Israel urged to bare findings in journalist's death

[subsuelo]

The Committee to Protect Journalists on Wednesday called on Israel to release findings of an army investigation into the killing of a Reuters cameraman in the Gaza Strip in April.

Fadel Shana, a 24-year-old Palestinian, was hit by a spray of metal darts from a controversial type of missile on April 16 as he filmed an Israeli tank dug in about a kilometer (1,000 yards) away.

CPJ Senior Program Coordinator Joel Campagna told the ambassador: "We hope that Israeli authorities will provide answers that help explain this shocking incident," the statement said.

Shana's soundman, Wafa Abu Mizyed, was wounded in the arm and five other Palestinians were killed in the incident. A Reuters car carrying "TV" and "Press" markings was destroyed.

Reuters - read more

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

1. A tribute to Reuters cameraman Fadel Shana

http://youtube.com/watch?v=CIwn8zZ7bI0

[JohnyCanuck]

2. IDF has defacto approval to ignore Israeli military regulations.

Under Israeli law and under Israeli military regulations, Israeli soldiers are not allowed to fire directly at or into crowds who pose no threat to their safety. According to Israeli military regulations, a solider must only use a weapon in the event of immediate "danger to life," and when it is impossible to effectively defend one's self from the assailant other than by the use of the weapon.

In 2000, a report issued by the Israeli based Physician for Human Rights (PHR) revealed, however, that the Israeli military consistently violate Israeli law and their own regulations on a regular basis. According to PHR, the Israeli military use "live ammunition and rubber bullets excessively and inappropriately to control demonstrators, and that based on the high number of documented injuries to the head and thighs, the soldiers appear to be shooting to inflict harm, rather then solely in defense". The PHR's analysis of fatal gunshot wounds also revealed that approximately 50% of them were to the head, revealing that the Israeli military were specifically aiming at people's heads. In addition, they also noted that there were numerous head and eye injuries as a result of "rubber and rubber coated steel projectiles" which revealed the "frequent misuse of these weapons, such as firing at a range of less then 40 metres at the upper part of the body". As a result, PHR noted that the events on the ground showed that the Israeli military not only violated their own regulations but it was "allowing soldiers to fire when they were not acting solely in self defense" <2>

Over the past four years, during my various stays in the Occupied West Bank, I have regularly witnessed the Israeli military open fire on and into crowds of unarmed, peaceful demonstrators. At the last Bil'in demonstration that I attended approximately four weeks ago in May, the Israeli military also opened fire directly into the peaceful, non-violent demonstration. At this demonstration, however, they were also using rubber coated steel bullets and live ammunition. Although I have been in demonstrations in the Occupied Palestinian Territories where rubber bullets and live ammunition has been fired at the crowd before, this was the first time I had ammunition fired directly towards me.

In 2004, at a peaceful, non-violent demonstration in the village of Budrus, against the apartheid wall, I was hit with a teargas canister fired by the Israeli military from a distance of around 150 metres. At the time, myself and others, were attempting to lift a young Israeli woman, who was an amputee with a prosthetic leg, into an ambulance. She was injured when she attempted to protect a group of young Palestinian girls, who the Israeli military opened fire on. The young Palestinian girls had simply been clapping and chanting slogans against the wall.

http://palestinechronicle.com/view_article_details.php?id=13869

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

3. First Reports From Gaza of the Death of Reuters Cameraman

http://youtube.com/watch?v=tjB3FqLDlOA

[Shaktimaan]

7. What news agency is this?

Is it al-Jazeera or maybe some Iranian english-language newscast? It's a pretty weird newscast.

It says that their on location guy is in Gaza but the anchor is in Tehran. Their language leaves quite a bit to be desired when it comes to basic principles of journalistic objectivity. Such as the on location guy reporting that the journalists there are on a mission to expose Israeli crimes to the world, and speculating as to how many more people the Israelis will kill that day.

He also said that the cameraman was killed by a drone. Is that what happened? I haven't followed this story too closely.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

8. I just watched it again...

...and can't tell what news agency. This video/report does leave a lot to be desired in professionalism -- I'm wondering if it is a real news agency now.

I might not have posted it had I scrutinized it a bit more carefully first time through, my bad.

I believe a missile hit his vehicle while he was either in it or close enough in proximity to be killed.

[oberliner]

39. Press TV

Press TV is an English language international television news channel which is funded by the Iranian government, based in Tehran and broadcasts in English on a round-the-clock schedule. With 26 international correspondents and more than 400 staff around the world, its stated mission is to offer a different view of the world events.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Press_TV

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

4. Killing the Truth

http://youtube.com/watch?v=zpAWHH1tUs8

[Behind the Aegis]

5. "For the River to the sea, Palestine will be free"

Classy Propaganda. :eyes:

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

6. Aegis, why are you seemingly so ...

... unaffected by the plight of the Palestinians?

