7 killed, 60 injured in Jerusalem suicide attack

[Scurrilous]

http://news.haaretz.co.il/hasen/spages/396964.html

<snip>

"At least Seven people were killed and sixty people were wounded Sunday morning, 11 of them seriously, in a suicide bombing on bus No. 14 in Jerusalem.

There was no immediate claim of responsibility for the attack, which came just a day before the world court is to begin hearings on the West Bank separation fence Israel says is crucial for keeping out bombers.

The blast took place at around 8:30 A.M. in the Jerusalem neighborhood of Rehavia, near Liberty Bell Park."

<snip>

"Jerusalem District police commander Superintendent Mickey Levy told Army Radio that the blast took place on bus No. 14, which was crowded and was travelling toward the neighborhood of Beit Hakerem."

[MikeGalos]

1. Update: looks like Al Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades committed this mass murder

Hezbollah television station Al-Manar reported Sunday that Mohammed Za'el, from the Bethlehem area, executed the suicide bombing on behalf of the Al Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades.

For those who don't keep track, Al Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades is a branch of Yasser Arafat's own Fatah terrorist group.

[Must Win 2004]

2. Now prepare to get even angrier.The target was school children.

In the adjacent Highschool of the Arts, all students were gathered in their classrooms to make sure all arrived safely at school. “There is a great deal of panic in the school because the explosion occurred exactly when students arrive. Many of them arrived in a state of shock and hysteria,” said schoolteacher Kobi Eyloz.


(email from friend in Israel)

[Muddleoftheroad]

3. They should have taken care of Arafat long ago

They still should.

[ex_jew]

4. Is Arafat the only one with a grievance against the Israelis ?

If you settle in Indian territory, you're going to get attacked. There's no magic solution, like killing Chief Bigfoot.

[ProudLefty]

6. Interesting attempt at an

analogy.

The Native Americans called - they want their country back.

[ex_jew]

9. It's not an analogy.

It's the very same process of disposession going on in our time.

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ex_jew]

15. How is that a person with only 8 posts knows how to make use of

the ultimate Sagelian put-down ? But seriously, why don't you tell me why the American Indian experience is NOT a good model for what we see in Palestine today ?

[brainshrub]

23. I second that!

[Muddleoftheroad]

7. And if you settle where your people have lived in for thousands of years?

You attempt to rationalize the monstroust activities of terrorists.

[ex_jew]

8. You may feel that historical ties give you the right to live there

but the problem is not YOUR feelings. It's the feelings of the other people, the ones who lived there continuously for quite a long time. Until you can convince them that they've somehow made a mistake, there's going to be conflict. And there's no way that killing Arafat, for instance, is going to convince Palestinians that the land really does belong to you (in spite of the fact that within living memory Israel did not exist). Sadly, force does not have this effect.

[Muddleoftheroad]

10. There's going to be a conflict no matter what Israel does

The best thing they can do is limit their contact with the Palestinians until the Palestinians accept the reality of the situation.

[ex_jew]

14. "Limiting contact" would not call for a sprawling network of

settlements in occupied (or if you like, disputed) territory. It would dictate withdrawal to a minimum defensible area - such as perhaps the pre-'67 border.

The problem I see is that Israel attempted a North American-style colonization of a continent where there WAS no continent. There's not enough land to serve as a buffer area between the regions which have been "civilized" and the Indian territory, with the result that nothing ever really gets secured. To really secure the base, you would need to create a no-man's land perhaps 10 miles wide, with NO ONE (not settlers, zealots, or even the IDF) allowed inside. Allowing settlers into this zone makes it useless.

Another problem is that the old-fashioned enthusiasm for ruthless treatment of the aborigines is simply on the wane. What may have been a reasonable policy 150 years ago is attractive to only a few.

[ProudLefty]

16. It's attractive to the true progressive

who knows her or his history, ex-Jew.

Sorry still-Jews won't help you out by hopping into the ovens again.

[ex_jew]

18. So the alternative is either driving people from the land by vile methods

or "hopping in the ovens" ? I'd rather not do either, nor do I plan to.

[Muddleoftheroad]

19. Not at all

No matter how far back Israel pulls, the terrorists will attack them. The way to limit it is the Peace Fence and to cut off all transit into Israel for Palestinians under ALL circumstances.

The rest of your post seems to wish to complain about history. History has occurred, we must all contend with it.

