LeaNder
        LeaNder
        March 3, 2014, 11:43 am

        Hostage, i looked a bit into the larger context offered by tree. Which led to a concentration or Chapter III, State responsibility, at least to the extend this legal nitwit in International Law and the UN institutions and their legal “enforceability” is at all able to grasp what tree offered.

        In any case the last word “enforceability” is the result of my basic nitwit impression of the start of the section tree recommends as worth attention and its very end. Could it be that is the critical question he poses? Or legal dissent if you like?

        But that may well be because I am no American and thus no “optimist”;), if such generalizations work at all. And maybe too since the early hasbara here only relied on the basic mental shortcut, which incidentally was about winners and losers.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        March 4, 2014, 3:38 am

        Hostage, i looked a bit into the larger context offered by tree. Which led to a concentration or Chapter III, State responsibility, at least to the extend this legal nitwit in International Law and the UN institutions and their legal “enforceability” is at all able to grasp what tree offered.

        His entire approach to the question asked by the General Assembly is argumentative and bizarre. The better view was expressed by the 13 Judge majority. The General Assembly specifically asked about the legal consequences of the relevant resolutions of the UN Security Council and General Assembly, international law, and the Geneva Conventions. Scores of those UN resolutions have stipulated or recalled other resolutions which say that all states have an obligation not to recognize or assist Israel in maintaining the illegal situations it has created. The Judge opined:

        “I have great difficulty, however, in understanding what the duty not to recognize an illegal fact involves.”

        Non-recognition means that states have an obligation not to enter into treaties with Israel that normalize or recognize Israeli sovereign jurisdiction over the occupied territories; accept the credentials of its ambassadors as the legitimate government of the people of the occupied territories; or accept as legal or permanent any measures taken by Israel to alter the demographic balance of the territory through implantation of Jewish settlers. The EU policy that it will not recognize any unilateral changes to the 1967 borders and the recent sanctions adopted by the EU against giving grants and loans to illegal Israeli institutions in the West Bank is an obvious example of a legal obligation that flows from the duty not to recognize or assist an illegal situation.

        The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties says that states only agree to the actual terms contained in an agreement and that when the meaning is plain, there is no need to consult the travaux préparatoires or commentaries. In legal terms an “undertaking” is defined as a surety agreement to be responsible for the performance of a duty if another party with primary responsibility for that duty fails to perform it for any reason. A person who agrees to co-sign a loan for another person is a good example. http://definitions.uslegal.com/u/undertaking/

        By 2004 the UN had declared the Geneva and Hague Conventions to be customary international law binding on all parties that engage in armed conflicts. The General Assembly and ILC had included violations of the customary rules reflected in those conventions as criminal offenses in UN conventions, the Rome Statute, and the statutes of the international criminal tribunals established as subsidiary organs of the UN Security Council. So there was no question about the ultimate enforceability of those rules.

        When the contracting parties to a multilateral agreement “undertake to ensure respect” for the terms of the convention “in all circumstances”, that does constitute a binding legal obligation for them see to it that an occupying power performs its duties and doesn’t commit acts which constitute grave breaches or war crimes – even if that requires them to step-in and perform the duties owed by the occupying power to the internationally protected persons or territory concerned. The Geneva Conventions provide for the designation of “Protecting Powers” which are a neutral or other State not a Party to the conflict.

      • LeaNder
        LeaNder
        March 4, 2014, 6:55 am

        Thanks a lot Hostage, exquisite answer. But these matters are not so easy to store, at least for me, but I’ll try. ;)

        I was aware I first should first read the whole argument. But then I stumbled across 41. and already this sent me on a rather extensive journey, resulting in the confuse question-comment above.

        From the legal dissent by Pieter Kooijmans tree links to above:

        41. 1 will not deal with the tricky question whether obligations ergu omnes can be equated with obligations arising under a peremptory norm of general international law. In this respect 1 refer to the useful commentary of the ILC under the heading of Chapter III of its Articles. For argument’s sake 1 start from the assumption that the consequences of the
        violation of such obligations are identical.