What is it that so completely numbs your ability to empathize with a people who have been forced to suffer so much pain, in their own homeland, for so long, at the hands the Israeli military, that all you can do after viewing the video(s) is cry "propaganda?"

How are we to understand this?

[pelsar]

9. the end justifys the means?

It seems to be your philosophy, facts the environment, etc are not relevant as long as one gets to present a side that one agrees with.....and demonize the "other side" ....

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

12. What specifically would you cite in support...

...of this idea that I embrace an "ends justifies means" way of thinking?

[pelsar]

15. i cant recall a single post

that actually attempted to understand the environment....what was the IDF doing in gaza in the first place...after they had left?

your posts area extremely simplistic and imply that the IDF simply massacres the Palestinians as they see fit....


furthermore i've noticed from your posts and almost unbelievable lack of understanding about the environment.....

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

16. So I'm supposed to come here and seek...

...your tutelage in understanding Gaza, as opposed to believing what I see in news articles, editorials, and documentary videos?

Alright, please explain, as fully as you can, "the environment" you say I make no effort to understand, and do provide credible documentary support where you can.

[pelsar]

17. what is "credible to you"..

utube videos?

the environment...im curious have you seen any pictures of the jebaliya? khan unis, gaza city? beit chanon? do you have any idea where the fighting takes place?

or for that matter, why do you believe that the IDF is back in gaza after leaving?

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

20. Use your own standards for credible documentary support....

And please give as complete and detailed an explanation of "the environment" as you can.

[pelsar]

30. our standards differ....

as i believe eye witnesses, people combined with empirical evidence to have a lot more credibility than mere news reports.....

and since the idea is to explain to you what you dont know, it would be rather important to match your "standards"....so what are they?....just utube videos?

[Behind the Aegis]

10. Strawman.

Just because I don't swallow anti-Israeli propaganda schmaltz doesn't preclude I am "unaffected by the plight of the Palestinians." The rest of your post is a continuation of your ad hominem 'attack.'

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

11. Not meant as an attack -- just asking a question, Aegis.

Would you say that you do empathize with the plight of the Palestinians?

[Behind the Aegis]

13. Whether meant as one or not, it still was.

You drew conclusions based on nothing in an attempt to paint me as someone who doesn't have compassion for the Palestinian people.

I do not empathize with the Palestinian plight, thought I do have great sympathy for their issues.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

14. I'm not sure I fully understand your answer.

How would you describe the plight of the Palestinians if you were asked to explain it to a classroom full of sixth graders who were trying to understand what life is like for them?

[Behind the Aegis]

18. My answer is very straight-forward.

I understand the needs of the Palestinian people and their desire for a homeland.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

19. That's your explanation of what it's like to...

...be a Palestinian living in Gaza to a classroom full of sixth graders?

[Behind the Aegis]

21. No.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

22. Why do you not share

your explanation to a classroom full of sixth graders as to what life is like for Palestinians living in Gaza?

Might this offer us insight as to why you do not empathize with the plight of the Palestinians? You simply refuse to even contemplate what life is like for them?

[Behind the Aegis]

23. Your request is not germane to the discussion.

"Why do you not share your explanation to a classroom full of sixth graders as to what life is like for Palestinians living in Gaza?"

Because my audience is not a 6th grade classroom.

"Might this offer us insight as to why you do not empathize with the plight of the Palestinians?"

I doubt it, as you seem to be unfamiliar with the concept of empathy versus sympathy.

"You simply refuse to even contemplate what life is like for them?"

Yet another ad hominem response.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

25. Not germane to the discussion? Are you serious?

This is the I/P forum, Aegis.

What do you think Fadel Shana was trying to document/expose?

Life for Palestinians living in Gaza is most definitely germane, Aegis, and I think you know it.

Have you watched this video documentary?

(1/5) http://youtube.com/watch?v=0tAe3cbrT-w

(2/5) http://youtube.com/watch?v=Iku88saobmQ&feature=related

(3/5) http://youtube.com/watch?v=esc6199w6iw

(4/5) http://youtube.com/watch?v=t38NTvl2Gnw

(5/5) http://youtube.com/watch?v=7BGUv4KNbAs

[Behind the Aegis]

27. Dead serious.

This continually "pity play" on your part is nausiating. Your continued propaganda double speak is just as sickening. As the participants in this forum are likely not sixth graders, it makes no sense to craft a response for such an audience.

"What do you think Fadel Shana was trying to document/expose?"

I don't know, and neither do you. My best guess was he was recording the on-going conflict in the area.

"Life for Palestinians living in Gaza is most definitely germane, Aegis, and I think you know it."

