Trending Topics:

To condemn, or not to condemn

Israel/Palestine
on 217 Comments

Two colonists, Eitan and Naama Henkin, were murdered yesterday whilst traveling between the colonies of Itamar and Elon Moreh. Their children, thankfully, survived the attack. Hamas spokesman Husam Badran has reportedly praised the murders.

The “Israeli right” has condemned the attacks as terrorism, and a massive manhunt is now underway for those responsible. The “right” has also looked to the “left” for swift condemnation. I have to say, I’ve seen many within the pro-Palestinian camp mangling their response.

Yes, these people were colonists: They were participating in the Zionist colonisation of occupied Palestine. But they were also not taking active part in hostilities, and are protected as civilians under international humanitarian law. This is important, because it is the same protection that Palestinian civilians should also enjoy.

Having said that, it is instructive to view the differences in how people in general view different kinds of violence, and how we respond to it.

Supporters of the Zionist regime in Israel were quick to condemn the attack as terrorism, but typically fell silent when the marauding colonists and Zionist militants began attacking Nablus.

Supporters of Palestine were quick to condemn the burning to death of the Dawabsha family, but fall silent or choose to equivocate when colonists are murdered.

And an error made by the vast majority of people from all parts of the political compass – we are more accepting of killings perpetrated by those wearing uniforms or flying an F16 than by those not wearing such uniforms. The doctrinal systems tell us that for violence to be legitimate, it must be carried out by agents of state. In other words, state terror ceases to be terror simply by virtue of it having been perpetrated under the auspices of a government and its so-called armed forces. It’s important to note this – from a moral perspective, whether you kill a child’s parents at point blank range, or from a few thousand feet in the air, the acts are equivalent.

The slaughter of Eitan and Naama Henkin is terrorism in the same way that the slaughter of hundreds of innocent men, women and children in Gaza is terrorism. Either oppose both equally, or accept that you are led by primitive tribalism rather than principles.

Palestinians are suffering under a brutal military occupation, and the right to resist is essential to human dignity – but we shouldn’t fall into the trap of believing that targeting civilians is a mode of resistance deserving of support. Understanding the conditions and frustrations which lead to the attacks is one thing, but the attacks must be condemned nonetheless.

I’m also witnessing manipulation of the attack by the elite media, who claim that Prime Minister Netanyahu had just said (at the UN) that he was prepared to re-start negotiations “immediately” and “without pre-conditions”. Let’s make the obvious point – that’s what he said, it’s not what he means. He means he wants negotiations with extreme pre-conditions, such as the suspension of international law as a reference point. This is not strictly relevant to the issue of what to condemn, but it shouldn’t be allowed to pass.

About Avram Meitner

Avram Meitner is an individualist-anarchist, physicist and advocate for libertarian principles. He also works on technologies supporting freedom of speech in Hong Kong.

Other posts by .


Posted In:

217 Responses

  1. pabelmont
    pabelmont
    October 2, 2015, 10:36 am

    International law almost forbids an occupying country to introduce its civilian citizens into occupied territory. Israel has long referred to its administrators in OTs as “military governors”. So it is almost correct to say that all Israelis in OTs could be regarded as soldiers, whether in uniforms or in mufti.

    So when people living under occupation attack Israelis, whether soldiers or settlers, it is almost correct to say that they are attacking the Israeli military, surely not an act of terror but an act of war.

    There was a point to the Fourth Geneva Convention’s forbidding settlement, and this confusion is part of that reason. BTW, settlers are often armed and sometimes attack Palestinians, adding to the “rightness” of my suggestion that all Israelis in OTs are “military”.

    I know, I know, too many “almosts”. But you get my point.

    • oldgeezer
      oldgeezer
      October 2, 2015, 11:06 am

      You can add to your list that the GoI both supplies those arms and also provides training to the illegal squatters via the iof.

      The GoI has referred to the settlers and settlements as a part of Israel’s defenses.

      But in the final analysis these people were, based on what I have read so far, civilians and their killing was morally wrong. While I will have less sympathy for people who are killed while participating in a clearly criminal enterprise i can’t justify or support it. I wont descend to the level of absolute immorality displayed by zionists and their supporters. Two wrongs are never right.

    • AvramMeitner
      AvramMeitner
      October 2, 2015, 7:23 pm

      The colonies are obviously illegal, there’s no serious discussion on that. But being a colonist doesn’t rob someone of their protection as a civilian.

      • talknic
        talknic
        October 2, 2015, 10:21 pm

        @ AvramMeitner “The colonies are obviously illegal, there’s no serious discussion on that. But being a colonist doesn’t rob someone of their protection as a civilian”

        Civilians of the Occupying Power illegally in Occupied Territories are in breach of the law. By being there they rob themselves of the protection of NOT illegally being there.

        If you deliberately take your wife and children to stand in the middle of a traffic lane on a freeway …. go figure

        The Israeli Government actively encourages its civilians to endanger themselves, then cries crocodile tears when they become embroiled in the violence expected when one occupies another people and their territory.

        What kind of a screwed up Govt deliberately encourages its civilians to endanger themselves?

      • Jon66
        Jon66
        October 2, 2015, 10:59 pm

        So ALL Israelis in Occupied Territory are there illegally? Even visitors?
        It does not make any sense that any Israeli in Occcupied Territory is a legitimate target. Are the Israelis who come to protest the occupation legitimate targets? Are you saying the government should block them?

      • Marnie
        Marnie
        October 3, 2015, 12:37 am

        Yeah but the fact that EVERY Israeli Jew has been, is currently or in the future will be required mandatory service in the IOF pretty much destroys the notion of a civilian population in the zionist state.

      • echinococcus
        echinococcus
        October 3, 2015, 6:26 am

        Being a colonist automatically lifts the protection one would otherwise be entitled to as a civilian.
        In fact, just being in the occupied zone lifts that protection, sometimes even according to the Zionist entity.
        By the way, most Herrenvolk citizens are also immigrated illegally without any consent by the owners of the territory.

      • Jon66
        Jon66
        October 3, 2015, 1:02 pm

        Marnie,
        If there is no civilian population in Israel, does that mean that ALL Israelis at any time are legitimate targets? After all, the kids will eventually grow up to be soldiers.

      • talknic
        talknic
        October 3, 2015, 2:27 pm

        @ Jon66 “So ALL Israelis in Occupied Territory are there illegally? Even visitors?”

        If you say so. I didn’t. I said “Civilians of the Occupying Power illegally in Occupied Territories …

        “It does not make any sense that any Israeli in Occcupied Territory is a legitimate target”

        Correct. Though they are in a war zone and are thus at risk of becoming embroiled in and perhaps even collateral damage due to valid violent resistance against armed citizens of the Occupying Power

        “Are the Israelis who come to protest the occupation legitimate targets? Are you saying the government should block them?”

        A) No

        B) No. They’re not there with the assistance of the Occupying Power

        Anything else you’d like to try to twist around?

      • annie
        annie
        October 3, 2015, 3:05 pm

        talknic, note how jon has changed the focus from ‘protected people’ to ‘legitimate targets’:

        “It does not make any sense that any Israeli in Occcupied Territory is a legitimate target”

        note what he’s not addressing and what doesn’t make sense? It does not make any sense that any Israeli in Occcupied Territory is afforded the status of protected person designed to protect civilians living under a hostile military rule. that’s what doesn’t make sense. why would a human rights body even consider making rules for the status of people who are not authorized to be there under international law?

        and then to claim israelis have the status of protected people living under occupation and palestinians should have the same status too? it’s a little ass backwards.

      • Jon66
        Jon66
        October 3, 2015, 3:03 pm

        Sorry I was not specific. it was Echi who said that just being there is illegal.

      • Jon66
        Jon66
        October 3, 2015, 3:44 pm

        I’m no expert on international law. I don’t claim to know the difference between civilian and protected person or any other term. But I do believe that the intent of the set of laws is to protect both those under occupation and civilians in the unoccupied areas. I do not believe that either is a legitimate target. However, there are a number of visitors here who do have much more knowledge. I’d love to know what they think

      • annie
        annie
        October 3, 2015, 4:46 pm

        But I do believe that the intent of the set of laws is to protect both those under occupation and civilians in the unoccupied areas.

        if the intent of the law to protect civilians under occupation were intended to protect civilians in the unoccupied areas not under occupation they would have mentioned them. oh, they did mention them, they mentioned they were not supposed to be there. therefore why would the law be intended to provide for them?

      • oldgeezer
        oldgeezer
        October 3, 2015, 4:03 pm

        The geneva conventions, which are totaly ignored by tbe Israeli gov, are designed to provide respect and dignity for all human life. There are minimums which apply to all persons. Israeli citizens are entitled to those protections aa well. The issue is what are those minmums and in this case, is a serving officer in the iof entitled to claim to be a civilian.

        Israeli violations are legion. The settlement process, treatment of civilians, targetti g of civilians Amd infrasteucture, removing and jailing palestiniana outside of palestine. The list is far too long. Which also begs the question as to whether a signatory which suspends it application may claim it’s protection

        A good and propey balanced analysis would be nice.

      • echinococcus
        echinococcus
        October 3, 2015, 4:45 pm

        Jon,

        Israelis are *targets because they all are a population colonizing other people’s country, no doubt about that. Some of them may be *protected persons under international law, but that depends because there are several different readings of it –legitimacy or not of the 11/47 occupation that started the currently ongoing war against the Palestinian people may be one factor, the illegal importation of undesirable, hostile stranger gangs may be another, etc. etc.
        Basically when an oppressed people has had it and explodes, especially after soo many years of the most brutal military occupation since 1945 combined with incredible treason by its own, it’s pretty devastating and I , for one, won’t be making a mountain out of non-observance of fine points of law. Any Israeli belonging to Zionist immigration, not of course the Jewish Palestinians, would be well advised to go a parent’s country before it is too late –law or no law.
        Just as an example of how much is has to do with legal refinements, think of the inhabitants of Dresden or Hiroshima…

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        October 3, 2015, 5:10 pm

        “I’m no expert on international law. I don’t claim to know the difference between civilian and protected person or any other term. But I do believe that the intent of the set of laws is to protect both those under occupation and civilians in the unoccupied areas.”

        “No expert?” Okay that’s a start. Say, why don’t you familiarize yourself with the international law and Geneva Conventions concerning military occupation? Are they supposed to last any longer than is militarily necessary? Are they supposed to last, oh, 70 years as an instrument of policy, and combined with violent settlement?
        Give it a try, and maybe you won’t end up using that ridiculous “no expert” plea. Is that what you say when the operation is a success, but the patient dies?

      • echinococcus
        echinococcus
        October 3, 2015, 5:33 pm

        Jon 66:

        What do you mean by your “unoccupied areas”? Uninhabited land? Or perhaps areas not under Zionst entity occupation?
        If the latter, excuse me while I laugh my ass off. There is not a single inch of territory that is not under Zionist occupation in all of Palestine, meaning mandate Palestine. Any other interpretation is a lawyerly lie.

        As for the letter of the law, who cares about the small print? It’s a war crime to install civilians (if they are otherwise civilians –doubtful), in any zone militarily occupied, and these civilians are accessories to the crime, and additionally committing another heinous crime if they are taking minors with them. So it depends on your definition of occupation –47, 48, 67…

    • Doubtom
      Doubtom
      October 3, 2015, 5:45 pm

      I believe that whoever killed those two Israelis, showed exactly the same discretion and concern as the Israelis show in their attacks on these occupied Palestinians and if anyone is keeping score, the occupied Palestinians are way, way behind on the head count. The occupied Palestinians are not an immoral mob of animals, despite Israel’s best efforts to so characterize them; they are within their rights to oppose, by whatever means, the rapid and systematic encroachment and theft of their land by the occupiers. It’s time to call a spade a spade, folks! The United States is complicit in whatever crimes are being committed by Israel and we should be ashamed of our ignorance. and of our support. To hell with Israel!—the basis of most of the trouble in the Middle East!

  2. Bumblebye
    Bumblebye
    October 2, 2015, 11:35 am

    “Colonists”
    A rather inadequate term for shtetlers from this place – one of the virulently obnoxious ideological set-ups. Their women attack and destroy neighboring Palestinian crops, they sent their yeshiva students to *pray* on the “temple mount”during last year’s “kidnaping” fiasco, they didn’t want the land they stole for the shtetlment to be expropriated for “security purposes”, somehow that wouldn’t be ideologically correct.
    This couple cannot be considered to have been living ordinary, mundane civilian lives. They were living and acting in enmity with their Palestinian neighbors, from whom the land they lived on was stolen.
    Avram Meitner tells us nothing about this couple but their names and that they were traveling between these two places with their children. I think he expects we should react as we would if a similar incident occurred to a family travelling between two normal towns wherevever else any of us are in the world. Well sorry Mr Meitner, Israeli colonists bent on stealing and destroying Palestine, supported, enabled and defended by their government and army won’t provoke in me the reaction you want.

    • zaid
      zaid
      October 2, 2015, 3:53 pm

      I have seen a disturbing video for the woman that shows her insulting and harassing Muslims at the gates of Al Aqsa mosque and shouting “Muhammad is a pig” in front of Israeli police and of course they did nothing.

      • Bumblebye
        Bumblebye
        October 2, 2015, 5:24 pm

        I think people like these are some of Israel’s worst criminals, and if they were indeed killed by Palestinians, why, they were just using Palestine’s own “stand your ground” law that hasn’t been written yet. The criminal government of Israel is 100% responsible for encouraging and underwriting these crimes.