        Moreover, 1 fail to see what kind of positive action, resulting
        from this obligation, may be expected from individual States, apart from
        diplomatic démarches.

        Somewhat attractive end given the context.

        Thanks again, appreciate it. In this context I would love to be more optimist, and you definitively seem to be (concerning IL – too).

  6. German Lefty
    German Lefty
    March 1, 2014, 5:21 pm

    Amnesty’s report was mentioned by German news websites, too.
    http://www.n-tv.de/politik/Amnesty-wirft-Israel-systematische-Gewalt-vor-article12360791.html (comments disabled)
    http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/amnesty-international-bericht-wirft-israel-absichtliche-toetungen-vor-a-955972.html (comments disabled)
    http://www.fr-online.de/politik/israel-amnesty-kritisiert-israels-armee,1472596,26428658.html (comments allowed but moderated)
    So far, there are two pro-Israel comments and two anti-Israel comments that passed moderation.

  7. Daniel Rich
    Daniel Rich
    March 1, 2014, 5:24 pm

    @ Allison Deger,

    The following is not rooted in semantics, but based on my belief that every word carries [or houses] its own little spirit [aka the essential meaning of it].

    If you allow me, I’ll explain why/how.

    Jealousy vs Envy

    1) Jealousy – I want to have what you have.
    2) Envy – I do not want you to have it at all

    Therefore, ‘trigger-happy’ is incorrect.

    Trigger-happy = love to pull the trigger. However, the Apartheid State’s thugs [for lack of a better word], love to kill. That, imho, is a huge difference and the [Palestinian] death toll numbers are irrefutable proof of that underlying tendency to eradicate rather than simply pull a trigger.

    • Bumblebye
      Bumblebye
      March 1, 2014, 7:40 pm

      @Daniel Rich
      I think you’ve got the meanings the wrong way round – jealousy isn’t called the ‘green eyed monster’ for nothing!

      • Daniel Rich
        Daniel Rich
        March 1, 2014, 10:06 pm

        @ Bumblebye,

        I can see a ‘green eyed monster’ coming, but ‘backstabbing’ mostly not.

        But, do you agree with my preliminary premise that the Apartheid State’s inhabitants tend to want to kill rather than wound [as can be seen in the disproportionate use of force]…, or am I simply biased, self-hating and wrong?

        Example.

      • Bumblebye
        Bumblebye
        March 2, 2014, 9:31 am

        Daniel Rich
        The sheer impunity of the uniformed thugs proves you 100% right! What kind of danger are these heavily armed scumbags is from unarmed teens running away from them? Their fascist state claims ‘morality’ while tacitly and firmly (by its inaction) supporting the opposite and preserving its murderers from what should be the consequences of their actions.

  8. bilal a
    bilal a
    March 1, 2014, 7:22 pm

    The IDF is in the Ukraine, not just Palestine, not just Wash DC:

    He calls his troops “the Blue Helmets of Maidan,” but brown is the color of the headgear worn by Delta — the nom de guerre of the commander of a Jewish-led militia force that participated in the Ukrainian revolution. Under his helmet, he also wears a kippah.

    http://www.haaretz.com/news/world/1.577114

    Dear Sgt. Anthony, Yasher koach on your powerful and moving address to AIPAC. Wishing you a kasher v’ sameach Pesach.
    http://oursoldiersspeak.org/sgt-benjamin-anthony-aipac-policy-conference-2013/

    eeeww

  9. Blownaway
    Blownaway
    March 1, 2014, 9:44 pm

    Let’s see over the years they have broken their bones arrested them their women and their children and shot them. The so called civilized world has become immune. But don’t let an errant rocket fall into an open field and world leaders rush to show sympathy. It’s really disgusting

  10. Talkback
    Talkback
    March 2, 2014, 4:42 am

    Allison: … Israeli army regulations …

    The AI report also reveals that these regulations are kept in secret and what is known about them is from court cases. They are not even up to UN standards!