I never said life for the Palestinian people was not germane, I said your idiotic request was not germane. This is another example of your making something out of nothing.

As for your you-tube vids, I see you are posting more anti-Israeli propaganda. Also, other videos by that person include:

WHITE NATIONALISM: Aryan National Front pt 1 of 5 http://youtube.com/watch?v=qQBpUEV_Uzc&feature=related

Of course the rest of his vids are conspiracy laden bullshit, many with a "Jew" twist to them.

On edit: this poster (u-tube) also posts videos from a Holocaust revisionist site. White power videos, Arayan nation videos, Holocaust revisionism, yeah, I feel pretty comfortable in saying his other videos are nothing more than anti-Israeli bullshit propaganda and probally is disgusing his anti-Semitic views!

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

28. Your rhetoric sounds very angry now, Aegis.

Was there something in particular that set you off? I thought we were on the verge of making some progress.

Sometimes the ability to empathize is just a matter of allowing yourself to see and feel.

Why do you fight it so hard?

[Name removed]

29. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[notfullofit]

34. Mr Jefferson

why would you even consider watching a video from a source that is so racist?

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

36. Notfullofit

why would you even consider taking issue with the anonymous Youtube member that happened to post the five video segments, rather than view and evaluate the documentary based on its content?

Are you aware that Rodrigo Vazquez has been recognized for The Killing Zone?

http://www.rorypecktrust.org/awards03/vazquez.htm

If I linked a Youtube video which was a cut from Schindler's List to illustrate the horrors of the Holocaust, and it happened to be placed on Youtube by this same anonymous person, would you still raise the same objection?

The implication of your question is that before linking a Youtube video the anonymous Youtube poster must first be thoroughly vetted for any indications of racist leanings, and this implication is ridiculous on its face. The documentary should stand or fall on it's own merit -- not on the reputation of who happens to place it on Youtube.

And while we're on the topic of excellent video documentaries here's another one you should see called "To Die in Jerusalem," and just in case you're wondering, I don't know or care anything about the anonymous Youtube member that posted the segments:

1/8 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WUuBNdUP6ZA

2/8 http://youtube.com/watch?v=lfW9y-q-aZw&feature=related

3/8 http://youtube.com/watch?v=mO0CTuu0K6A&feature=related

4/8 http://youtube.com/watch?v=DUM3rEvI8MU&feature=related

5/8 http://youtube.com/watch?v=HN8DFV2zTag&feature=related

6/8 http://youtube.com/watch?v=tLlT1JpShvA&feature=related

7/8 http://youtube.com/watch?v=4DOKgPrEN_E&feature=related

8/8 http://youtube.com/watch?v=TD5lgCkKSSM&feature=related


Hilla Medalia appears on CNN International to discuss her film "To Die in Jerusalem":

http://youtube.com/watch?v=pOGlFGc0Tr0&feature=related

[oberliner]

42. You don't think it matters that the videos were posted by a White Supremacist?

Let's say someone posted a link to a Youtube video presenting Hamas in a negative light.

Let's say that the person who posted that video on Youtube also posted numerous videos that were racist in nature.

You don't think anyone would point out that fact? You don't think there would be any significance there?

The person who posted that slew of videos you linked to upthread has a series of playlists.

The first descriptive category among the playlists is:

"A documentary raising questions about the official holocaust story."

Even without scrolling down the list to find the various White Supremacist documentaries, one would think that this would give a person pause before posting a link on a site such as this one.

If the documentary itself is valid, one would think there would be a source that could be linked to that was not tainted by the filth present on that particular person's Youtube page.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

44. As I've already said...

...the implication being put forward here, that before linking a Youtube video, the anonymous Youtube member that posted it must first undergo and pass some kind of vetting process for racist leanings is ridiculous on its face.

Any linked video should stand or fall on it's own merits -- nothing else.

[Shaktimaan]

82. That's a funny statement...

when it is posted by someone such as yourself who used obvious ad hominem debating tactics earlier in this very thread. If you don't mind that your source is a white supremacist who posted this material specifically to reinforce his anti-semitic viewpoint, then why would you find Behind the Aegis' seeming lack of empathy to be relevant to the discussion?

What, you expect us to overlook some white power goon's self admitted bigotry but once you possibly detect some callousness in your opponent's tone then all of a sudden it becomes critical to the legitimacy of his argument?

Come on.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

89. You identify the anonymous Youtube poster...

...as the source? Are you serious? That makes absolutely NO SENSE, but is however, perfectly consistent with most everything I've ever seen you post.

This is no different than identifying the newspaper delivery boy as the source of the news and editorials within the paper.

Complete and utter nonsense -- why am I not surprised?

[azurnoir]

50. Sir the upon reading the title of your comment

You don't think it matters that the videos were posted by a White Supremacist?

my impression was that the person was a supremacist, and not as others here have said that it is mere example for a possible argument.