    • AvramMeitner
      AvramMeitner
      October 2, 2015, 7:25 pm

      I have not seen any information to suggest that the two victims had been involved in attacks on Palestinians in the West Bank. Maybe they had, maybe they hadn’t.

      Simply being a colonist does not mean they can be held responsible for the actions or all colonists. That’s a distinctly Zionist way of thinking that is usually applied to Palestinians.

      • zaid
        zaid
        October 2, 2015, 10:26 pm

        the man is an IDF soldiers, so no he is not Civilian.

      • echinococcus
        echinococcus
        October 3, 2015, 6:18 am

        Simply being a colonist does not mean they can be held responsible for the actions or all colonists.

        Who said they were? Each illegal colonist commits his own war crime by being an illegal colonist, the Geneva Convention forbids it, and even the Zionist occupier keeps road signs warning of deadly danger. So they get it for their own individual participation, no other action needed. Clear now?

      • AvramMeitner
        AvramMeitner
        October 4, 2015, 3:40 am

        The crime of colonisation is committed by the state, not by the individual.

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        October 4, 2015, 3:23 pm

        “The crime of colonisation is committed by the state, not by the individual.”

        Oh for God’s sake, man, how stupid do you think we are? That’s supposed to confer some kind of immunity (or in this case, complete impunity) for the people involved, carrying out what you just said is a crime of the state! Sure, that makes sense.

        Hey, I know, since only the State is committing the crime, the individual settlers (who have ROTFLMSJAO no connection with the State) are innocent, naturally, the IDF has to protect them, right? Because, you know, they are persecuted individual Jews, redeeming the land, which is (yeah, that’s the ticket!) an individual religious act?

      • hophmi
        hophmi
        October 5, 2015, 12:14 am

        Don’t bother, Avram. Most people here don’t regard Israelis as full human beings. That’s why they’re callous when Israelis are murdered.

      • eljay
        eljay
        October 5, 2015, 2:31 pm

        || hophmi: … Most people here don’t regard Israelis as full human beings. … ||

        Israelis are full human beings.

        Unfortunately, far too many Israelis are also hateful and immoral Zio-supremacists who engage in, support, justify or defend Jewish supremacism in/and a supremacist “Jewish State” in as much as possible of (Mandate) Palestine and related (war) crimes.

        And they’re callous when non-Jewish Israelis (and non-Jewish non-Israelis) are murdered.

  3. oldgeezer
    oldgeezer
    October 2, 2015, 11:43 am

    The male victim was an officer in the zahal commando unit sayaret matkal. I am not sure he qualifies as a civilian and wonder how many innocents he has murdered.

    • AvramMeitner
      AvramMeitner
      October 2, 2015, 7:27 pm

      They were in a car with their children. The fact that he holds a rank in the military isn’t enough to make him a combatant. Israel often targets Palestinians on the grounds that they have at some point in the past been involved in rocket attacks, for example. It’s bogus reasoning when Israel does it and it’s no different here.

      • zaid
        zaid
        October 2, 2015, 10:33 pm

        and Osama binladin was having cappuccino with his wife in Pakistan when he was killed , and the fact that he was the highest ranking officer in Qaeda does not make him a combatant.

        that’s your Logic (or lack of it).

      • ckg
        ckg
        October 2, 2015, 10:50 pm

        Osama bin Laden should not have been assassinated. Nor the Henkins.

      • Jon66
        Jon66
        October 2, 2015, 11:01 pm

        The accounts of the Bin Laden raid said he was armed and a threat. We have assisinated others.

      • Sibiriak
        Sibiriak
        October 2, 2015, 11:22 pm

        AvramMeitner: The fact that he holds a rank in the military isn’t enough to make him a combatant.
        ——————–

        Can you cite any legal sources to back up that assertion? The military force in which holds rank is involved in military action, and he was under the control of that military’s command structure.

      • Sibiriak
        Sibiriak
        October 2, 2015, 11:45 pm

        AvramMeitner: But they were also not taking active part in hostilities
        ————————

        Do you have evidence that the IDF commando was not taking part in hostilities? The Israeli occupying force and the Palestinian resistance are obviously involved in hostilities. The commando unit is part of the occupying force. It seems exceedingly strange to claim that this particular IDF commando unit was somehow not active.

        With all due respect, this looks like a rush to judgment before all the facts are in.

      • zaid
        zaid
        October 2, 2015, 11:57 pm

        what do you think should have been done to binladin and the IDF officer

      • Marnie
        Marnie
        October 3, 2015, 12:51 am

        “They were in a car with their children”. The Dawabshe family were in THEIR HOME when it was set ablaze by murderers, who are KNOWN AND BEING PROTECTED. I think your continued enabling is telling.

      • echinococcus
        echinococcus
        October 3, 2015, 6:04 am

        You don’t sound much different than Netanyahoo. It’s not “bogus reasoning when Israel does it”, it is invasion and aggression because Zionist entity people have no business to be anywhere close and no right to their aggression or “right to defend themselves”, while the occupied people have all the right to defend themselves by all means judged appropriate, period.

      • echinococcus
        echinococcus
        October 3, 2015, 6:12 am

        ckg: Bin Laden did not even have a valid writ of indictment against him (you’ll remember it was not forthcoming when the Afghans asked… they were invaded instead.) The Zionist settler and elite commando officer was clearly a warrior on the side of the aggressor, a valuable asset of the latter, illegally in an occupation zone, where even the official road signs warn of danger for life.

      • YoniFalic
        YoniFalic
        October 3, 2015, 10:02 am

        The terminology of international law with respect to legitimate targets is usually “protected noncombatant” and not civilian. A civilian that repairs tanks for battle is a legitimate target. A POW is a protected noncombatant.

        Eitan Henkin was a military officer participating in criminal colonization on the model of 19th century style genocidal colonization. It is hard to argue that he was not a legitimate target for the resistance. Naama Henkin was not a military officer, but she was participating in criminal colonization of the model of 19th century style genocidal colonization. It is hard to argue that she was not a legitimate target for the resistance.

        Designating the killing of criminal invaders anywhere in Palestine (including the part that is called pre-1967 Israel) seems wrong by historical precedent. No one uses terrorism to describe the assassination of Heydrich in the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia even though the division of Czechoslavokia had international de facto and de jure recognition from the UK, Italy, Poland, and Hungary.

        In Czechoslavokian and Czech Republic law 17 September 1938 is considered the start of an undeclared war between Czechoslovakia and Germany. Likewise, once the racist genocidal Zionist state is replaced by a single Palestinian state, 11 December 1917 will probably be considered the start of an undeclared war between racist genocidal invaders from Eastern Europe (et alii) and the native population.

        From that perspective the Jewish invader population anywhere in Palestine is no different from the German invader population anywhere in Eastern Europe during the 1940s.

        Because one front of the undeclared war is demographic, attacks on any invader anywhere in Palestine must be considered completely legitimate and not terrorism.

        I left Israel and took my family with me because I concluded that the State of Israel and Zionism represent pure evil and because I did not want my family to be forced to participate on the side of evil in the struggle with natives legitimately fighting to free themselves and their country from vicious invaders.

      • YoniFalic
        YoniFalic
        October 3, 2015, 10:08 am

        I meant

        “Designating AS TERRORISM the killing of criminal invaders anywhere in Palestine (including the part that is called pre-1967 Israel) seems wrong by historical precedent”.

      • just
        just
        October 3, 2015, 10:27 am

        “They were in a car with their children. The fact that he holds a rank in the military isn’t enough to make him a combatant. ”

        What??? Were his wife and children his own personal protection/aka human shields?

        “The victims are Rabbi Eitam Henkin and Naama Henkin, residents of the community of Neria. They were murdered by terrorists who opened fire towards their vehicle as they were driving between Itamar and Elon Moreh, and were murdered in front of their four children.

        Rabbi Eitam’s parents, who made aliyah from the United States, are Rabbanit Chana Henkin, founder of the Nishmat Institute for Advanced Jewish Studies for Women in Jerusalem and Rabbi Yehuda Henkin, known posek (halakhic decisor) and author of the four volume set of responsa, Bnai Banim.”

        http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/201318#.Vg_lXPlViko

        As a rabbi, did he take part in the last massacre of and in Gaza? Is he a member of Breaking the Silence?

        Check this out:

        “Israel security forces carried out searches and arrests across the Nablus area of the West Bank in a pre-dawn operation Saturday, as the hunt continued for the killers of an Israeli couple on Thursday.

        Eitam and Naama Henkin, both in their 30s, were shot dead Thursday night as they were driving in the West Bank with their four young children. The children were unhurt in the deadly terror attack.

        Palestinian police said the troops “arrested eight people and conducted searches, entering properties by force and causing damage.”

        According to the Palestinian news agency Ma’an, “heavily armed” troops carried out the operation, which Palestinian security forces said involved Israeli intelligence and more than 40 IDF vehicles.

        Several people were wounded during the raids when local residents clashed with IDF soldiers, Ma’an said. One man was in serious condition after he was shot in the chest by live fire, the agency reported. At least four other people were hospitalized for their injuries while many others suffered from the effects of tear gas.

        Palestinians protesting against the raid in Nablus hurled stones at soldiers, who responded with rubber bullets, tear gas and live ammunition, the Palestinian sources said.

        The Palestinian Red Crescent said, “10 people were wounded by live rounds to the legs or stomach,” and “four others were wounded in beatings” by security forces.

        Ma’an quoted Palestinian security forces as saying that the IDF raided the home of a man named Noud ad-Din Abu Hashya in the Askar refugee camp in Nablus. Hashya is believed to have been involved in the attack that killed the Henkins, Palestinian security sources told the agency.

        According to the report, IDF troops gave Hashya’s family a notice for a demolition order on their home, which is expected to be carried out next week. …”

        http://www.timesofisrael.com/report-idf-raids-nablus-in-hunt-for-henkin-killers-arrests-7/

        Nice injustice system you got there.

        Q; Where are the terrorist murderers of the Dawabshe family and have their illegal homes on stolen land been demolished yet?

        A: They’re under the protection of the GoI and will be richly rewarded when all of the ‘dust settles’.

      • zaid
        zaid
        October 3, 2015, 12:41 pm

        66

        No Binladin was not armed when he was killed and no he was not a threat just like the thousands of Palestinians resistance leader who were assassinated , some were even sleep.

      • Kris
        Kris
        October 3, 2015, 12:43 pm

        jon 66: “The accounts of the Bin Laden raid said he was armed and a threat. We have assisinated (sic) others. ”

        The accounts of the Jewish settlers say that they are armed and a threat. In fact, every single day we read about new violent crimes by these people. Since in your view assassination is no big deal, why do you care if settlers are assassinated. Unless, of course, you support ethnic cleansing and occupation of the Palestinians.

        When the French Resistance assassinated German occupiers (who at least had the integrity not to use their own children as human shields), did they act in error? People who are committing crimes don’t get to whine about getting hurt. The idea is absurd.

        The children are to be pitied. They are orphans now because their parents gambled on getting away with a crime, and lost. It is to the great credit of the Palestinians that these Jewish children were left unharmed, given the vicious crimes against Palestinian children that Jewish settlers carry out every single day.

      • Jon66
        Jon66
        October 3, 2015, 1:09 pm

        Kris,
        “People who are committing crimes don’t get to whine about getting hurt. The idea is absurd.”

        Well now we know where you stand on the whole Michael Brown and Eric Garner thing. I mean Eric should have realized that by selling those loose cigs he might get what he deserved.

      • echinococcus
        echinococcus
        October 3, 2015, 9:30 pm

        Well now we know where you stand on the whole Michael Brown and Eric Garner thing. I mean Eric should have realized that by selling those loose cigs he might get what he deserved

        I see: the murder in cold blood by cops of a person supposed to have committed a light infraction passible of citation only is the same as the deserved elimination of an American Zionist mass murderer and war criminal found where he had been legally warned that his presence might legitimately expose him to danger –carrying four little children as human shields.

        If you are an MD, as you say, you sure don’t need the pittance of a stipend from the Ha-Sebara office, and if you are occupied you sure shouldn’t have the time.

      • annie
        annie
        October 3, 2015, 10:01 pm

        jon’s scrapping the bottom of the hasbara barrel on this one. selling loose cigs on the street probably has less legal impact than rolling thru a stop sign. and he’s comparing it to a war crime. worthless trying to counter argue with someone w/such a low integrity bar for false equivalence.

      • echinococcus
        echinococcus
        October 4, 2015, 12:34 am

        Yeah, they’re rolling out real fruity ones for the fall season.

      • Jon66
        Jon66
        October 4, 2015, 11:10 am

        It wasn’t my idea that the “criminals” got what they deserved.

        I’m not the one who said without any qualifiers, “People who are committing crimes don’t get to whine about getting hurt. The idea is absurd. ”

        was the “crime” that you believe that this man committed a capital offense?

    • hophmi
      hophmi
      October 5, 2015, 12:48 am

      The terrorists targeted their children as well. According to people here, their children were legitimate targets.

      There’s a place in hell for all of you.

  4. Bumblebye
    Bumblebye
    October 2, 2015, 11:45 am

    Btw, how does living on stolen land, thus preventing its owners from using it, *not* constitute ongoing hostility? In which this couple were engaged for however long they lived in their shtetlment. That seems like active ongoing hostility, aside from other constant anti-Palestinian acts being carried out by the people of this imposition in Palestine.