  11. Mayhem
    Mayhem
    March 2, 2014, 6:30 am

    WJC CEO Robert Singer said. “Amnesty International’s charges are tendentious and its conclusions unfair. Once again, the organization seems to be focusing far more on Israel than on pursuing its mission to expose egregious human-rights violators.”
    The IDF dismissed the allegations, saying security forces had seen a “substantial increase” in Palestinian violence and Amnesty had revealed a “complete lack of understanding” about the difficulties soldiers faced.”
    This is the standard behavior of organizations riddled with pro-Palestinian sympathisers who operate with a deliberate anti-Israel demonizing agenda.
    Amnesty International showed its true colors when it selected the anti-Semitic Roger Waters, the former Pink Floyd bassist, who has brazenly floated a pig with a Jewish Star of David at concerts across Europe and is a leader in efforts to culturally boycott Israel, to present it’s top humanitarian Ambassador of Conscience award. Refer http://www.algemeiner.com/2013/09/18/amnesty-international-blasted-by-jewish-human-rights-group-for-selecting-anti-semite-roger-waters-to-present-ambassador-of-conscience-award/

    • amigo
      amigo
      March 2, 2014, 11:01 am

      “WJC CEO Robert Singer said. “Amnesty International’s charges are tendentious and its conclusions unfair. Once again, the organization seems to be focusing far more on Israel than on pursuing its mission to expose egregious human-rights violators.”mayhem

      No s–t, what else would this lying ass have to say.He is a zionist and zionists lie.

      And if Israel is not a serial egregious Human Rights abuser then I don,t know what is.

    • just
      just
      March 2, 2014, 3:16 pm

      Yay Amnesty International! I love that it irks you so, Mayhem!

      Who, except perhaps you, gives a hoot about what Singer has to say?

    • puppies
      puppies
      March 2, 2014, 3:51 pm

      @Mayhem – So they have security problems, the poor, poor darlings.
      Let them get the fuck out and stay out. As a first step. As things stand now, even if they were being bombed and shot at, they are a 100% kosher target.

    • Daniel Rich
      Daniel Rich
      March 2, 2014, 7:13 pm

      @ Mayhem,

      Q: … the anti-Semitic Roger Waters, the former Pink Floyd bassist, who has brazenly floated a pig with a Jewish Star of David at concerts across Europe…

      R: Well, Mr. Singer, we can fine-tune that to a Golden Calf with a Tiara, if that suits you better, but as long as you use the Apartheid Version of Semites [embracing only a select few, whilst excluding all others], you and I will have a problem.

      I, for one, will not rest until that word has been desensitized desalinized re-sanitized and its proper, all inclusive meaning fully restored in the anal annals of mankind’s blood soaked pages of history.

      I guess I can count you out, Mr. Singer?

    • Daniel Rich
      Daniel Rich
      March 2, 2014, 7:22 pm

      Q:… its conclusions unfair.

      R: That’s exactly what I said to the police the moment they arrested me for something trivial as beating my wife to pulp. “Why don’t you invest the stoning to death in…, ehhhrrr…. ahum…, Farawaystan, eh? Why single me out? You’re a bigoted anti-”

      It’s very sad to see a grownup man act like a 3-year-old…, and worst of all, get away with it [in too many cases]… Ff-ing pathetic.

    • talknic
      talknic
      March 2, 2014, 10:48 pm

      Mayhem “Refer link to algemeiner.com

      Got anything neutral, factual, not full of false accusations?

      • Citizen
        Citizen
        March 3, 2014, 2:37 pm

        U can always count on algeminer.com to turn the world on its head, and shout anti-semitism is the world’s biggest problem. It’s the front man in the Zionist squad who goes out “on point.” It continually shows the future of Jewish History is the same as its past, that is, it has nothing to do with objective world history.