I went to this guys page and found nothing of the sort, however I may have missed something

you then go on to say

f the documentary itself is valid, one would think there would be a source that could be linked to that was not tainted by the filth present on that particular person's Youtube page.

again if I have missed something please point it out.

This is the person who posted the video's

anewutuber

[oberliner]

54. The videos in question are in message #25

That is the person who has the white supremacist and nazi revisionist stuff on his Youtube page.

[azurnoir]

58. Sir are you speaking of this guy

"DoodlesDocumentaries"?

Yes he did post a documentary about White Supremacists, the documentary in question was produced by National Geographic, nowhere that I found does he post anything supporting this view point.

[oberliner]

59. Is this a joke?

The very first "playlist" on that Youtube page bears the subheading:

"A documentary raising questions about the official holocaust story."

It was produced by a Holocaust Revisionist group called CODOH (The Committee for Open Debate on The Holocaust).

That is Bradley Smith's organization. He is connected to the White Supremacist National Alliance/Vanguard.

[azurnoir]

62. No sir

what I am saying is that unable to kill an embarrassing message you chose to kill the messenger. It is a very common tactic in the internet ProIsraeli propaganda war.
This fact is shown in your post, you had to do some digging to find the things.

[oberliner]

63. With all due respect

I would think that a person would think twice about posting a link to a video hosted by someone who hosts what I've just described.
(I would assume that anyone who linked to an article posted on CODOH would be reprimanded without any question.)

If someone posted a link to a Youtube video containing a pro-Israeli message, and that Youtube member had a slew of other videos whose content was as despicable as the holocaust revisionist crap, then that person ought to be taken to task as well.

I do not wish to kill the messenger and I do not claim the message of the videos is embarrassing and I do not consider myself part of any ProIsraeli propaganda war.

The video is from a television documentary series on Channel 4 News in Britain called, "Dispatches"

The title of this particular video is "Dispatches: the killing zone" and it was released in 2003.

I would encourage anyone who wishes to watch the video to do so. I would imagine that there are ways to watch this documentary that do not involve going to the Youtube page of someone who hosts Holocaust revisionist videos.

[azurnoir]

69. We will have to agree to disagree

about the suppression of "Holocaust Denial", or even perhaps the character o someone who would post a video with point of view.
To me from the very first time I heard of Holocaust Denial it struck me as on it's face ludacris, the historical evidence to the contrary is so overwhelming not to mention first hand accounts of survivors that to suppress the point of view that the Holocaust is a hoax is the only thing that lends denial any and I use the term hesitantly "legitimacy". This is because for some and especially the type of mind st that believes this crap, to suppress or censor something indicates fear and what is to fear unless there is something to hide. Much better to let Holocaust Denial along with other things bleach and wither in sunlight.

[Shaktimaan]

71. I think you are missing the point. np

[azurnoir]

85. No I am not n/t

[Shaktimaan]

88. But if you did in fact, miss it, isn't that exactly what you would think? np

[oberliner]

72. The intermingling of criticism of Israel and Holocaust denial

The intermingling of criticism of Israel and Holocaust denial is something that I would think that most progressives would find troubling for obvious reasons.

[azurnoir]

86. So because a youtube poster

who has 340 listed postings on youtube has 2 that are listed as Holocaust Denial, those being the one you sited and Norman Finkelstein, and one site that is critical of Israel he is what a Supremest? Oh he also has a documentary about White Supremacists in the US, it is hardly supportive them.

I think you are trying to read too much into 2 listings, and as a "Progressive" what I find disturbing is the concept of first name calling. this exchange started because of your state that the person who posted which ever set of videos on youtube was a White Supremeist simply for posting videos that actually did not support that premise and I suspect by implication or "guilt by association" the person who posted who those youtube links here.

[LeftishBrit]

73. There is a difference between suppression ...

and giving any credence on *anything* to those who hold such views.

There are different approaches in different countries as to the legality of Holocaust denial. In the UK, it is legal so long as it's not used for the direct purpose of incitement. Same for racism more broadly. The (neo-fascist) British National Party is legal and campaigns at elections. BUT its legality and right to freedom of speech in our system does NOT mean that I would trust any political video or article that I knew to have been posted by a BNP supporter. I would instantly suspect their agenda. Same with a Holocaust denier.

[LeftishBrit]

49. The point is that excerpts from films/documentaries can be selectively posted out of context...

and the agenda of the poster is relevant. Of course you can't vet all anonymous Youtube posters for their leanings and biases; but that is one reason why one cannot accept everything on Youtube at face value.