    • wondering jew
      wondering jew
      October 3, 2015, 2:07 am

      bumblebye- do you have a point to your word play “shtetlment”? is it saying that the mindset of the shtetl is in some way in play here? or is it just being cute?

      • Bumblebye
        Bumblebye
        October 3, 2015, 11:27 am

        @ yonah
        I use the word deliberately. It is not to “play”. The inhabitants may not have the mindset of the old shtetls, but they are places filled with narrow, bigoted people who are determined to exclude any and all who don’t share their ethnicity or their beliefs. They are for certain, a nightmare presence for their neighbors.

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        October 3, 2015, 12:06 pm

        ” do you have a point to your word play “shtetlment”?”

        “Yonah” you better be careful. You keep on asking incisive questions like that, and your comments will be turned over to Anna Augustovsky for moderation.

      • eljay
        eljay
        October 3, 2015, 2:02 pm

        || Mooser: “Yonah” you better be careful. You keep on asking incisive questions like that, and your comments will be turned over to Anna Augustovsky for moderation. ||

        Easy there, Mooser, or he might just end up having a severe scoffing fit! ;-)

      • wondering jew
        wondering jew
        October 5, 2015, 6:21 am

        Bumblebye- I still don’t get it. Do you feel that the shtetl inhabitants were bigoted? Or is the shtetl a type of a bubble, is that what you’re saying? I understand that you are trying to say nasty things about the settler and the settlements, I just don’t understand why the shtetl is your paradigm of nastiness. I don’t get it.

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        October 5, 2015, 11:27 am

        ” I understand that you are trying to say nasty things about the settler and the settlements, I just don’t understand why the shtetl is your paradigm of nastiness. I don’t get it.”

        Don’t worry, “Yonah”, I took care of it. A “Director’s Cut DVD” of “Fiddler on the Roof” is at this very moment being mailed to “Bumblbye”. That’ll fix him. I dare him not to weep at the end.

        “Yonah” I keep on telling you – the present can change the past, as much as the past conditions the present, maybe more. Why wouldn’t you assume a settlement is pretty much like a shtetl?

  5. echinococcus
    echinococcus
    October 2, 2015, 11:58 am

    By the general war against the Palestinian population started officially in November 1947 and never called off, the Zionist government has knowingly put its entire civilian population on the entire mandate Palestine territory in harm’s way. Treaties or cease-fires with outside powers or the installation of puppet governments do not end this war.
    The only responsible party to complain of is the Zionist government.
    The paper does not indicate if the action was political or not, by the way. If it were not, again the Zionist government is responsible as the military occupier.

    • Jon66
      Jon66
      October 2, 2015, 5:07 pm

      I understand your premise that there is a state of war. If the family involved was “civilian” are they legitimate targets? I am by no means an expert on law, but I thought the whole point of “rules” of war was to distinguish civilian from military and civilians shouldn’t be targeted. You seem to be saying that it’s OK to target the civilian population of a country if you are at war with the country.

      • talknic
        talknic
        October 2, 2015, 6:47 pm

        Unfortunately the civilians were in a car with a valid military target. The Israeli government encouraged them to be there war zone. It’s called collateral.

        Complaints should go to the Zionist Federation and Israeli Government, who encourage civilians to break GC IV thereby endangering themselves and in this case their families.

      • annie
        annie
        October 2, 2015, 7:04 pm

        . You seem to be saying that it’s OK to target the civilian population of a country if you are at war with the country.

        no, he was pretty clear on what he was saying:

        “the Zionist government is responsible as the military occupier.”

        if the military is shooting civilians then they are responsible if their own citizens get targeted as a result. this is the price you pay as a society by keeping people locked up so you can steal their land and resources. it’s israel’s fault and responsibility, every death.

        just like when you commit a crime with a deadly weapon the ensuing deaths are considered your responsibility.

      • talknic
        talknic
        October 2, 2015, 8:02 pm

        Jon66 “You seem to be saying that it’s OK to target the civilian population of a country if you are at war with the countr

        They seem to be saying what they said and what they said is still there for all to read and it’s not what you’d like them to seem to be saying.

        “.. I thought the whole point of “rules” of war was to distinguish civilian from military and civilians shouldn’t be targeted “

        Indeed. GC IV is to protect ALL civilians, including the civilians of the Occupying Power, from becoming embroiled in and collateral from the very likely violent consequences of occupying another people and their territory.

        It is the Occupying Power’s responsibility to ensure its own civilians DON’T enter Occupied Territories. It’s also the Occupying Power’s responsibility to protect the occupied, their property and their territory.

        “Israel, the Occupying Power” fails on all accounts. It’s a rogue state in breach of laws and conventions adopted in large part because of the treatment of our Jewish fellows under the ^&*[email protected]# Nazis

      • echinococcus
        echinococcus
        October 2, 2015, 8:04 pm

        I’m far from being a lawyer –in fact I’d say I’m the opposite of a lawyer. I know, however, that this is a point hotly contested among the best lawyers, advocates of oppressed people tending to affirm that civilians smuggled to colonize invaded and occupied territories are military personnel. No one says, of course, that restraint should not be exercised when there are minors or obviously non-military persons around.
        The latter, though, is hard to keep in the teeth of the Zionist example (take just the latest of very many) of murdering 2,000 civilians including some 500 kids without any credible provocation and calling it collateral damage. As long as they do that, I’d have no qualms at all saying “collateral damage”.
        I have seen what they did in Beirut in 1982 to the civilians and I’ll punch in the face anyone who defends that they didn’t target them. It’s sad that civilians were imported at all into Palestine to serve as cannon fodder, but now that’s what we have.
        If they want a normal life, they should use their real citizenships and get the hell out. No use talking sense to a Zionist government about stopping the state of war.

      • Jon66
        Jon66
        October 2, 2015, 11:08 pm

        Annie,

        You said that Israel is responsible if their civilians get shot because they are shooting at Palestinians. I don’t think that because one side commits an act you think is wrong that justifies another from the other side. Either the people there are legitimate military targets or they are not. It doesn’t matter what their government is doing.

      • echinococcus
        echinococcus
        October 2, 2015, 11:35 pm

        4 tech,

        You can twist and turn all you want, when you start war your civilian population pays. Unlike, like us cowards, you attack from an ocean away.
        That’s the law. As the other guy said, dura lex sed lex, IOW tough shit.

      • annie
        annie
        October 3, 2015, 9:54 am

        I don’t think that because one side commits an act you think is wrong that justifies another from the other side.

        jon, i didn’t address “justification”, only responsibility. they have 2 different meanings.

        : to provide or be a good reason for (something) : to prove or show (something) to be just, right, or reasonable

        : to provide a good reason for the actions of (someone)

        i’ll say it again:

        if the military is shooting civilians then they are responsible if their own citizens get targeted as a result.

        i don’t think war is justified. i am also against the death penalty and don’t think it’s “justified” to kill someone if they are guilty of murder. i don’t think if someone pokes your eye out it is “justified” to poke theirs out.

        the responsibility of this ongoing conflict lies on one side and one side only – the aggressor/oppressor – as well as those who support and empower the continued theft of palestine.

      • Kris
        Kris
        October 3, 2015, 12:50 pm

        @jon66: “You seem to be saying that it’s OK to target the civilian population of a country if you are at war with the country.”

        Thanks for this, now I will be laughing all day. It isn’t even possible that you haven’t noticed that this is exactly the practice, if not the policy, of the U.S.A. And Israel.

      • Jon66
        Jon66
        October 3, 2015, 1:12 pm

        Kris,

        The question is not how many others are doing it. The question is do YOU think it’s correct to target civilian populations?

    • October 2, 2015, 7:50 pm

      Annie said “if the military is shooting civilians then they are responsible if their own citizens get targeted as a result. this is the price you pay as a society by keeping people locked up so you can steal their land and resources. it’s israel’s fault and responsibility, every death.”

      But two wrongs doesn’t make a right. Using your own twisted logic, any terrorist attack on the American civilian population by Iraqi/Pakistani/Afghani/Muslims as a retaliation for the civilian deaths in their countries from American military actions is totally fine and legitimate. In fact they should be commended for their choice of resistance. Am I understanding your views right, Annie?

      • tokyobk
        tokyobk
        October 2, 2015, 9:40 pm

        That is actually the less problematic item of two in Annie’s way of thinking.

        The larger conceptual and moral problem with her reductionist idea, imo, is that she makes Palestinians into unthinking, irresponsible automatons, rather than fully human agents with choices, however circumscribed by the terrible and criminal activity of illegal colonists.

        Some people chose to protest, some chose to shoot at cars.

        This does not mean that Israel has no responsibility or even most of the responsibility. It does.

      • October 2, 2015, 9:54 pm

        She does appear to be full of contradictions. I’m curious on what is her angle in the movement?

        She supports acts of terrorism on civilians, yet stand against Syrian armed struggle against a military regime claiming they are all jihadists.She appears to be anti-imperialist yet she supports Obama’s imperialist policies. She says she’s anti-racist, but go on to support Alison Weir.

      • tokyobk
        tokyobk
        October 2, 2015, 10:29 pm

        They’re only contradictions as far as she also claims the mantle of human rights advocate. As a partisan advocate of the Palestinian cause it makes complete sense that she holds the positions you describe or that she has a hair trigger sensitivity to Islamophobia but calls BS on any claim of anti-Semitism, even questioning the reality of the category.

        Its a kind of reverse-zionism and I sense the author did not realise he is writing for an audience that largely sees this issue in binary terms.

      • October 2, 2015, 10:36 pm

        Well, she is definitely partisan alright, just not sure what sort of party politics support terrorism on civilian populations.

      • echinococcus
        echinococcus
        October 2, 2015, 11:33 pm

        4tech,

        First off, Alison Weir is certainly antiracist, so much so that she is strenuously working against the worst variety of it, Zionism.
        You should talk as a sidekick of the Hitchcock Zionist twit.

        How does Annie support American Imperialism exactly? I’m sure she is not perfect, but that has never surfaced in several years. You should talk, supporting the US war against Syria following the PNAC playbook. Again. Sure, let’s have total chaos in Syria, too, so the Zionist entity can throw its weight around at no cost.

        No need to ask what your angle is “in the movement” –it’s blindingly obvious. Like Tokyo’s, too.

      • Sibiriak
        Sibiriak
        October 2, 2015, 11:33 pm

        tokyobk: The larger conceptual and moral problem with her reductionist idea, imo, is that she makes Palestinians into unthinking, irresponsible automatons, rather than fully human agents with choices, however circumscribed by the terrible and criminal activity of illegal colonists.
        ——————————–

        It’s not either/or. There can be multiple layers of legal/moral culpability. Palestinians can be culpable for attacks on civilians, while at the same time Israel can be culpable –to a much greater extent–for the occupation, oppression, and terror which motivates such attacks.

        (That’s putting aside the issue of whether the target in this case was a non-combatant or not.)

      • oldgeezer
        oldgeezer
        October 3, 2015, 12:37 am

        @tokyo

        A lot is said about moral agency by racist right wing zionist sites. The same sites that blame Hamas or others for the murders pepetrated by the idf.

        All people have moral agency. The idf soldier exercised his moral agency when, as an american,he flouted state department warnings and moved to an illegal settlement. He exercised his agency when he moved his wife and children into a conflict zone. When he decided to join a military force waging war on civilians and participating in war crimes.

        Zionist criminals have agency as well.

      • Sibiriak
        Sibiriak
        October 3, 2015, 12:49 am

        tokyobk: … she makes Palestinians into unthinking, irresponsible automatons, rather than fully human agents with choices,
        —————————-

        Where does she do that? I think you are misrepresenting her argument, to put it mildly. The issue is not about Palestinians’ agency–nobody is implying that they are “unthinking, irresponsible automatons.” The issue is about the comparative moral validity of different choices.

      • Marnie
        Marnie
        October 3, 2015, 1:02 am

        How can you sound normal on one thread and not others? Hophmi stalks Phil Weiss and attacks most everything he writes and here you come along attacking Annie. You sound so much like the sock puppets that are entrenched at +972 (not a good thing BTW. Are you also known as Gustav and BigCat?).

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        October 3, 2015, 11:46 am

        “Its a kind of reverse-zionism

        Oh, BTW, “tokypbk” did you ever happen to define the term “reverse-zionism”? Or do you simply make up terms, depending on insinuation, instead of definition? Or a reference to the term in use (no, not just by you)?
        Maybe I’ll start calling this practice “picking the Yale Lox”

      • annie
        annie
        October 3, 2015, 1:17 pm

        and this is rich:

        fully human agents with choices, however circumscribed by the terrible and criminal activity of illegal colonists.

        a couple things, notice how he doesn’t say or address “however circumscribed by the terrible and criminal activity of” israeli forces? or the israeli system? or israeli occupation? or zionism?

        try saying that about a prisoner. you are a full human agent with choices, however circumscribed by the chain around your neck. what difference does a persons choice make, in comparison to a free man, when they have limited agency to implement that choice? a ‘full human agent’ implies an element of freedom. of course palestinians, like all humans, have minds and they can make choices. but if one is in a locked room and their available choices all lead to ones further imprisonment, death, the death of ones child and family — or any other situation where all options lead to one inevitable gruesome fate — it amounts to a taunt telling that person (or society) they are “a full human agents with choices” AS IF the available choices could alter their inevitable fate.

        all powerful governmental forces support (in practice, not withstanding what they say or intend) the continued ethnic cleansing of palestine. violent action could escalate that or it could entail the collaboration or pacification of palestinians which could drag out this inevitable action for decades. but palestinians (living under occupation) alone cannot change the balance of power.

        extending oneself to elicit condemnation of the actions of an oppressed people or prioritizing this condemnation as a means to an end (as if it will free those people or create peace in the region or for any so called benevolent reason) is a fools game. as if the condemnations of the left will garner anyone’s freedom. it won’t. plus, the author of this article claims the deniers of said condemnations have “mangled” responses. perhaps him and tokyobk and anyone else could conflate not condemning the killings means one supports the killings!

        make no mistake, this elicitation is not aimed at discrediting the perpetrators of the crime. it is aimed directly at the supporters of palestinians to discredit us or those amongst us. this is from the fbi website:

        Elicitation is a technique used to discreetly gather information. It is a conversation with a specific purpose: collect information that is not readily available and do so without raising suspicion that specific facts are being sought. It is usually non-threatening, easy to disguise, deniable, and effective. The conversation can be in person, over the phone, or in writing.