    • Talkback
      Talkback
      March 3, 2014, 8:44 am

      Mayhem The: IDF dismissed the allegations, saying security forces had seen a “substantial increase” in Palestinian violence and Amnesty had revealed a “complete lack of understanding” about the difficulties soldiers faced.”

      Yes, it must be very difficult for them, to kill innocent and unarmed civilians which are running away from them by shooting into their backs. Who was the terrorist, again?

  12. just
    just
    March 2, 2014, 7:20 am

    This is so fascinating.

    “JERUSALEM (AP) — Israeli police say they will be closing the main highway to Jerusalem and the city’s central roads for a massive rally of ultra-Orthodox Jews.

    Hundreds of thousands are expected to demonstrate Sunday evening against government plans to draft the ultra-Orthodox into the army and enforce criminal sanctions on draft dodgers.

    In a rare move, police said in a statement that they are closing Jerusalem’s central bus station and nearly all public buses into the city, and limiting public transportation inside Jerusalem from afternoon until night. Some schools and government ministries in the city are also closing.

    Ultra-Orthodox men have long been exempted from army service to pursue religious study, but Israel’s center-left government has been pushing for a more equal share of the compulsory national military service.”

    http://www.seattlepi.com/news/world/article/Shutdown-in-Jerusalem-for-ultra-Orthodox-protest-5282030.php

    They live in a state that is fueling/fomenting wars, creating chaos, killing people, incarcerating children, refusing to make peace with anyone, taking money from many, eliciting money to help Jewish women stay away from Arab men, etc. Now said “Jewish” state has to blockade JERUSALEM because of these devout folks anger because they refuse to serve. Why don’t they choose the path of stating that Occupation is wrong? That all of the criminal activity is simply wrong? Who are these ‘religious’ folks anyway? What about the “ultra- Orthodox women” of Israel– should they serve? If one is a conscientious objector, one must possess a conscience.

    I guess that the only bright spot is that this made headlines. A theocracy, faux democracy must answer to its citizens…….

    Fascinating. I was taken aback, though not entirely surprised, that AFSC is on the s*** list of Stand With US. They actually live what they preach.

    • Daniel Rich
      Daniel Rich
      March 2, 2014, 5:55 pm

      @ just,

      Ultra-Orthodox men in the IDF? That’s like slapping a beard and some curls on a bald-necked vulture and proclaim it to be ‘100% kosher.’ It may look good to begin with, but that’s only until you die…

  13. just
    just
    March 2, 2014, 7:59 am

    This is a tiny sliver of what I was hoping for when Mr. Obama was elected: cojones mixed with a smidgeon of truth that the rest of the world knows!

    “The Obama Administration is pressuring Israel’s intelligence agencies to stop carrying out assassinations inside Iran, CBS News reported Saturday.

    Written by CBS national correspondent Dan Raviv, co-author with Israeli journalist Yossi Melman of the book “Spies Against Armageddon: Inside Israel’s Secret Wars,” the article is based on information from “sources close to Israel’s intelligence agencies.”

    The issue could come up during Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s meeting with U.S. President Barack Obama in Washington this week, according to CBS.

    Israel has never acknowledged a clandestine campaign to assassinate Iranian nuclear scientists. Nevertheless, Raviv maintains that the Mossad “ran an assassination campaign for several years aimed at Iran’s top nuclear scientists. The purpose was to slow the progress made by Iran, which Israel feels certain is aimed at developing nuclear weapons; and to deter trained and educated Iranians from joining their country’s nuclear program.”

    According to the article, at least five Iranian scientists were murdered, most of them by bombs planted on their cars as they drove to work in the morning. “Remarkably, the Israeli assassins were never caught,” the article states, “obviously having long-established safe houses inside Iran – although several Iranians who may have helped the Mossad were arrested and executed.”