[ex_jew]

20. "complaining about history"

would be silly indeed. I'm more interested in using a similar situation in the past to understand the present. Some of the factors that made America a success (from the U.S. perspective at least) are missing in Israel:

a large land mass, across which natives could be transferred to remote locations

growing population of settlers, attracted from around the world by natural resources and better economic opportunity than they had at home

ability to carry out massacres without publicity - no cameras, no independent reporters, no travel by air

Without these things, you're talking about basically creating an outpost in permanently hostile territory. The wall may be of use, but I'd say walls are more important historically as a deterrent to invasion, not infiltration by individuals. The wall is too narrow to register psychologically in the same way a river or mountain range can. As you yourself have stresed, it is only temporary and subject to negotiation. This makes it less useful as a way of changing perceptions.

[Muddleoftheroad]

21. Israel is an outpost in permanently hostile territory

There is nothing they can do to change that other than surrender.

I think you mischaracterize the American experience a bit. It is inevitable when two such different cultures meet that they would clash. The Native Americans, lacking the firepower or industrial capacity, never had a chance.

[ex_jew]

22. Sounds like we're pretty much in agreement !

Nice talking with you. And my condolences on the latest attack, in case you're an Israeli.

[JohnLocke]

27. He's not.

[Muddleoftheroad]

28. Thanks

I missed that one.

[Fight_n_back]

29. Your Native American analogy is backward

"Arabs" come from "Arabia".

"Jews" come from "Judea".

There have always been Jews in Israel and the population figures are impossible to quote factually. What is absolutely know is that the north of what is now Israel has been traditionally Jewish and that Jerusalem has ALWAYS had a majority Jewish population. Arabs moved in and stole land, which is what happens in the world so its not a big deal, just what has always happened. The British Mandate was set up the way it was because that is where the ethncis were and always had been, settled.

You, of course, hold enmity against Jordan for invading the West Bank in 1948, right? They illegally occupied it until 1967. The Jordanian treatment of Palestinian Arabs is what led to the PLO's coup attempt against the King of Jordan. You remeber Black September right? More Palestinian Arabs were killed in one month than have been killed by Israel in the entire time of the occupation. That prompted the Black Septemeber group to take revenge against...wait for it...Jews in the Munich Olympics.

So your analogy is both diametrically oppossed to what happened but also pedestrian.

But I guess if the Oregon, Washington, Idaho, California, Wyoming, Montana and Nevada decide to attack the Yakima nation then its just them Injuns gettin' whats comin' to them.

Are you aware that you actually said the murder of civilians is completely justified? Explain that analogy away.

BTW, you may think you are an "ex Jew" but in Germany in 1936 you would still be getting on a train.

[tinnypriv]

30. "ALWAYS"

Okay, name a date.

(Sometime after paper came into common usage, so I can check it)

[Fight_n_back]

32. I have no idea what you are talking about

name a date...

Sharon...she was a Creole model I went out with one time. She was extremely attractive but we just didn't hit it off.

Somehow I don't think that answers your question so could you be less vague?

[tinnypriv]

34. Gosh, I apologise

I never realised that every time somebody said you loved Sharon it was probably tearing you up inside!

Moving on, you have one word in capital letters in your post, and one fact directly follows it. I questioned the fact, and identified the word by typing it in capital letters and placing it in quotation marks.

I assumed that would be enough "specificity" (United Nations alert!), but I guess I was wrong....

[Fight_n_back]

35. If you question the fact

then prove it wrong.

Implying I love Ariel Sharon is slanderous.

[tinnypriv]

36. I wasn't implying

I was offering sympathy for when anybody else said it.

Nobody sane could love him. I think you're sane.

See, solidarity and a compliment in one post!

Giz a hug.

[ProudLefty]

11. Hello

The people who have lived their continuously are the Israelis.

You want to know about Arabs living in that area? Look up Britain.

It's too bad other Arabs don't care, but it certainly isn't Israel's problem that they don't.

Why is it sad that force doesn't have the effect you want it to have? Seems disengenuous to say the least.

Why so interested in I/P when the same thing is happening in India/Pakistan over Kashmir, ex-Jew?

[ex_jew]

17. Why so interested in I/P (rather than Kashmir) ?

because I'm neither an ex-Indian nor an ex-Pakistani. Nobody told me that as a Jew I needed to choose sides in that fight. Only in the case of Israel was I told that adherence to my religion involved cheering on the activities of a particular state. No one told me that the religion I was brought up with had somehow become irrelevant given the conflict in Kashmir, and that to make it relevant, it needed a "homeland", an army, prison camps, occupations, advanced weapons systems, a propaganda network, suppression of free speech around the world, political ties to groups I disapprove of, and most of all, blindness to the suffering of other peoples.

I feel like MY heritage as a liberal Reform Jew, is under attack in the present situation, and that's why I'm interested. Perhaps if I knew more, I would feel that way about Kashmir, but I doubt it.