        Conducted by a skilled collector, elicitation will appear to be normal social or professional conversation. A person may never realize she was the target of elicitation or that she provided meaningful information.

        why is the left even being asked to condemn this action? because if we don’t we “accept that you are led by primitive tribalism rather than principles.” please!!! i’ll not be dragged into this requirement to condemn. because there is none. i’m not morally bound to condemn the oppressed when their choice of resistance doesn’t align with my personal morals or belief system. that’s absurd.

      • Keith
        Keith
        October 3, 2015, 12:53 pm

        TOKYOBK- “…she makes Palestinians into unthinking, irresponsible automatons, rather than fully human agents with choices, however circumscribed by the terrible and criminal activity of illegal colonists.”

        What breathtaking hypocrisy! Their choices “circumscribed?” My, what a euphemistic label to attach to the extremely limited ability to resist Israeli aggression and abuse. And it is not just the paramilitary settlers either. Check the body count. Time to “mow the lawn?” The biggest “choice” which you don’t mention is Israel’s choice to continue all of this which Israel could end tomorrow. End the blockade of Gaza. End the settlements. End the harassment. Tear down the wall. Stop treating Palestinians as little more than a demographic threat. Israel could unilaterally end it all. There is nothing the Palestinians can do to end it, and apparently nothing they can do to convince Israel (and American Zionists) to end it. But, Jeez, feel free to pontificate on the moral responsibility of the victims. Somehow, I get the feeling that if it was Jews in Gaza and Palestinians in Tel Aviv, you would see things differently.

      • Kris
        Kris
        October 3, 2015, 1:33 pm

        Annie @ 1:17–Thank you very much, Annie. Great comment, and also very valuable info about elicitation. I had never heard of this before, and appreciate the info very much.

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        October 3, 2015, 1:35 pm

        “fully human agents with choices, however circumscribed by the terrible and criminal activity of illegal colonists.”

        Well some people (and we know what kind of people they are, typical “reverse-Zionist” “Jew-hobbyists”, every one!) do claim that when killed by the IDF or settlers, the Palestinian’s choices are even somewhat more “circumscribed.” On the other hand, “tokyobk” has never heard them complain about it.

      • just
        just
        October 3, 2015, 1:42 pm

        “Annie @ 1:17–Thank you very much, Annie.”

        It is a great comment, indeed. Thank you, Kris and Annie.

        This is IT, in a nutshell:

        “why is the left even being asked to condemn this action? because if we don’t we “accept that you are led by primitive tribalism rather than principles.” please!!! i’ll not be dragged into this requirement to condemn. because there is none. i’m not morally bound to condemn the oppressed when their choice of resistance doesn’t align with my personal morals or belief system. that’s absurd.”

        Amen.

      • annie
        annie
        October 3, 2015, 2:47 pm

        Using your own twisted logic, any terrorist attack on the American civilian population by Iraqi/Pakistani/Afghani/Muslims as a retaliation for the civilian deaths in their countries from American military actions is totally fine and legitimate. In fact they should be commended for their choice of resistance. Am I understanding your views right, Annie?

        close, but unfortunately for you i definitely recognize the application of the particular logical fallacy you’ve chosen to apply, the strawman argument; by eliminating my conclusions/point (regarding “fault and responsibility” of the event) and replacing it with an alleged opinion (of your own choosing — talk about twisted!) of the action itself (“fine and legitimate”) and attributing it to me, then doubling down with the term “in fact” (which implies factuality or something previously established) regarding your own words falsely attributed to me. and then eliciting an answer from me regarding your made up lie.

        nice try, but a big #Fail on your part 4tec. way too transparent.

        Using the logic applied in my previous statement (the one you copied and pasted), any terrorist attack on the American civilian population by Iraqi/Pakistani/Afghani/Muslims as a retaliation for the civilian deaths in their countries from American military actions is, ultimately, the responsibility of the american government. see how easy that was? however, it most definitely wouldn’t be fine with me!!!!

        as for “legitimate” that’s probably not for me to either legitimize or not legitimize considering i’m not one of the millions of people killed or displaced in the massive ongoing effort of my government to conquer the middle east via destabilization. and (big and) since our government justifies the killing and displacement of innocent civilians as “collateral damage” when we invade foreign countries i feel it would be hypocritical of me to judge the legitimacy of the tactics of the very people we’re imposing our will upon. so i won’t.

        and thank you kris and just! my pleasure.

      • October 4, 2015, 3:15 am

        Well, so you put all the responsibility of a terror attack on civilians on the government which is at a glance fair enough.

        However, who is the government? Is the president, the partisan or the entire congress, the lawmakers? Is this government a monolith of policy and ideology? Does the government also include the civilians who support and vote to form it? Who among all these carry the greatest responsibility? Would it be Obama, as the commander of chief? Please clarify if you can Annie.

        Regarding your second point, you are obliged to judge the legitimacy of such actions. As you said, such action is a direct consequence of YOUR government’s action, therefore your a stakeholder in this as well. The government is an extension of you, unless you withdraw your allegiance to the state.

        Why would it be hypocritical when you’re being directly affected by the actions of both parties? As long as you are basing your judgement in absolute fairness and in good faith, there is no element of hypocrisy at all.

        The left are always quick to judge and condemn the side they’re on, yet when it comes to the other side, it’s “all things happen for a reason”.

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        October 4, 2015, 3:09 pm

        Well well, look at that, “a4tech” is a devotee of Dr. Pangloss! That always cures what ails you, as long as there’s nothing wrong.

  6. a blah chick
    a blah chick
    October 2, 2015, 12:22 pm

    How many Palestinians involved in armed struggle have been killed with their families?

    • Jon66
      Jon66
      October 3, 2015, 1:14 pm

      That’s doesn’t matter in a discussion of the law involved. The other guy does it or he is worse are not valid arguments.

      • Kris
        Kris
        October 3, 2015, 1:26 pm

        @Jon66: “That’s doesn’t matter in a discussion of the law involved. The other guy does it or he is worse are not valid arguments.

        But on the other hand:

        @Jon 66: “The accounts of the Bin Laden raid said he was armed and a threat. We have assisinated (sic) others. ”

        Which is it? Or are there two Jon66’s and you can’t keep the viewpoint consistent?

  7. talknic
    talknic
    October 2, 2015, 1:15 pm

    Condemn who?

    No one has been caught or charged

    For all we know it could be a family feud or payback for a drug deal gone bad

    “Hamas spokesman Husam Badran has reportedly praised the murders”

    Reported by who?

    • Sibiriak
      Sibiriak
      October 2, 2015, 1:33 pm

      BBC News:

      The Palestinian militant organisation Hamas, which is dominant in Gaza, said “we bless the killing of settlers in the West Bank”.

      Spokesman Husam Badran said: “We call on our people in the West Bank to carry out more quality operations like the [one] today.

      “This is the only solution which is supported by the masses of our people everywhere.”

      http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-34417930

      • talknic
        talknic
        October 2, 2015, 3:01 pm

        I cannot find where Hamas has made these statements. In a letter? Broadcast? Hamas website? Phone interview?

      • Sibiriak
        Sibiriak
        October 3, 2015, 1:01 am

        talknic: I cannot find where Hamas has made these statements. In a letter? Broadcast? Hamas website? Phone interview?
        ————————-

        I haven’t been able to find any source for the BBC assertions, which are, of course, being widely distributed in other reports.

        There is this, though:

        “The Abdel Qader al-Husseini Brigades, a group affiliated with Fatah’s al-Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigades, announced on Friday that its men on Thursday night opened fire on the car of Eitam and Naama Henkin, a couple in their 30s, while they were driving home with their four children, aged four months to nine. The children were not wounded in the attack.

        […] “With Allah’s help and in keeping with our right for resistance and our duty to sacred jihad, our forces on Thursday night carried out a necessary action in which they fired on a car of occupying settlers that left the settlement of Itamar, built on Palestinian lands in the south of the city of Hebron. They fired on the car and killed the settler and his partner.” [emphasis added]

        http://www.timesofisrael.com/fatah-armed-wing-claims-responsibility-for-terror-attack/

  8. eljay
    eljay
    October 2, 2015, 1:24 pm

    I condemn the murders.

    • zaid
      zaid
      October 2, 2015, 2:06 pm

      the slain settler is an IDF officer.

      • eljay
        eljay
        October 2, 2015, 2:12 pm

        || zaid: the slain settler is an IDF officer. ||

        Okay.

      • Bandolero
        Bandolero
        October 2, 2015, 2:37 pm

        If the guy is a member of an enemy force (IDF) taking part in unlawful hostile activity (occupation of foreign territory) he might be a combatant. Furthermore AFAIK nobody knows who killed that IDF officer and the woman next to him, and why, it may well have not been an act of combat, but a simple dispute over other things, and it may well have been done by settlers, since everybody knows what kind of violent folks these settlers are, often they kill just for the fun of killing.

        So, what I would do is not to condemn but to express “deep concern” about the risk of escalation, ask relevant bodies of Palestine to investigate the incident, and condemn the IDF for launching in response to the incident an illegal manhunt in Palestine.

        So, then, if it turns out that it was a Palestinian force who killed that IDF officer, I’ld also ask if there exists a valid ceasefire. Seems the Oslo accords provide one.

        So, if the facts turn out this way I’ld suggest everybody to condemn the breach of the ceasefire by the killing of the IDF officer and the illegel IDF manhunt in Palestine, to deplore the collateral damage next to the killing of the IDF officer, and urge all parties to respect the ceasefire in the future and also urge the illegal occupying power to end the occupation to stop the existence of the conditions for these situations to happen.

        Is this enough condemnation?

      • annie
        annie
        October 2, 2015, 3:14 pm

        nobody knows who killed that IDF officer and the woman next to him, and why, it may well have not been an act of combat

        one thing i noticed in the google translate of this article about the killings http://news.walla.co.il/item/2894097 was the mention of Beit Furik “see the bend Beit Furik vehicle off the road” and i recognized the name of the town from the other day, less that a week ago.

        http://mondoweiss.net/2015/09/palestinian-israeli-injuries

        Ahmad Izzat Khatatbeh, 26, died from his wounds after being shot three times in the shoulder, chest and abdomen at the Beit Furik checkpoint last Friday.

        …. Khatatbeh’s death Thursday brings the total number of Palestinians killed by Israeli forces since the start of 2015 to 26, according to UN documentation. The number does not include Palestinian deaths caused by Israeli settlers.

        and Khatatbeh’s killing happened the day after Hadeel al-Hashlamoun was executed at a checkpoint too.

        a palestinian man, and a palestinian woman both killed by israel. so, it seems (likely) to me these recent murders could have been swift retribution for their deliberate murders. but i thought of this as soon as i heard about the recent killings, even before i read “Beit Furik”.

      • ckg
        ckg
        October 2, 2015, 3:32 pm

        Beit Furik is also the location where the IDF assaulted two AFP journalists last week. http://mondoweiss.net/2015/09/palestinian-israeli-injuries

      • annie
        annie
        October 2, 2015, 3:43 pm

        i read today they got off. the soldiers who assaulted the journalists.

      • ckg
        ckg
        October 2, 2015, 3:43 pm

        And Beit Furik is very close to Duma too.

      • Bandolero
        Bandolero
        October 2, 2015, 4:11 pm

        Annie

        Thank you for the detail. My comment, though an answer to zaid, it was also a reaction to the article of Avram Meitner, who wrote:

        Yes, these people were colonists: They were participating in the Zionist colonisation of occupied Palestine. But they were also not taking active part in hostilities, and are protected as civilians under international humanitarian law. This is important, because it is the same protection that Palestinian civilians should also enjoy.

        So, IOF officers can now claim a status as civilian and one should not disagree? I doubt.

        And Avram Meitner further wrote:

        The slaughter of Eitan and Naama Henkin is terrorism in the same way that the slaughter of hundreds of innocent men, women and children in Gaza is terrorism. Either oppose both equally, or accept that you are led by primitive tribalism rather than principles.

        My comment (an exercise of “tit for tat” on how Israel “condemns” Palestinian deaths) shall be seen in light of these words from Avram Meitner, especially “oppose both equally.” So I condemned equally, so I do not need to “accept that” I am “led by primitive tribalism rather than principles.” Ha!

        And if I did not condemn I am led by “primitive tribalism rather than principles” – and in reality, I have to confess, that’s true. I’m clearly biased, always sympathizing with the weak whereever they are. I’m off the opinion that there is a problem in rule-based equality. As Anatole France once said: “The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.”

        Whether it’s politically clever to not condemn such an incident would be a different question for me. Politically I would advise to show compassion not seen by Israelis in similar cases and to make a difference thereby.