Supposing that excerpt from Schindler's List was posted out of context by a Kahanist who wanted to prove that all non-Jews are the enemy and therefore Israelis need to be violent? Would you still say that the leanings of the poster were not relevant? Supposing that a beautiful nature scene was posted - by a neo-Nazi who was using it to argue that everything in their country was so beautiful before those evil non-whites/Jews/Muslims/immigrants came along to corrupt it? When material is used for propaganda, one does have to take into account who is using it and why.

[LeftishBrit]

32. Just because something's on a You-Tube video doesn't make it accurate...

I would need to know a lot more about the people who produced the videos before I accepted them.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

38. .

http://www.rorypecktrust.org/awards03/vazquez.htm

[Vegasaurus]

24. The Palestinians have chosen war, violence, terrorism

at every possible opportunity, instead of peace and efforts to make a state.

As a result, they have a lot of misery.

If and when they ever decide that having their own state is a greater goal than murdering Israelis', their lives will improve.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

26. Same tired, unsupported, propaganda...

...we always get here, it boils down to the military necessity argument, and it's fiction.

[Vegasaurus]

31. In your mind nt

[subsuelo]

33. Both sides have chosen war, violence, terrorism

at every possible opportunity, instead of peace and efforts to get along.

As a result, both sides have a lot of misery.

If and when Israelis ever decide that peace with the native Palestinians is a greater goal than murdering them, their lives will improve.

[notfullofit]

35. The same could be said for Hamas. nt

[subsuelo]

37. I agree, which is why I say 'both sides' choose war and terrorism

[pelsar]

46. actually you made it clear its the israelis fault...

If and when Israelis ever decide that peace with the native Palestinians is a greater goal than murdering them, their lives will improve.


as if the israelis are attempting daily by kassams and mortars to murder random Palestinians...remind me again why the hamas govt is trying to kill israelis every single day?

[subsuelo]

51. I was mirroring Vegasaurus' post

To demonstrate that both sides are at fault. Is criticizing both sides really that offensive?

[pelsar]

55. i forgot...

and i dont think you ever responded....why is hamas shooting missiles at israeli cities?....and why didnt they shoot previous and during the israeli withdrawal from gaza?....and have shot ever since israel left?

care to answer or does that ruin your "its everybodys fault" syndrom (let me guess, you probably believe that all cultures are equal, including those that believe in honor killings, hanging homosexuals, female gentile mutilation, forced marriages, burning widows, caste systems etc)

[subsuelo]

61. Wow.

I criticize both sides for killing people, and get attacked as having "its everybodys fault" syndrome.

Is criticizing both sides now considered some sort of disease?

:crazy:

[pelsar]

65. being naive.....

with little knowledge of the conflict, has little place in this conflict, it does infact get people killed....(Rachel Corrie being an example....)

[subsuelo]

76. Rachel was murdered for defending innocent civilians

Nothing naive about it. Brave is the better description.

More brave than a bunch of cowards murdering people with their big bad army tanks and qassam rockets

[pelsar]

78. Rachel believed..

she can walk in to a war zone, and stop a military mission designed, either directly or indirectly to save israeli lives....thats naivety.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

40. Would you describe the conflict between...

early European settlers and native Americans this way also? Did native Americans choose war, violence, and terrorism at every possible opportunity instead of peace and efforts to get along?

This seems to suggest a certain blindness to the one-sided nature of an occupation/displacement imposed by a force much greater in number and military strength. Is it really fair to describe the resistance that will always be offered by at least some of those being oppressed/displaced as "choosing war over peace efforts?" Palestinians did not choose to be subjected to a brutal occupation by a militaristic nation that appears to have no sincere intentions regarding a just and lasting peace. What are they supposed to do?

If you listen to the exchange in this video you'll hear the Palestinian woman try to make this point -- sadly, but not surprisingly, it appears to fall on deaf ears:

8/8 http://youtube.com/watch?v=TD5lgCkKSSM&feature=related

[oberliner]

43. Looking forward instead of backwards

Comparisons to the early European settlers and Native Americans are less than instructive.

Putting aside any disagreement over the historical background and early stages of the conflict, can't some consideration be given to the notion that Israelis do actually wish to live at peace with an independent Palestinian state?

Can't there be an acknowledgment of the fact that Israelis have been the victims of Palestinian terror attacks and that Israel does have a legitimate right to live in peace and security?

Would it not be in the best interests of everyone in the region if the Palestinian leadership make a commitment to non-violence? If the rocket attacks ended, if there were not more attempts at suicide bombings, if there was a real desire to move away from killing and towards peaceful coexistence - would not that put the region on a better path than the one it's on right now?

Can't we get some energy behind proposals like the Geneva Accord, where both sides compromise, where both sides might feel like the end result isn't entirely "fair", but where the conflict actually comes to an end and Israelis and Palestinians are able to get past endless war and live as peaceful neighbors?