[Violet_Crumble]

40. That's an interesting take...

The people who have lived their continuously are the Israelis.

And the Palestinians haven't? A sizeable number of Israelis, especially in the early part of the 20th century had NOT lived in the area continuously and were in fact immigrants from Europe. Saying that they'd lived there continuously is as ridiculous as trying to claim that if I moved over to England or Ireland I'd have been living there continously because after all that's where my ancestors came from...

Violet...

[Cassandra]

26. Well then, I guess Native Americans...

need to take our feelings into account since we've now lived here continuously for quite a long time.
You're going to keep twisting yourself up in knots on this issue until you get that all established countries have pushed out others who did not fit in, either when established or later. I have no problem with your being upset about it; just don't act as if this is exclusive to Israel or the US.

[Djinn]

38. "your people have lived"

having had ancestors living somewhere once thousands of years ago does NOT mean that you as a descendant automatically get to live there.

An interesting comparison is that of the lot of the Romany - also an ancient civilisation, also scattered from their original lands, also persecuted in Europe and elsewhere and also put to death in their thousands by Hitler....which country shall be re-drawn to give the Romany a home? many people beleive they originated in India - so, can we carve off part of India for the Romany? and move all the indigenous Hindu and Sikh populations out?

Also the majority of jews living in the area pre-1948 were OPPPOSED to the creation of Israel

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[_Jumper_]

37. Ditto and they should have taken care of Yassin too

These two scumbags love telling young men to die. Hopefully they become "martyrs" soon and get their 73 virgin sex slaves.

[ProudLefty]

5. Deaths are up to 8 and

will go higher.

[number6]

24. I condemn this attack !

..

[Comadreja]

25. US Allies

With unfailing consistnecy, U.S. intervention has been on the side of the rich and powerful of various nations at the expense of the poor and needy. Rather than strengthening democracies, U.S. leaders have overthrown numerous democratically elected governmentts, or other populist regimes in dozens of countries...whenever these nations give evidence of putting the interests of their people ahead of the interests of multinational corporate interests." --Michael Parenti, Political Scientist

[Muddleoftheroad]

31. Completely bogus in this setting

Yeah, those Jews who fled to Israel right after the Holocaust were rich and powerful. What deliberate tripe.

[Djinn]

39. I think it's a comparison Muddle

they were europeans so they WERE more powerful than the muslim people living in the area at the time who weren't really considered as people (for some folks not much has changed) - if they were do you think they might have been consulted about the creation of Israel?

[Muddleoftheroad]

41. I can compare apples to moon rocks

It's also a comparison and equally false.

You need to read some more pre-1948 history to see just how bad off the Jews were both in what is now Israel and in Europe. Most had lost everything and, thanks to great nations like the Swiss, they never got it back.

[Djinn]

42. Don't tell me to read history muddle

I'd be happy betting I know more about it than you - although when anyone else brings it up you tell them that arguing history is pointless. I would like to know how much YOU know about the Romany though - the post above suggest sweet f all.

On edit: not sure which post you think demostrates that I need a history lesson - I thought it was the Romany one but you seem to actually be contradicting that the "power" of the arabs living in what is now Israel was less than that of European jews? the European jews had a country designated for them, the arabs had it stolen from them because, presumably like indigenous australians, because they were viewed as non people.

[Fight_n_back]

33. How does this purple rhetoric

explain WWII ?

Or Bosnia?

Or even Sudan?

and what is your point? It seems off topic. Do you have the stones to explain yourself?

[Comadreja]

43. If the shoe fits

Parenti's statement points out a US pattern of enabling dictators, oiligarchs and oligarchs the world over to remain in power for their own selfish, corporate reasons. In the case of Palestine, it is very clear who the oppressors and oppressed are. I believe that the oppression of the Palestinians gives US arms and police industry a demented laboratory to test equipment and methods of crushing resistance. The US has steadfastly refused to let the UN take over this festering abscess of a problem, because denying justice and crushing the resulting outrage is what US foreign policy is all about. Justice, administered by the UN, is the only balsaam in Gilead that will begin the healing. As the bombings so vividly illustrate, denying justice will just spread and deepen the infection until the entire body succombs to gangrene. This may include us, since we have chained ourselves so inextricably to the diseased, festering body.

[Fight_n_back]

44. Evidently

you haven't looked at any history of the area before about 1992.

But, ya know,piercings and tats can take up so much time.

The quote is neither accurate or cogent for this context as well as being off topic.

and you failed to answer my question.

[Forkboy]

45. Just "pranks and mischief"