      • annie
        annie
        October 2, 2015, 8:10 pm

        I did not condemn I am led by “primitive tribalism rather than principles” – and in reality, I have to confess, that’s true.

        except this isn’t a board game where Meitner sets the rules. if you accept the premise that you are led by “primitive tribalism rather than principles” if you do not condemn the deaths then so be it. but i don’t accept the premise. i don’t think it’s tribal to kill people in the act of committing a crime, i think it’s normal. i wouldn’t do it, but i won’t condemn people who do.

        these people were colonists: They were participating in the Zionist colonisation of occupied Palestine. But they were also not taking active part in hostilities

        that’s only true is you believe the act of colonization is not hostile. the people killed were actively participating in a war crime. https://www.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v2_rul_rule130

        here’s another thing i think Meitner got wrong:

        Their children, thankfully, survived the attack.

        not to get too technical about it but the children were not targeted. they were not attacked.

        I have to say, I’ve seen many within the pro-Palestinian camp mangling their response.

        this is not a war, it’s an occupation. in an occupation the “civilians” are the ones occupied under military rule who are afforded protection under international law during an occupation. so when Meitner says

        This is important, because it is the same protection that Palestinian civilians should also enjoy.

        i do not think that is correct. i think Palestinian civilians are the only people who qualify as “protected” here:

        The relevant international conventions, the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) Commentaries, and other treaties by military scholars provide guidelines on such topics as rights and duties of the occupying power, protection of civilians…….

        Article 42 of the 1907 Hague Convention on Land Warfare specify that “[t]erritory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army.” The form of administration by which an occupying power exercises government authority over occupied territory is called “military government.” Neither the Hague Conventions nor the Geneva Conventions specifically define or distinguish an act of “invasion.” The terminology of “occupation” is used exclusively.

        the settlers are not “placed under the authority of the hostile army.” in fact, israel uses the pretext of protecting their civilians to have such a huge military presents there. plus, the israeli government doesn’t punish setters for killing or harming palestinians. this whole “are you going to condemn” this is meaningless. because if those condemnations are not backed by any kind of meaningful actions they are worthless. seriously, i could care less if the israeli gov condemns the duma killings, because no one will pay a price for those deaths. the only reason the targeted assassinations of Nadeem Nawara and Mohammad Abu Daher have landed in court was because cameras were rolling. the only reason Mohammed Abu Khdeir’s killers were apprehended was because camera were rolling when they kidnapped him. only when the world is watching and they get caught red handed does some sort of retribution come into play and then the killers are deemed mentally unstable or something. so there’s no parity in the system. i don’t accept adult settlers are civilians. their children yes, the adults no.

        show me the international law that allows a military force to declare war on the people they are occupying. to say the settlers are protected by laws of war is the same protection afforded to civilians in an occupation, i don’t think that makes any sense.

        Supporters of Palestine were quick to condemn the burning to death of the Dawabsha family, but fall silent or choose to equivocate when colonists are murdered.

        i think that’s because people have a right to resist occupation. i’m not sure there’s any protected rights to colonize, that i am aware of.

        And an error made by the vast majority of people from all parts of the political compass – we are more accepting of killings perpetrated by those wearing uniforms or flying an F16 than by those not wearing such uniforms.

        well i would be the odd one out then. because i am definitely not more accepting of killings perpetrated by those wearing uniforms or flying an F16 than by those not wearing such uniforms.

        as far as i am concerned those people lost whatever right they had to call themselves civilians when they actively decided to participate in the theft of occupied palestinian territory.

        if this had taken place inside israel on the other side of the green line, i would consider the slain jewish people civilians.

      • zaid
        zaid
        October 2, 2015, 5:56 pm

        Bandolero

        I am sad that the woman was killed and yes it was wrong.

        why was she killed but not her children? i dont know!! maybe she was killed by mistake or was armed or she tried to do something.i am not sure!! we dont have the details and we wont ever have them.

        but what we sure know is that the armed men didnot kill the children although they could have easily done so.and that says a lot about them.

      • just
        just
        October 2, 2015, 8:24 pm

        Well said, Annie.

        There is no parity at all. Israel is an Occupation, Apartheid and a thieving state replete with illegal squatters and criminal IOFers/police who carry out violence against the Palestinians every. single. day.

        See this:

        “Arab MK to Be Questioned Over Taunts of Jews at Temple Mount …

        Police have summoned MK Jamal Zahalka (Joint Arab List) to appear for questioning early next week over his verbal attacks on Jewish visitors to the Temple Mount on Tuesday.

        In a videotaped confrontation, Zahalka shouted at the group of Jewish visitors: “Go away, go home, you’re not wanted. Crazy criminals. This is ours, this is my home. Racist fascists.”

        The MK’s visit to the Mount followed days of tension that have included repeated clashes between police and Muslim rioters. Despite these tensions, non-Muslims have continued visiting the site; on Tuesday there were 729 non-Muslim visitors, of whom 592 were foreign tourists and the rest Israelis.

        “The police were quick to publicize the summons for questioning and its purpose even before I received it,” Zahalka said about the police summons on Wednesday.

        “The summons doesn’t say what the purpose of the investigation is, but according to the media reports, it’s about what happened at Al-Aqsa Mosque yesterday. If so, this is a political investigation and the police force is acting like a political police force that’s riding the wave of incitement against me.”

        This wave, he charged, was being led by politicians including Miri Regev, Anat Berko and Yuli Edelstein (all of Likud), Avigdor Lieberman (Yisrael Beiteinu), Uri Ariel (Habayit Hayehudi) and Itzik Shmuli (Labor).

        “The police know that I’ve received hundreds of threats but they haven’t lifted a finger. In contrast, they hastened to summon me for investigation even though they know there’s no point to it,” Zahalka said.

        “Everything I said at Al-Aqsa to the extremists who invaded it and the police who protected them, I’ve said at the Knesset podium hundreds of times. We won’t let the mosque be harmed and we won’t let it be divided.”

        As Zahalka put it, “I urge the Israeli government not to undermine the status quo, and if it tries to, it will bear full responsibility for the huge conflagration and bloodshed. The lunatics in the government and on the extreme right must not be allowed to drag the inhabitants of this country and the region into more disasters.”

        Zahalka was speaking a day after clashes in East Jerusalem continued. Police said four Jewish visitors to the Temple Mount had been detained, three for violating the rules governing such visits and one for assaulting a policeman. A Muslim woman was also detained on the Mount, for trying to attack a policeman.

        In the Old City, police arrested three Palestinians for assaulting a policeman and disturbing the peace. Two of the three were women.
        Late Tuesday night, police arrested 13 East Jerusalem residents, five of them minors, on suspicion of disturbing the peace and rioting. Altogether, 174 people had been arrested for disturbing the peace since Rosh Hashanah eve on September 13; of these, 69 were minors.”

        ead more: http://www.haaretz.com/news/israel/.premium-1.678595?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

        Unbelievable, eh?

      • echinococcus
        echinococcus
        October 2, 2015, 8:36 pm

        “if this had taken place inside israel on the other side of the green line, i would consider the slain jewish people civilians.”

        Inside and outside of the Green Line it’s different for courts and institutions because of an official status due to the operation of the Holy Spirit, assisted by different colonial governments, that created a fake country on other people’s land. It remains illegal in principle and their importation of illegals is as much of an occupation as outside the Green Line. That’s why the Green Line or even Partition borders theories are so dear to the heart of “liberal” Zionists.
        So inside the Green Line, too, there is good ground for encouraging honest people to get the hell out before it gets real nasty.

      • annie
        annie
        October 2, 2015, 9:02 pm

        i recognize there are civilians in israel.

      • echinococcus
        echinococcus
        October 2, 2015, 11:44 pm

        Annie, of course there are a lot of civilians in the Zionist entity. That’s not the point. I am all for pushing them to get back to their respective countries (OK, those who don’t want to go there can always enter the US w/o any problem) before it explodes, and its gonna explode. This is like the laws of physics, no amount of nice disquisitions on the exact circumstances for civilians vs military, uniformed or not, etc., no amount of human intervention will protect them (except a successful genocide of all Palestinians.) Look at how it went in Algeria, where the Resistance party had issued all these rules to fully respect Pied-Noir colonists. And think that they were lucky to have a Resistance party, while the Palestinians have been so brutalized they don’t even have a resistance organization to give clear, unambiguous directives and even their solidarity movements are invaded. Do you really think people will ask themselves every time if the Zionist before them is military or not?
        That’s why it is wisely said that all the blood in a war is on the head of whoever starts it, period.

      • ckg
        ckg
        October 3, 2015, 10:10 am

        Human Rights Watch condemns the killing of the Henkins as “a despicable act that flies in the face of law and decency,” :

        The killing of an Israeli couple in the occupied West Bank on October 1, 2015, apparently by members of a Palestinian armed group, is a serious violation of the laws of war.

        Eitam Henkin was a reserve officer in the Israeli army but not on active duty, an Israeli army spokesman said. Army reservists who are not on active duty are civilians and entitled to the protections that civilians enjoy under the laws of war, which are applicable in the occupied West Bank,

        In July, arsonists killed three members of the Dawabshe family – a husband, a wife, and their baby son – when they attacked the family’s home in the Palestinian village of Duma. Jewish militants are suspected in the attack, but Israeli authorities have not arrested any suspects.

        Over nearly five decades, Israel has settled hundreds of thousands of its citizens in the West Bank, in violation of the international law prohibiting an occupying power from transferring its civilian population to occupied territory. That illegal act, however, does not deprive Israeli settlers of their civilian status.

        “Civilian residents of Israeli settlements in the West Bank are protected under international law and not subject to attack,” [HRW Middle East director] Whitson said. “But Israel still has an obligation to remove them from the unlawful settlements.”

      • oldgeezer
        oldgeezer
        October 3, 2015, 11:00 am

        @ckg

        It would have been nice if HRW had pointed out the legal basis for their statement that he is a civilian.

        I’m still open on the issue but according to the information at the ICRC the issue of who is a member of the army isn’t settled. Rules used by the UK and Canada, for example specify that reservists are part of the armed forces. There is no reservation concerning when they are on active call up. Neither of those countries are alone.

        I’m open to argument but fairly settled in my mind that he is a part of the army and not a civilian.

        The question is whether he is a combatant or not combatant.

        If there’s a good logical argument then I’m willing to listen but it beggars belief that a member of the army gets to stay in the active conflict zone, toss another steak on the barbie and claim protected privilege.

    • MHughes976
      MHughes976
      October 2, 2015, 6:36 pm

      Me too; the killings were wrong in all the circumstances

      • ckg
        ckg
        October 2, 2015, 9:01 pm

        Me too.

      • gamal
        gamal
        October 3, 2015, 4:49 pm

        really you two, so what happens when one does wrong things? nothing as in the case of white people and colonists? do tell what would Locke say?

  9. ckg
    ckg
    October 2, 2015, 1:30 pm

    I think Abbas has an opportunity to demonstrate his resolve to not be bound by the Oslo accords by investigating the crime, arresting the perpetrators, and fairly trying them without handing them over to Israel or involving Israel in any way whatsoever.

    • echinococcus
      echinococcus
      October 2, 2015, 11:51 pm

      What’s the big idea, ckg? Abbas is already, and fittingly, marked as a collaborator of the Zionists, a puppet in charge of the repression of any serious or even imagined Resistance. A spy, like any Quisling or Pétain or so. By arresting and “fairly” trying what you’d call his own people for armed resistance against the enemy, and that is how the large majority sees things (even among those Zionists who think), he’d put his own life in more serious danger. Just when the Hamas guys, who do mean business at least, have let out a couple approving noises.
      Well, perhaps the Zionists would be just that stupid and force Abbas to do what you say, they don’t look exactly bright.

  10. zaid
    zaid
    October 2, 2015, 2:00 pm

    To condemn what exactly !!!

    the slain settler is an army Officer, since when you are not entitled to resist an occupying soldier.

    “Eitam Henkin, an officer in the elite Sayeret Matkal commando unit of the IDF”

    http://www.jewishpress.com/news/breaking-news/2-israelis-shot-critically-wounded-in-samaria-terror-attack/2015/10/01/

    The armed men clearly didnot kill the children although they could have easily done so , so clearly the IDF officer where the only target.

    • Bandolero
      Bandolero
      October 2, 2015, 4:25 pm
      • zaid
        zaid
        October 2, 2015, 5:57 pm

        Bandolero

        “Tyke was a female Elephant born 1974 and died August 20, 1994 after being shoot by the police 86 times. It took nearly 2 hours for her to die there on the street in terrible pain, lonely and afraid…

        Tyke was trapped and taken away from her family when she was a baby. She was shipped to a circus. There, she was confined to a concrete room and beaten over and over, to break her spirit. Circus trainers hit her repeatedly with a sharp metal “bullhook,” which made her cry out in pain. They struck her in her most sensitive areas: behind her ears, on top of her toes, in back of her knees, and around her anus. They wanted to hurt her and frighten her so she would be obedient. ………

        At some point during the show, she veered from the script. Circus staff tried to beat her back, but no bullhook or whip could stop the rage that had been building inside her for two decades. She crushed her trainer, Allen Campbell. She attacked two other people. She panicked the crowd. She ran into the streets. It was rush hour. She was disoriented and no idea where she was. She charged at bystanders and smashed cars as she made her way through several city blocks. Onlookers screamed. The police were called out and started shooting at Tyke with rifles. ”

        https://ciccib.wordpress.com/2013/08/20/19-years-since-tyke-the-circus-elephant-was-brutally-killed/

        All Violence are bad, but there are no comparison (morally) between the violence of the oppressor and the violence of the opressed

  11. Keith
    Keith
    October 2, 2015, 4:46 pm

    AVRAM MEITNER- ABOUT: “He also works on technologies supporting freedom of speech in Hong Kong.”