[Dick Dastardly]

45. The conflict is nothing like early European settlers and native Americans

Would you describe the conflict between...early European settlers and native Americans this way also? Did native Americans choose war, violence, and terrorism at every possible opportunity instead of peace and efforts to get along?

Jews were native to the area too. Arab immigration was many many times higher than Jewish immigration during the late ottoman and Mandate period. Jews in fact were limited and at times barred from immigration, the Arabs were not. Jews were barred from most of the areas.

The Jews did not choose war, they accepted the partition but the Palestinians and the Arab countries rejected it and attacked. Even before the occupation from 48 to 67 there were only calls for violence and the destruction of Israel, not peace. From 48 to 67 there were wars and there was terrorism by the Palestinians and Arabs against Israel but there was no occupation. The reason for the occupation is because of their own actions. It is the complete opposite of what you say.

Remember the Arab Khartoum Resolution of 1967
Three NOs" with respect to Israel:
NO peace with Israel
NO recognition of Israel
NO negotiations with Israel


Heads of state from eight Arab countries attended a summit conference in Khartoum, Sudan held from August 29 to September 1, 1967. The meeting formulated the Arab consensus that formed the basis of the policies of most Arab states participating in the conflict with Israel until the Yom Kippur War of 1973. The resolution adopted September 1, 1967 called for the continued struggle against Israel, the creation of a fund to assist the economics of Egypt and Jordan, the lifting of an Arab oil boycott against the West and a new agreement to end the war in Yemen.

The best remembered action at Khartoum, however, was the adoption of the dictum of "Three NOs" with respect to Israel:

NO peace with Israel
NO recognition of Israel
NO negotiations with Israel
With this resolution, the Arab states slammed the door on any progress toward peace with Israel and ultimately led to the Yom Kippur War of 1973.

http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_1967to1991_khartoum.php
http://www.hsje.org/histo_documents/khartoum%20resolution.htm

This seems to suggest a certain blindness to the one-sided nature of an occupation/displacement imposed by a force much greater in number and military strength

I just see the blindness from you. They are occupied because of their own actions. Israel was 100x smaller in population and had a smaller military but they won. I can post the numbers of men and weapons if you want. Res 242 gives Israel the right to occupy the WB and Gaza until a comprehensive peace is made with guarantees to Israel security. It seems you think Israel should have not defended itself and should not worry about wars and terror against it.

Is it really fair to describe the resistance that will always be offered by at least some of those being oppressed/displaced as "choosing war over peace efforts?"

Yes it is fair. They have made their own bed. They chose to reject the partition for war, afterwords they chose to launch wars and terror rather than peace resulting in an occupation and they have continued to choose terror and violence to this day which we can see with their support for the terror and rocket attacks with up to 80% approval and their electing terrorists.

Rockets attacks targeting civilians and suicide bombing restaurants and markets is not legitimate resistance

Palestinians did not choose to be subjected to a brutal occupation by a militaristic nation that appears to have no sincere intentions regarding a just and lasting peace.

Yes they did choose many times. They are lucky Israel is a moral, free democracy and is not a brutal militaristic nation that you propagandize because they would have been wiped out long ago and you know it. They made peace with Egypt and Jordan and gave back land 3 times its size(with oil too) because they desired peace.

What are they supposed to do?

Make peace as Israel has with Egypt and Jordan. Stop with the terror/rocket attacks and realize they are not going to get everything they want. The Palestinians had an opportunity at Camp David and Taba but chose war instead. No country in their right mind is going to give someone who calls for its destruction and launches terror/rocket attacks a better opportunity to to do so and do more damage. They actually tried in Gaza and got more rocket attacks that could penetrate farther into Israel.

Why would Israel give them the ability at striking all of Israel population centers when they are currently calling for the destruction of Israel and launching terror/rocket attacks?

You might say its only Hamas and other groups doing this but the Palestinians elected Hamas and even if that were not the case the fact is if the Palestinians cant control the groups, which it in fact cant do , then it doesn't matter. It would be unacceptable to any country

If you listen to the exchange in this video you'll hear the Palestinian woman try to make this point -- sadly, but not surprisingly, it appears to fall on deaf ears:

The only deaf ears I heard was from the Palestinian woman.

[subsuelo]

53. Yes it is comparable

Both conquerors came and stole the land from the natives, who now reside in squalid reservation camps.

[pelsar]

57. is buying land...

also considered being a conqueror?...and does this only apply to those of european anncestory and not to immigrant arabs?

[pelsar]

66. difficult questions?

i noticed you have trouble answering some simple questions concerning the conflict..is there a reason you dont answer?