    U.S. pressure may no longer be necessary, Raviv writes, as “Mossad officials [have already] concluded that the campaign had gotten too dangerous. They did not want their best combatants – Israel’s term for its most talented and experienced spies – captured and hanged.”

    Instead, the article quotes the sources as saying, “Netanyahu has now ordered the Mossad to focus on hunting – inside Iran and elsewhere – for evidence that the Iranians are cheating on the commitments they made in their interim agreement with the P5+1 last November.”

    Iranian and diplomats from six global powers agreed in November on a framework agreement for reducing the extent of the Iranian nuclear program. Talks on implementing the framework agreement are currently in progress.”

    http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/1.577360

    Hopefully, the great unraveling of the complicit lies/nefarious crimes between Israel and the US will continue with alacrity.

  14. Mayhem
    Mayhem
    March 2, 2014, 7:57 pm

    Using language like ‘trigger happy’ exposes how biased the report is before you even read a word of it.

    • Cliff
      Cliff
      March 2, 2014, 10:35 pm

      anything that exposes you jewish terrorists is considered ‘biased’, huh mayhem?

    • talknic
      talknic
      March 2, 2014, 10:50 pm

      Mayhem “Using language like ‘trigger happy’ exposes how biased the report is before you even read a word of it”

      So what would you call it if not trigger happy?

      • ritzl
        ritzl
        March 3, 2014, 12:21 am

        @talknic- At this point, I’d call it sport.

        I mean we’re talking about generations of a pattern of “pacifying” killings here. They’re not isolated events.

      • talknic
        talknic
        March 3, 2014, 2:53 am

        @ritzl — Indoctrinated justification for trigger happiness. One wonders tho, what Mayhem and co call it….

    • Donald
      Donald
      March 2, 2014, 11:23 pm

      “Using language like ‘trigger happy’ exposes how biased the report is before you even read a word of it.”

      In other words, if Israel was criticized you dismiss the report before reading a word of it. By that logic every country or organization criticized by Amnesty could dismiss their reports without reading a word of them–they just have to hear something they don’t like.

  15. a blah chick
    a blah chick
    March 2, 2014, 9:00 pm

    ” Israeli police say they will be closing the main highway to Jerusalem and the city’s central roads for a massive rally of ultra-Orthodox Jews.”

    Do ultra orthodox women ever demonstrate?

  16. Accentitude
    Accentitude
    March 3, 2014, 7:30 am

    “They nearly shut down the direct negotiations with Israeli officials and spurred two demonstrations in Ramallah against the Palestinian Authority. Protesters were beaten at random, and injured were arrested in hospital beds.”

    From my experience the PA thugs are as bad as, if not worse, than the IDF. To hell with the whole lot of ’em.

    • Citizen
      Citizen
      March 3, 2014, 2:39 pm

      The difference is at least the PA thugs are not financed by the sole superpower USA and protected from their actions at the UN like the IDF thugs. Big difference, eh?

      • Accentitude
        Accentitude
        March 6, 2014, 7:40 am

        Hardly. The PA Thugs learned all of their tactics through training conducted by American and Israeli police and military following the agreement signed at Oslo. They are also armed and funded by the American government and have direct security channels and cooperation with the Israeli intelligence and security agencies. They are by all means an Israeli Proxy. All day long PA paramilitary police are stationed on random street corners in Area A cities but mysteriously disappear minutes before the IDF rolls through town like they did in Birzeit to arrest (kill) an activist. Why is that? If the IDF or the Shin Bet says Jump, the PA officers will always say how high.

      • puppies
        puppies
        March 6, 2014, 8:25 am

        @Accentitude – That’s exactly why the PA was created at Oslo: to have a local, Palestinian enforcer that would keep “order” on behalf of the occupier. The fact that there are many people among the recruited who woke up to the role they are made to play doesn’t change the general purpose. The fruits of Oslo reveal themselves as even worse than predicted.

Leave a Reply