    Avram, when you are done trying to destabilize China, perhaps you can go to Europe and support free speech by helping to get rid of all those laws which criminalize criticizing Israel and Zionism as anti-Semitism.

  12. gamal
    gamal
    October 2, 2015, 4:59 pm

    “Yes, these people were colonists: They were participating in the Zionist colonisation of occupied Palestine. But they were also not taking active part in hostilities, and are protected as civilians under international humanitarian law.”

    recall that award winning book “Drone Theory” by Gregoire Chamayou, detailing some amazing Israeli innovations in legal theory that have been instrumental in removing the protection of IHL from individuals in this unfortunate couples situation,

    http://thenewpress.com/books/theory-of-drone

    now you want to turn the clock back, the poineers of assassination in the post war world now want to cry foul, maybe accord your opponents the protections you wish to enjoy.

  13. AvramMeitner
    AvramMeitner
    October 2, 2015, 7:35 pm

    The distinction under international humanitarian law with regarding who is and isn’t a protected person goes like this:

    If a person is currently serving in a permanent combat role, then they are not protected. (e.g. Soldiers in uniform, on active duty)

    If a person has a dual role (combatant and non/combatant) then they lose their protection only while they are discharging their combatant roles.

    This is why reservists are not valid targets under international humanitarian law. It’s also why Israel’s attack on Gaza’s police graduation ceremony at the beginning of Cast Lead was unlawful, for example.

    • zaid
      zaid
      October 2, 2015, 10:40 pm

      Avram Meitner

      Do you condemn the killing of Salah Shehadeh (Hamas military leader) since he was with his family .

      Same for Osama Binladin.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salah_Shehade

      Plus this means that ALL assassinations of the Mossad throughout its history was unlawful.

    • echinococcus
      echinococcus
      October 3, 2015, 5:54 am

      Meitner,

      This is not the appropriate venue to feed with typical Zionist “law”. Geneva 4 is clear and the reservist stuff doesn’t make sense.
      I rather mean, are you out of your mind? If my uncle, who executed about 20 German officers in different places in France in the wee hours had to wait until these guys were “discharging combat duties” he’d never have a chance.
      The way you pontificate about the law, it sounds as if occupier and occupied are equal; no wonder we never get anywhere.
      The bastard that bought it this time seems to be an elite commando officer. Of course he was a target.
      Just as a settler he is a legitimate target already.
      Also, “Israel’s attack on Gaza’s police graduation ceremony was unlawful” not because of that bullshit, but because “Israel” is unlawful, its presence in Gaza is unlawful, and any and all occupation operations are unlawful. The occupier has no right to do anything …even if he is acknowledged as being the occupier.

      • echinococcus
        echinococcus
        October 3, 2015, 4:33 pm

        Oldgeezer,

        “So the Palestinians may only resist acts in violation of international law (Israel) by actions within international law”

        Thanks for the elegant and complete wording.

    • gamal
      gamal
      October 3, 2015, 5:57 am

      ” on Gaza’s police graduation ceremony at the beginning of Cast Lead was unlawful”

      when are Police ever legitimate military targets?

      “Asa Kasher, a professor at Tel Aviv university, has for many years worked closely with the Israeli army, for which he produced an “ethical code” in the mid 1990’s. He has justified the campaigns of “targeted assassinations” and their inevitable “collateral damage” to the Palestinian population in densely populated zones. He has organized meetings propounding his revised military ethic among staff of the IDF and Israels internal security service, the Shin Bet. In interviews he boasts, not without reason, that “what we are doing is becoming the law”.

      In 2005, he together with Major General Amos Yadlin, co-authored an article entitled “Military Ethics of Fighting Terror”. Their aim was to revise, from top to bottom, the established principles underlying the ethics and law of armed conflict. The most radical of their attacks concerned the principle of non- combatant immunity.”

      “Drone Theory” Chamayou p.151

      anyway heres another perspective, it is of course one of the uses of moral philosophy to justify war, you can not expect the protection of laws you flout, it is Israel after all that insists on setting the rules of the game unilaterally, they are obeying your laws.

      https://youtu.be/auWA7hMh5hc

    • CigarGod
      CigarGod
      October 3, 2015, 9:52 am

      I appreciate your attempt at applying internation law reasoning equally. Unfortunately, Israel is in violation of such a wide range of international law, it seems like you are just using a new way of saying that Palestine has no right to resist. That position continues to place a greater burden on the oppressed than it does on the oppressor.

      One cannot reasonably hold a long stunted populace to a text book definition. There must be a greater understanding, allowance and forgiveness.
      If you really care about constructive dialog, then a demand for equal rights must be foundational.

      • Jon66
        Jon66
        October 3, 2015, 1:27 pm

        Of course they have a right to resist. But the methods must be within the bounds of international law.

      • oldgeezer
        oldgeezer
        October 3, 2015, 1:46 pm

        @jon66

        So the Palestinians may only resist acts in violation of international law (Israel) by actions within international law.

        You would ham string the oppressed’s resistance to the massive crimes peptrated against them?

        Not a position on my part but seeking clarification of yours.

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        October 3, 2015, 1:47 pm

        “Of course they have a right to resist. But the methods must be within the bounds of international law.”

        I nominate that as one of the stupidest things ever said on Mondo by a Zionist apologist. Red herring in cream sauce.

        But I appreciate you admitting that Israeli actions are illegal. In fact, why don’t you tell us about Zionist respect for and adherence to “international law”?

      • Jon66
        Jon66
        October 3, 2015, 2:23 pm

        I believe this the point of the law. It’s not dependent upon obedience by the other side, but rather each side is responsible for their own behavior

      • Jon66
        Jon66
        October 3, 2015, 3:09 pm

        Moser
        I may be naive, but do you disagree that we should base our actions on laws? I’m not sure why the statement is even controversial.

      • annie
        annie
        October 3, 2015, 3:13 pm

        I believe this the point of the law.

        which law are you referencing? the military rule? civil law? international law? law in general?

        It’s not dependent upon obedience by the other side, but rather each side is responsible for their own behavior

        obviously not if one is living under military rule. i’m very confused by this statement of yours. what are you talking about.

        how can one base ones actions on laws when the system one lives under allows the government to abduct you whenever they want with no charges and hold you indefinitely? or maybe you’ve never heard of administrative detention.

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        October 3, 2015, 5:01 pm

        Moser
        I may be naive….

        Yeah, just a wide-eyed, ingenuous, babe-in-the-wood. But somehow, you know enough to call me a moser. Like a surgeon, cutting for the very first time.

        My advice to youy is: stay out of the Northern National Parks, if you know what’s good for your Subaru.

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        October 3, 2015, 5:41 pm

        “I may be naive, but do you disagree that we should base our actions on laws?”

        Sorry, “Jon66” I’d like to take you up on it, but there’s an ordinance barring public elicitation in this municipality.

      • RoHa
        RoHa
        October 3, 2015, 11:09 pm

        We should base our actions, and our laws, on morality.

      • CigarGod
        CigarGod
        October 4, 2015, 8:50 am

        Sounds good on the surface, RoHa…but what does it mean? We sure have a lot of ignorant, irrational moral written law in our holy texts…which made it’s way into our political ones.

      • RoHa
        RoHa
        October 4, 2015, 9:53 am

        It means that we should work out what is right and what is wrong, and then do the right thing and make our laws support the right, regardless of what the old books say.

        (And a truly moral legal system would impose severe penalties on those who replace commas with ellipses, and put commas after subject clauses or compound subjects*. I would suggest lesser penalties for confusing “its” with “it’s”.

        *”The barbaric reasoning and acts of the past” is a compound subject.)

      • CigarGod
        CigarGod
        October 4, 2015, 10:04 am

        Ha!
        So, a comma or a semi-colon after -reasoning-?

        I think I’m going to promote “itz.” So much simpler.

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        October 4, 2015, 12:41 pm

        “And a truly moral legal system would impose severe penalties on those who replace commas with ellipses, and put commas after subject clauses or compound subjects*. I would suggest lesser penalties for confusing “its” with “it’s”.”

        And typographical emoticons are to run untrammeled, unstymied, hog-wild through the land, wreaking death and destruction on punctuation? Okay then, tell me where punctuation ends and TE begins? I tell you, those things are a snake in the turf, knobbling literary front-runners, and bringing all the punters to grief. They should be expunged to the outer darkness, where there is, or so reliable reports inform me, much wailing and gnashing of teeth.
        Darn it, wish I could gnash mine. Oh well, I guess those days are over.

      • CigarGod
        CigarGod
        October 4, 2015, 1:13 pm

        Our Spanish Rose puncuation policewoman, is starting to stifle my creativity. I’m always looking up to make sure she isn’t coming down the isle to rap my knuckles with her great horned wizard stick. I’m even having nightmares. I mean,,,Oscar worthy productions. I even googled Glen Close, so I could confront my fears.
        Nothings working.
        Back to MonteCristo’s and Balvenie.

      • Sibiriak
        Sibiriak
        October 4, 2015, 1:18 pm

        Mooser: “They should be expunged to the outer darkness…”

        ??

      • RoHa
        RoHa
        October 4, 2015, 10:21 pm

        Mooser, as we proceed with the project of a truly moral legal system, you can be sure that the penalties for denying the Lord will be reviewed so as to take the dentally-challenged into account.

        And the issue of typographical emoticons will be dealt with as well. :-)

      • RoHa
        RoHa
        October 4, 2015, 10:24 pm

        @Cigar God.

        You have a punctuation policewoman who stifles your creativity? Excellent! Creativity that can be so easily stifled is worthless. There is too much of it about. It should all be stifled.

    • annie
      annie
      October 3, 2015, 10:33 am

      The distinction under international humanitarian law with regarding who is and isn’t a protected person goes like this:

      this applies during wartime, not occupation. in occupation rules pertaining to ‘protected people’ apply to those civilians ruled by the hostile army.

      • AvramMeitner
        AvramMeitner
        October 4, 2015, 3:48 am

        No, this applies in occupation.

    • YoniFalic
      YoniFalic
      October 3, 2015, 11:11 am

      Police are civilians while settler invaders in violation of GC IV are prima facie combatants and, whether on active or reserve duty, almost certainly illegal combatants.

      • YoniFalic
        YoniFalic
        October 3, 2015, 11:24 am

        I have to admit that I consider Jewish settler invaders anywhere in Palestine (including pre-1967 Israel)

        1) to be prima facie perpetrators of genocide in violation of the International Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (signed and ratified by the State of Israel) as well as

        2) to be criminal violators of the case law that has developed since the 1945-6 Nuremberg Tribunals.

        The precedents of the Nuremberg Tribunals clearly apply to the genocidal atrocities that the Eastern European Jewish invaders have perpetrated starting in 1947.

        If we take International Law seriously, no Jewish invader in Palestine can be considered a protected noncombatant, and for this reason I took my family and left Palestine (I lived in pre-1967 Israel).

    • Bumblebye
      Bumblebye
      October 3, 2015, 11:36 am

      As colonists who were *not* living in their country (they were in Palestine, residing on stolen land) these people – both of them – were engaged in continuous combat. Their protection applied *within* Israel.

    • zaid
      zaid
      October 3, 2015, 1:00 pm

      The irony is that the killed Settler was part of a special force that assassinated several unarmed Palestinian resistance leaders and members.

      and as per Geneva Convention you dont have to apply its rules if the other side doesnot.

      from the 3rd Geneva Convetion:

      “They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.”
      https://www.icrc.org/ihl/
      “In the event of an international conflict
      between one of the High Contracting Parties and a Power which is not
      bound by the present Convention, the Contracting Party shall apply the
      provisions thereof. This obligation shall stand unless, after a
      reasonable lapse of time, the Power not bound by the present Convention
      states its refusal to apply it, or in fact fails to apply it.”
      https://www.icrc.org/applic/
      “As a general rule, a Convention could lay
      obligations only on Contracting States. But, according to the spirit of
      the four Conventions, the Contracting States shall apply them, in so far
      as possible, as being the codification of rules which are generally
      recognized. The text adopted by the Special Committee, therefore, laid
      upon the Contracting State, in the instance envisaged, the obligation to
      recognize that the Convention be applied to the non-contracting adverse
      State, in so far as the latter accepted and applied the provisions
      thereof”
      https://www.icrc.org/applic/

  14. just
    just
    October 2, 2015, 8:38 pm

    “West Bank tensions surge in night of ‘price tag’ attacks

    IDF sends 4 extra battalions to control ‘very serious’ situation in West Bank; Palestinians attacked in revenge for shooting attack on Henkin family.”

    more @ http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4706354,00.html

  15. tokyobk
    tokyobk
    October 2, 2015, 10:35 pm

    Human beings don’t lose their moral agency even when victimised.

    If you look at slave revolts in the US or attacks on wagon trains of Westward colonists, you see a variety of responses.

    The choice to murder the master’s children or to rape his wife is still a moral choice.

    I/P can be approached as a human rights issue or from a warring tribes issue. In the first, murdering civilians sitting next to their children is wrong, in the second it depends whose doing it to whom.

    imo, the issue is only solved by the first.