[subsuelo]

77. Perhaps the difficulty is with comprehending the answers provided

[pelsar]

80. no, i have very good comprehension...

and in fact can recognize when one doesn't want to answer a question....since it may ruin ones preconceived notions of "justice".....

answer in generalities is the same as avoiding answering at all.....but i do get it.....there is a serious dilemma: one certainly doesnt want to blame the "victimized Palestinians under hamas (the govt they voted in), yet its pretty hard not to notice that it is hamas that is shooting rockets and mortars daily in to israeli cities and farms.

whats a progressive to do?....best solution?...pretend its israels fault that they are trying to kill israelis daily and call it "both of their faults"

at least that is how i understand your inability to answer directly the simplest of questions....

[Shaktimaan]

67. This is sooo stupid.

The two situations are not even remotely similar. You can't possibly think they are the same, or that your one-line summary here applies to Palestine, unless you have really never learned the basic history of Israel or the conflict, which at this point I find hard to believe. Help me out here, because I see some pretty serious differences between Zionism's real history and what you seem to think it is. Please tell me if the following aren't important differences. Or if you disagree...

1) Were America's colonial settlers returning to their historical and cultural homeland?

2) Did those colonists buy the land they settled from its owners?

3) Did those colonists use diplomacy to gain the support of the world before settling that land? Did they succeed in obtaining treaties with any Native American leaders beforehand, to get permission to settle there?

4) Were some of those Native Americans actually ethnic-Europeans, the same as the settlers, and had they lived there for even longer than the Indians?

5) Did the Indians initiate violence by massacring those peaceful ethnic-European Native Americans, then stealing their property?

6) Were many of the colonists actually refugees, fleeing persecution and death at the hands of other regional Indian tribes?

7) Did the Indians reject all of the colonists' offers of peace and begin a full-scale war against them?

8) Are the Indians still at war, using suicide bombers and rockets to attack the European's population at every opportunity?

9) Has the current Indian government sworn to never sign a permanent peace treaty until the entire United States is back under Native American sovereignty?

10) Currently, do ethnic Native American Indians control 98% of that geographical region, while half of the world's entire European population subsists on the remaining 2%?

[subsuelo]

74. Israel's land theft is no more legitimate than America's

[Shaktimaan]

81. Is Palestine's?

[Dick Dastardly]

83. How is buying land equal to conquering and stealing it?

Jews were natives too, but you continually omit that.
Its fact that the Arabs immigrated in many many times the number that Jews did, most of the Arab refugees were recent immigrants, or land thieving conquerors as you call them, not natives. Most of the Israeli Arabs are natives not immigrants.

How is this and the other things mentioned in my previous post #43 make it comparable to European settlers and native Americans?

You as usual just stated it was comparable, but don't back up your statement. For once try giving an honest detailed answer to the two questions instead of usual one line hyperbole or ignoring inconvenient questions altogether.

[pelsar]

47. hmm..how about not trying to kill people?

What are they supposed to do?

This assumes the hamas is correct that only violence will achieve their goals....(hint, take a look at a map, its hasn't gone so well that philosophy has it?

[subsuelo]

52. Tell both sides to stop killing people if you expect an ounce of credibility

[pelsar]

56. so you believe....

that the IDF should stop attacking gaza....as its done before.......correct?

[subsuelo]

60. Are you that opposed to calling on both sides to stop?

[pelsar]

64. yes....(are simple questions hard to answer?)

i am against telling the IDF to put down their weapons on the gaza border...i am against the IDF not stopping the via firepower the truck/bulldozer that attempts to reach the gaza/israeli border and blow up killing israelis.

why are are for such events?

I noticed that once again you failed to answer such a simple question...lets try again (is there a problem with my question?).

should the IDF on the gaza border just "pack up and leave?"...as that is what your suggesting isnt it?

[azurnoir]

68. So you are for killing as many Palestinians as possible?

is that what your saying here? How many is enough, has it so far slowed things down any? Will it?

[pelsar]

70. do i really need to clarify?

i am 100% for defending israel using reasonable means....that means if a bulldozer/truck approaches an israeli border crossing that is a no go area for those trucks and they do not heed basic warning shots or they approach at suspicious hours while going fast (like under heavy fog at dawn), they should be blown up.

people launching, preparing to launch, or manufacturing kassams, given no other reasonable alternative should be killed on the spot if possible.

_____

perhaps you disagree...but then you dont live on the border of israel and gaza......like most people who have trouble with israel using force to protect its citizens

[subsuelo]

75. Both sides are "defending themselves" (or so they claim)

That's the problem. Little more than excuses to murder people.

[pelsar]

79. so hard to answer a simple question...

why is that?

[Dick Dastardly]

84. So Israel shouldn't try to stop and defend against missile attacks targeting its civilians because

to do so is only an excuse for murder and not legitimate?

So Israel defending itself from rockets and suicide bombers against its citizens, by targeting the terrorists which sometimes results in the unintentional death of Palestinian civilians that the terrorists use as human shields, is murder. It is morally no different than the terrorists launching rocket and suicide bombings intentionally at Israeli civilian targets?

So Israel has no right to defend its citizens from being targeted with rockets and suicide bombings by targeting terrorists especially if it results in unintentional Palestinian civilian deaths?

[LeftishBrit]

48. I strongly agree...

though I would change the last sentence to:


'If and when *both sides* ever decide that peace with *each other* is a greater goal than murdering them, their lives will improve.'

[number6]

87. I understand it

"I do not empathize with the Palestinian plight"

no BTA you do not

"I'm not sure I fully understand your answer."

"How would you describe the plight of the Palestinians if you were asked to explain it to a classroom full of sixth graders who were trying to understand what life is like for them?"

if you do not empathize, how would one describe the plight of the Palestinians ....

[Dick Dastardly]

41. This may interest you

Pallywood


Here is the vid on youtube
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_B1H-1opys


Pallywood
The material we show here constitutes a tiny fragment of a much larger phenomenon, raw footage from Palestinian photographers working for major western media outlets. From this material, our news agencies prepare news reports that shape our perceptions of what is happening in the Middle East Conflict.

We think that a close analysis of this material defies all expectations of what such footage should resemble, and suggest that Palestinian photographers do not at all share the same production and journalistic values espoused by a free press. We leave the experience and the judgment to you:

HERE’S THE EVIDENCE; YOU DECIDE
What we present you here is raw material, and we invite you to help us analyze it.
We provide you with site maps, and we have broken the material down into manageable and coherent segments, by the position of the cameraman. What you see here are the “rushes” taken by a Palestinian cameraman working with the equipment of, and for, a major western media outlet. This represents the second day of “rioting” in the territories, since Sharon’s visit to the Temple Mount. During that day, according to witnesses on both sides, the Israelis never left their compound (see map). At the end of the day, firing broke out, and the Palestinians claimed five dead and many wounded. In the Western press, this day appears as the beginning of the “Second Intifada,” the day both the West Bank and Gaza exploded in rage and violence against Israel.

The material is not easy to interpret. We therefore offer you three approaches:

1) CSI (Crime Scene Investigation): For those who want to take the time to examine the evidence themselves, and come to their own conclusions.

2) Edited: For those who want to see the original material, but have it edited to bring the most relevant footage together.

3) Packaged: For those who want a quick introduction to the material that we have put together.
In all cases, people who have the ability to go back and see the original material we have taken our excerpts from. Then they are welcome to join the larger discussion of what this tells us about our media right now.

In any case, these rushes demand from us a CSI approach, the kind of approach a historian, or a forensic expert might employ. For those looking at the raw material, we recommend that you view it a number of times, with certain issues in mind:

- Where is the Israeli position?

- What role does its presence play in the behavior of the Palestinians?

- What of the bystanders?

- What characterizes their behavior both towards the wounded and towards the apparent source of the wounds (i.e., the Israelis)?
Then go back and look at the action figures, the wounded, those who evacuate, the ambulance drivers, the cameramen:

- What are they doing?

- What relationships do they have?

- Why are the evacuations so rough and hurried? Why do they run the wounded before putting them on a stretcher?

- What further damage would they do to a youth with a wound worthy of an ambulance evacuation?

- What do the bystanders do after the action is over?

- What’s going on here?

We invite your comment on all aspects of the dossier, from the details of in what sequence the segments were taken (how to judge the time of day), to who the key players are, and we provide forums for these discussions.

But the dossier suggests far more than what it specifically shows us about September 30, and raises larger questions to which we invite all of you, no matter how you’ve entered into the subject matter, to comment upon:

- How long has this been going on?

- What percent of the vast body of Palestinian camerawork for foreign media reflects the production values we see at work here?

- To what extent do western journalists, in producing their reports, show any sign of awareness that they are working with such material?

- How much of our news is shaped by such material and the oversight it suggests?

- Is this still happening?

- What are the consequences for the public and global culture of this oversight?
We feel that the material you are about to see bears witness to a failure of our MSM culture comparable to that of the Emperor and his court when he paraded naked in front of his public. Moreover, that error is kept from us only by our media’s refusal to let the public see their sources. Only the chance circumstances that brought this material to a few people’s attention, and the existence of an open internet where we can post the material, makes it possible for the public to consider this costly media embarrassment. The consequences have been and continue to be detrimental to all involved – Palestinians, Israelis, all the people around the world who wish to see peace come to this troubled area and wish for the great encounter between the people’s of the world that now takes place to happen in peace and mutual respect.

other vids, info and supporting documentation
http://www.seconddraft.org/cur_invest.php