    Fortress Israel can last a long time and violence, especially on civilians is its fuel. In fact, violence against advanced settlers and the brutal response is indeed how the west was won.

    • annie
      annie
      October 3, 2015, 11:11 am

      violence against advanced settlers and the brutal response is indeed how the west was won.

      iow, the first action is the violence against the settlers. you seriously crack me up. israel just responds to violence? is this how they will take over al aqsa? responding to violence?

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        October 3, 2015, 11:50 am

        You know Annie, I probably shouldn ‘t say this, but the way “tokyobk” discourses could serve as the very definition of “pseudo-intellectual”.

      • annie
        annie
        October 3, 2015, 12:23 pm

        what i find most telling about tokyobk is the threads and conversations he generally chooses to participate in. it strikes me as a tad theme based.

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        October 3, 2015, 12:36 pm

        “violence against advanced settlers and the brutal response is indeed how the west was won.”

        Uh, sorry, but the method of opening and settling the American West didn’t “win” us anything. It was a tragedy of human greed and shortsightedness we are still paying for in many ways. We didn’t “win” anything, and lost and threw away a tremendous amount.

      • Kris
        Kris
        October 3, 2015, 1:49 pm

        Mooser, jon66 is interesting, too. Do you know of a reason why hasbara central keeps naming its operatives “jon”?

        Jon66 says he’s a surgeon. I wonder why he doesn’t claim to be a pediatrician, instead, since pediatricians are more likely to be thought of as liberal, and are just as well respected, but much better liked than surgeons. As a group, surgeons tend more towards arrogance and conservatism.

      • Jon66
        Jon66
        October 3, 2015, 2:45 pm

        Pediatrics didn’t interest me. I like to identify the problems people are having and help them fix them if possible. Pediatrics is a different mentality. Like internists, they provide a constant and lifelong approach

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        October 3, 2015, 4:48 pm

        “Mooser, jon66 is interesting, too.”

        “Interesting?” Hardly, just another schmaltz-covered wing-nut.

      • echinococcus
        echinococcus
        October 3, 2015, 5:07 pm

        Kris,

        I have no idea where you’d get the idea that pediatricians would be more “liberal” than other specialties. In fact, there is some of that in family physicians and general internists that do not join large practices; also those surgeons and obgyns who did some time with any of the international help organizations (organizations no good in general, but the MDs who join are.)

      • gamal
        gamal
        October 3, 2015, 6:17 pm

        “You know Annie, I probably shouldn ‘t say this, but the way “tokyobk” discourses could serve as the very definition of “pseudo-intellectual”.”

        ok Mooser, the “insinuate propose” thing was real class, I cant find the comment despite the heroic amount of alcohol I have drunk, go figure, an internet Tolstoy moment, here’s a Jew on Pseudo intellectualism, you have to suspend the innuend, its full-frontal brutal.

        you have Lobachevshyite proclivities, who doesnt.

        https://youtu.be/gXlfXirQF3A

      • Kris
        Kris
        October 3, 2015, 7:22 pm

        @echinococcus: “I have no idea where you’d get the idea that pediatricians would be more “liberal” than other specialties.”

        http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/02/22/1365669/-A-look-at-doctors-political-leanings-by-specialty# “A Look at Doctors’ Political Leanings by Specialty.” From the article:

        See the bottom left quadrant? That’s (for a doctor) smallest salaries and most liberal political contributions. That’s where pediatricians and pediatric subspecialties (all of them) lie.

        See the top half of the graph? That’s where the surgeons are. The red dot to the upper left is the ophthalmologists represented politically by Rand Paul, and the red dot to the upper right is the group of neurosurgeons represented by Ben Carson (neurosurgeons make a lot more than ophthalmologists, so it’s all the way to the right).

        There’s an obvious correlation between higher salaries and more conservative viewpoint, but there’s also a difference ideologically between surgeons and non-surgeons. That latter point would come as no surprise to anyone who works in health care, by the way. But it is interesting that on the lower salary leftmost third of the graph, encompassing well more than half of all specialties, only ophthalmologists fall in the conservative upper part.

        Take note, Republicans. If you really want a conservative M.D. candidate, recruit an orthopedic spine surgeon. No one is more conservative than they are.

      • echinococcus
        echinococcus
        October 3, 2015, 7:35 pm

        Kris,
        That’s assuming that all have your political categories (and daily kos’.)
        You are talking to a guy who could never see any difference between “Democrats” and “Republicans”. Donations to the Dem War and Zionism Party are no proof of anything better than the other side. I know the bastards quite well, having been one: only extremely rarely will you find a human-looking one (most often a surgeon with international aid experience or a general practitioner not in a corporation.) My criterion is, as for this web site, that of showing enough of an open mind to discuss Zionism and US Imperialism.

      • RoHa
        RoHa
        October 4, 2015, 12:07 am

        “Analytic and Algebraic Topology of Locally Euclidean Metrization of Infinitely Differentiable Riemannian Manifold” sounds quite interesting.

      • CigarGod
        CigarGod
        October 4, 2015, 8:52 am

        Ha!
        Sure does!

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        October 4, 2015, 11:49 am

        “Analytic and Algebraic Topology of Locally Euclidean Metrization of Infinitely Differentiable Riemannian Manifold”

        Oh, screw all that fancy casting, porting, and polishing, just hang a turbo on the sucker (better still, a pair) and turn up the boost!

      • straightline
        straightline
        October 4, 2015, 3:06 pm

        “Analytic and Algebraic Topology of Locally Euclidean Metrization of Infinitely Differentiable Riemannian Manifold”

        1. The topology is inherent in the Riemannian manifold and the metrization is irrelevant to it.
        2. All Riemannian manifolds possess a locally Euclidean metric.
        3. Not clear what analytic topology means here but if things like convergence, compactness, connectedness these are pretty trivial in this context too.

        Tom Lehrer is a statistician – not a pure mathematician.

    • Mooser
      Mooser
      October 3, 2015, 11:58 am

      “Human beings don’t lose their moral agency even when victimised.”

      TELL IT TO THE ZIONISTS, PAL! TELL IT TO THE ZIONISTS!

    • Keith
      Keith
      October 3, 2015, 12:16 pm

      TOKYOBK- “Human beings don’t lose their moral agency even when victimised.”

      Hey Ben, Noam Chomsky left a message for you.

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

    • Mooser
      Mooser
      October 3, 2015, 5:47 pm

      “If you look at slave revolts in the US or attacks on wagon trains of Westward colonists, you see a variety of responses.

      The choice to murder the master’s children or to rape his wife is still a moral choice.

      I think you spend too much time at the movies, or reading cheap (or expensive) historical fiction, and getting it mixed up with fact.

  16. DaBakr
    DaBakr
    October 3, 2015, 12:59 am

    an anarchist concerned with a supposedly fair and legal interpretation ( but naturally with anti-Zionist bias) of the laws and rules of international law. tell me another joke.

    • CigarGod
      CigarGod
      October 3, 2015, 10:12 am

      Oh, another personal attack because you can’t reason the issue.
      Go ahead, do it again…it will still equal zero.

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        October 3, 2015, 11:52 am

        “Cigar God” what I always wonder is: “Do they think the Mods are doing them a favor by publishing their comments, or is the ethical and intellectual force of the arguments such that the Mods can’t possibly ban it and live with themselves? Gee, I wonder.

  17. Sibiriak
    Sibiriak
    October 3, 2015, 1:15 am

    Avram Meitner: The slaughter of Eitan and Naama Henkin is terrorism in the same way that the slaughter of hundreds of innocent men, women and children in Gaza is terrorism. Either oppose both equally, or accept that you are led by primitive tribalism rather than principles.
    ——————–

    Let me put aside the fact that the IDF commando killed was likely not a civilian and therefore this particular resistance operation should not be classified as an act of terrorism. Let me assume for the sake of argument that it was indeed an attack on non-combatants.

    I think the critical word at play here is “equally.” Why can’t I condemn both acts– but do so very much unequally? Why can’t I fully contextualize these acts and say that the terrorism inflicted on Gaza residents is far, far worse than the terrorism inflicted on Zionist settlers, based on all the valid reasons many posters have already given above? Why must the condemnation be “equal”? What motivates this demand for moral equivalence?

    • Sibiriak
      Sibiriak
      October 3, 2015, 1:47 am

      Avram Meitner: Either oppose both equally, or accept that you are led by primitive tribalism rather than principles.
      ———————————

      Another logical fallacy: Unequal opposition to different acts of terrorism need not be based on “primitive tribalism”. Unequal opposition could just as well be based on principles. For example, the principle that moral evaluation of an act must take into account its full context, and the principle that immoral acts in the service of a vast murderous, oppressive endeavor a more reprehensible than immoral acts carried out to resist such a vast, murderous endeavor.

      Whether or not you agree with them, those are general principles applicable to various circumstances; they are not expressions of “primitive tribalism”.

  18. Joseph R. Davis
    Joseph R. Davis
    October 3, 2015, 8:27 am

    It seems a strange thing, mystifying, that a drive-by shooting would be conducted in such a manner, that it resembles a deliberate, precision assassination. Shoot two adults, and not harm four children? And just after Mahmoud Abbas rejects the Oslo Accords?

    • just
      just
      October 3, 2015, 8:43 am

      Cui bono?

      • annie
        annie
        October 3, 2015, 10:55 am

        israel will not be able to coordinate with the PA to apprehend the suspects.

    • John O
      John O
      October 3, 2015, 12:35 pm

      Given their ages, the children were quite possibly too small to be seen.

      • zaid
        zaid
        October 3, 2015, 4:59 pm

        yeah right ……when you look at a car with 4 children in the back , you will not see them !!!

        By the way it wasnot a drive by shoot , they were shot point blank and then they dragged the man outside the car, and put him on the middle of the street , there is no way they didnot see the children or that the children didnot scream (4 of them).

  19. amigo
    amigo
    October 3, 2015, 10:49 am

    Zionist mentality –“Any violent act against us is terrorism and any violent act we use against you is in the cause of our security.”

    That we steal your land is not the point.That you refuse to sit down and talk is the problem.

  20. Lorensacho
    Lorensacho
    October 3, 2015, 11:13 am

    The difference between Israel and Palestine is when an Israeli kills a civilian he or she is brought to justice. Palestinians just celebrate the killing of Israelis.

    • oldgeezer
      oldgeezer
      October 3, 2015, 11:18 am

      Thanks for the laugh. Israel doesn’t do justice.

      • YoniFalic
        YoniFalic
        October 3, 2015, 11:28 am

        @Lorensacho must be practicing to be a comedian.

    • a blah chick
      a blah chick
      October 3, 2015, 11:21 am

      Tell that to the Dewabshe kid.

    • just
      just
      October 3, 2015, 11:26 am

      “The difference between Israel and Palestine is when an Israeli kills a civilian he or she is brought to justice.”

      LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL. Maybe, only if a Jewish Israeli kills another Jewish Israeli. Otherwise, you’re full of rubbish, bs, and lies. Go peddle your stuff somewhere else.

      See here:

      “Israelis gather on hillsides to watch and cheer as military drops bombs on Gaza
      People drink, snack and pose for selfies against a background of explosions as Palestinian death toll mounts in ongoing offensive”

      http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/20/israelis-cheer-gaza-bombing

      “Bombing of Gaza children gives me “orgasm”: Israelis celebrate slaughter on Facebook”

      https://electronicintifada.net/blogs/patrick-strickland/bombing-gaza-children-gives-me-orgasm-israelis-celebrate-slaughter-facebook

      etc, ad nauseam.

      Maybe you’re lost. This is Mondoweiss.

    • eljay
      eljay
      October 3, 2015, 1:52 pm

      || Lorensacho: … The difference between Israel and Palestine is when an Israeli kills a civilian he or she is brought to justice. … ||

      Except for when he or she is not brought to justice.

      … Palestinians just celebrate the killing of Israelis. ||

      Except for when they don’t celebrate the killing of Israelis.

      Unlike Israel, however, Palestine hasn’t spent the past almost 70 years stealing, occupying and colonizing Israel’s territory and refusing to honour its obligations under international law.

    • Kay24
      Kay24
      October 3, 2015, 2:57 pm

      Wow, now that is delusional. Sleeping beauty has just got up.

    • zaid
      zaid
      October 3, 2015, 5:05 pm

      Not sure about that Lorensacho

      Israeli celebrate children killing in Gaza and chants:

      “There is no school tomorrow,There are no children left in Gaza”
      “gaza is a cemetery”
      “I hate all Arabs”

    • ckg
      ckg
      October 3, 2015, 9:10 pm

      When an Israeli kills civilians he may just get elected prime minister. It wouldn’t be the first or second time.

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        October 3, 2015, 9:17 pm

        “When an Israeli kills civilians he may just get elected prime minister. It wouldn’t be the first or second time.”

        On the other hand, when a Israel’s Prime Minister comes up with a plan to kill fewer civilians, Israelis just might kill him! It wouldn’t be the first time.

  21. Lorensacho
    Lorensacho
    October 3, 2015, 11:23 am

    Thank you Adolf.

    • just
      just
      October 3, 2015, 11:39 am

      How very original.

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        October 4, 2015, 12:27 pm

        That was comment No. 4 from “Lorensacho”!
        Reminds me of the old joke about the stunt artist who erected a two-hundreds foot high platform, and dove into a vat of flaming gas. His agent said it was the greatest act he ever saw. The artist said “Yes, but there’s one problem.”
        “What’s that”? asked the agent. And as they took the artist off to the hospital he said “I can only do it once!”

    • YoniFalic
      YoniFalic
      October 3, 2015, 12:44 pm

      The comedy act continues.

  22. lonely rico
    lonely rico
    October 3, 2015, 11:32 am

    >AvramMeitner

    Israel often targets Palestinians on the grounds that they have at some point in the past been involved in rocket attacks …

    More often than not Israel targets Palestinians on
    no other grounds
    than they are Palestinians.

    The settlers & the GOI (above all the IOF) are two sides of the same coin. That coin is the criminal cruel theft and occupation of Palestinian territory.

    A sad end for the illegal settlers, much noticed in the MSM.

    Less often mentioned in the MSM –

    Since the year 2000, the IOF (+ settler militias) have

    KILLED a Palestinian child every 3 1/2 days
    http://rememberthesechildren.o

    15 BITTER YEARS

    Should we be surprised when Palestinians strike back ?
    Should we be morally outraged that their resistance involves extreme violence ?

  23. MHughes976
    MHughes976
    October 3, 2015, 1:29 pm

    There are at least three difficult levels of problem. I’ve been looking at ch.3 of Locke’s Second Treatise, which I’ve always thought well argued. I don’t say conclusive, though I think he shows that there can be ‘preference without tribalism’. I still think this killing was wrong.
    ‘Prefer the innocent life’ – this is one of Locke’s principles but he makes something unexpected of it. He thinks that aggression exists when someone forms a ‘sedate and settled’ intention to use whatever ‘force against person’ is necessary for the purpose of eliminating or enslaving others or seizing what is theirs. I think he presumes that there must be an undoubted chance of putting the intention into effect but considers that violent self-defence is permitted once the threat is right in your face, such as when an armed robber bursts in. The ‘innocents’, to him, are not non-combatants but the victims of the intention to enslave or rob and he seems to think they have a duty to defend themselves if they can.
    So, on this showing, if you think that the settlers embody, in sufficiently blatant fashion, an intention to enslave our steal by whatever ‘force against person’ is necessary then all adults who could reasonably be thought to belong to this body of people are legitimate targets.
    I’m sure that in Locke’s time women could not be conceived of as prepared to join in organised ‘force against person’, but adult women are normal participants now. Perhaps he would have revised his opinions if faced with our situation. Still, children – young ones, at least – cannot have formed ‘sedate intentions’ with understanding of what they do. So even on this showing, which does, surely without tribalism, permit the ‘innocent’ to attack targets forbidden to others, young children are not to be attacked.
    Second level: the shooters in this case did not actually kill children but they did take action with a very high probability of children, those we call innocents, getting killed. I’ve always argued that the risks we accept are part of the actions we take, so the actual survival of the children doesn’t make much difference to the morality of the action. The same, to a massively greater extent, with the Israeli attacks on Gaza and other targets.
    Third level: what if the other side is indeed aggressive in the extreme, creating a great mass of aggrieved ‘innocence’ in Locke’s sense? Are you then in a position where you can’t do anything right, ie must either fail in the duty to respect the lives of children who are human shields or in your duty of self-defence by possible means? I’m not offering a solution to these terrible questions with any special confidence.

  24. mcohen.
    mcohen.
    October 3, 2015, 4:42 pm

    The only way forward is to annexe and secure southern half of the west bank .the area south of road 1

    • ckg
      ckg
      October 3, 2015, 9:21 pm

      And give the disenfranchised the vote in your racist state?

      • mcohen.
        mcohen.
        October 3, 2015, 9:26 pm

        ckg says

        And give the disenfranchised the vote in your racist state? –

        absolutely annexe the area and declare citizenship open to all
        .those that reject move north of road 1

        those that accept become israeli citizens

  25. wondering jew
    wondering jew
    October 4, 2015, 2:21 am

    When the three Israeli teenagers were kidnapped last summer (before their bodies were found) I commented to friends that the fact that they were kidnapped in occupied territory was relevant. (Certainly not exculpatory in my view, but needed to be mentioned.) The Jewish couple killed in Jerusalem in the last day were also killed in occupied territory, though my personal connection to occupied Jerusalem is far greater than my connection to the occupied West Bank near Elon Moreh, but it is still occupied territory.

    The exact location of the attack being the Lions’ Gate rather than the Jaffa Gate or the Dung Gate also puts it more deeply into “Arab” territory in my perception, although the distance is less than half a mile.

    The infuriating (and unjust) occupation and leadership of Netanyahu (and his coalition) plus the ineffectual leadership of Abbas and Hamas is enough to make the grass roots of the Palestinians feel a need to express their anger with bullets. The first intifada broke out a little less than 28 years ago, closer in time to the beginning of the ’67 occupation than it is to now. The situation looks hopeless and though the spilling of lives is such a horrible thing, it seems inevitable.

    • Mooser
      Mooser
      October 4, 2015, 12:19 pm

      “The situation looks hopeless and though the spilling of lives is such a horrible thing, it seems inevitable.”

      Hey “Yonah”, can I get a couple bottles of whatever you’re taking? It sure makes you nonchalant. Makes you a real cool customer.

      Now “Yonah” try and peer through the fog and answer the question Who made the violence “inevitable”?

    • eljay
      eljay
      October 4, 2015, 1:07 pm

      || yonah fredman: The infuriating (and unjust) occupation and leadership of Netanyahu (and his coalition) … ||

      … and the unwavering, “no light between” support he gets from Zio-supremacist Jews in Israel and from Zio-supremacists around the world.

      The people who believe:
      – in Jewish supremacism in/and a supremacist “Jewish State” in as much as possible of Palestine;
      – that acts of injustice and immorality committed against Jews justify acts of injustice and immorality committed by Jews;
      – that Jews are entitled to do unto others acts of injustice and immorality they would not have others do unto them; and
      – that loyalty to a religion-supremacist “Jewish State” is an essential part of being Jewish.

  26. just
    just
    October 4, 2015, 3:18 am

    “Is an Israeli’s Blood Redder Than a Palestinian’s? …

    On the road to Elon Moreh, near the Beit Furik junction, Naama and Eitam Henkin were murdered in their car on Thursday night, in front of their children. It was a shocking crime.

    On the road to Elon Moreh, near the Beit Furik junction, Ahmed Khatatbeh was shot to death in his car a few days earlier. That too was a shocking crime. Everyone bleeds red. Revenge murder is never justified, but the context cannot be ignored. Both sides kill innocents, and not in equal proportions. The blood of the Henkins does not cry out louder than that of Khatatbeh. A young deaf man with a hardscrabble life, he was eliminated by soldiers with three shots from behind and a few more into his car, at the Beit Furik checkpoint late at night …

    The deserted road to Elon Moreh invites outrage from it’s starting point, near the Hawara checkpoint: The signs point only to settlements, Itamar and Elon Moreh. The Palestinian towns of Beit Furik and Beit Dajan — much older and larger than the settlements — go unmentioned, as if they don’t exist. It’s the same with most road signs in the West Bank, in the covert and institutionalized apartheid, which discriminates between one person and another, between one community and another.

    The Henkins were murdered a few hundred meters from where the soldiers killed Khatatbeh. He was returning from Nablus, after buying clothes for the Id al-Adha holiday. Born deaf, he died in silence. They shot at his car, perhaps because he didn’t hear their calls to stop. They also prevented an ambulance from removing him for about an hour, and the doctors at Rafidia Hospital said it might have been possible to save his life, had he been admitted earlier. His father doesn’t even know that his son was killed. Deaf as well, he lost touch with reality a few years ago due to a stroke. I saw him last week, lying motionless in bed, staring at posters of his son.

    In a statement, the Spokesman’s Unit of the Israel Defense Forces said his son was killed because he posed “a clear and present danger” to civilian passersby. As far as is known, there were no civilians at the Beit Furik checkpoint at the time. So the army’s concern for their welfare is puzzling, as is the killing of the young man, who had never been arrested and who was shot even after he was already wounded, without a reasonable explanation.

    Khatatbeh died quietly. No one in Israel showed any interest in his death, which was hardly mentioned. The headlines didn’t scream, battalions weren’t rushed to the scene, villages were not surrounded and cut off.

    This is also what happened when the Dawabsheh family was set on fire in its sleep. Thousands of soldiers did not raid nearby settlement outposts, it did not occur to anyone to block access to settlements, to build a new Palestinian outpost in their memory, to block roads and to raid house after house, as they did in Beit Furik over the weekend.

    The message is clear: Palestinian blood is cheap. Killing the Dawabshehs may have caused shock waves in Israel, but the security forces acted as they usually do in such cases, and the results speaks for themselves.

    Hadeel al-Hashlamoun was also killed for no reason. The chain of events leading to the scandalous killing of the doctor’s daughter from Hebron, who was shot 10 times, was reported in Haaretz on Friday by Amira Hass. In the eyes of the IDF she was a terrorist and in the eyes of most Israelis she deserved to die. The soldier who killed her was heard saying “Thank God!” Her killing must also be remembered now.

    This is the time, when so many Israelis are mourning the Henkins, to mention the Palestinian victims, whose killings were also heinous and also left behind orphans and mourning. More than 20 Palestinian civilians have been killed by IDF soldiers since the beginning of this relatively quiet year, almost all of them for no reason. Their blood must also cry out — their killing is part of the motive for spilling the blood of Na’ama and Eitam Henkin, whom we should hope only God will avenge. Actually, it’s better if he doesn’t.”

    read more: http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-1.678737?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

    {“Ahmed Khatatbeh Didn’t Hear the Gunfire That Killed Him

    Why did soldiers fire at a deaf man who arrived at a West Bank checkpoint late at night, and prevent his evacuation by ambulance for an hour?”
    read more: http://www.haaretz.com/weekend/twilight-zone/.premium-1.678486}

  27. Kay24
    Kay24
    October 4, 2015, 10:20 am

    Nutty Netty on Fareed Zakaria, being confronted with his cartoon bomb – he sidetracks and says he does not want to rehash what has happened. Now there is humiliated, and beaten man, but he will not show it.
    Translatlion: I made an ass of myself to the entire world, but I am still right.

    • CigarGod
      CigarGod
      October 4, 2015, 10:37 am

      Farheed should practice a healthy, hearty derisive laughter to use in these cases.
      Maybe even an uncontrollable, tears running down his face kind of laughter…so the station has to close out the segment with Farheed falling off his chair and clutching his belly.

      • Kay24
        Kay24
        October 4, 2015, 10:40 am

        Zachary did ask some good questions. Nutty projected like mad, and accused Abbas of not condemning terroristic attacks against Israel, but when asked about Jewish terrorists, said they take a strong stand against them. Pity Zakaria did not ask why then have those who killed and burnt a baby and his family not arrested.

        Good suggestion about Zakaria laughing and falling of his chair though. That would have made my day. :))

      • CigarGod
        CigarGod
        October 4, 2015, 10:44 am

        Liberals are far too concerned with their polite, professional, dignified image when they interview these barbarians.

      • Kay24
        Kay24
        October 4, 2015, 11:18 am

        I also think they are worried about their jobs and future prospects. Helen Thomas was demonized for speaking her mind and using her right to free speech. A horrible example of the zionist media controlling what is said against Israel.

      • CigarGod
        CigarGod
        October 4, 2015, 11:22 am

        Yes, of course.
        But when forced to apologize, he should fall off his chair again.

  28. Bandolero
    Bandolero
    October 4, 2015, 11:07 am

    It seems the death of these two settlers is not an isolated incident.

    Al Manar – the Lebanese TV close to Hezbollah – reports today:

    Islamic Jihad: Intifada 3 Has Begun, Harming Al-Aqsa a Red Line

    The Islamic Jihad resistance group has claimed responsibility for sending the 19-year-old Arab martyr who murdered two Israelis and wounded two others in a stabbing attack in Jerusalem’s Old City on Saturday night. …

    “We are at the start of a true intifada,” wrote Islamic Jihad in an announcement. “The situation is at the breaking point – this isn’t a storm in a teacup. Today (Prime Minister Binyamin) Netanyahu is reaping what he sowed. The Palestinian people have spoken – harming Al-Aqsa is a red line.”

    Hamas welcomed the brave attack and called for additional operations. Hamas spokesperson Hussam Bardan called the attack an act of heroism, and said, “we support every attack of this type.”

    http://www.almanar.com.lb/english/adetails.php?eid=232946&cid=23&fromval=1&frid=23&seccatid=23&s1=1

    Palestinain Islamic Jihad is of course, that’s well-known, especially supported by Iran.

  29. Sibiriak
    Sibiriak
    October 4, 2015, 11:12 am

    (Prime Minister Binyamin) Netanyahu is reaping what he sowed

    ———————

    A bumper crop of violence is exactly what Netanyahu wants.

  30. hophmi
    hophmi
    October 5, 2015, 8:59 am

    Mondoweiss: the place where child murder is condoned.

    • Kris
      Kris
      October 5, 2015, 10:59 am

      Did you mean to say Israel: the place where child murder is condoned?

      Or is it not true that the government of Israel knows who burned up the Palestinian family, including a baby and a little boy, but is shielding them from prosecution?

    • Mooser
      Mooser
      October 5, 2015, 11:05 am

      “Mondoweiss: the place where child murder is condoned”

      “According to people here, their children were legitimate targets.
      There’s a place in hell for all of you.”

      “Most people here don’t regard Israelis as full human beings.”

      You know, “Hophmi”, I’ve never thought of you as very attractive, but I might change my mind. You have the cutest little pout. Makes your lips look purty.

Leave a Reply