Nobody's baby- 4.9 million Palestinian homeless refugees.
-
the thing about the whole situation is that no one is right.. and everyone is wrong...
the bottom line is that the civilians are all suffering...
what i don't get is why Hamas and whatever the hell they want to call themselves insist on firing rockets into Israeli suburbs? to force the kneejerk action of the IDF?
parading the dead around to rouse more hatred is no way to 'build a nation'
or do they really want to build a nation after all?
arafat, burning in hell right now, has a lot to answer for...
that being said, the israelis with their 'overwhelming force' reactions are not helping either..
pointing fingers is not the way to move forward.. so, what do you think is the answer? because in the past, the israelis tried peace and all it got was arafat starting an intifadah... he was documented telling the world one thing and telling the palestinians another just to incite more hatred...
mayhap they should ask why his family continues to live in luxurious safety while the rest of the palestinians dream about their own gory death in the murder of israeli citizens?
i guess the palestinians have no clue what to do.. while Hamas and the PLO were in the midst of their bloody gun battles, showing the world what kind of degenerates are running the place, the only thing they knew to do was to make the fight even bigger by firing rockets into israel.. and getting helicopter gunships to go shoot missiles at their own people in order to have a common enemy to hate instead of hating one another...
look at them.. leave them alone and they start fighting each other..
i guess my long and short of this rambling rant is this: israelis are reactive.. while the palestinians seem to go out of their way to provoke violence..
as long as these lea-duhs of the palestinians insist on fighting, instead of improving the lot of their own people, the palestinians will end up with the short end of the stick...
frankly, much has been said about the brutality of the israelis... however, i put it to people who look in.. when an organisation's manifesto consists of 'the destruction' of your country and is aggressive, what do you do? the manifesto of the PLO, the Hamas and all these armed lot include 'the destruction of israel'
it is a wonder to me that the israelis keep trying to negotiate with people like that...
would you? -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rXq57XK2L0A&mode=related&search=
Palestinians kids as human shield news clip interview with Israeli human rights group director. -
Â…Â….and this is the thanks the Israeli doctor gets for treating a young Palestinian woman.
Fortunately, the bomb was detonated safely.
There it goes again.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_r0H_gos5I&mode=related&search=[url] -
Unless Israel is prepared to allow Palestinian refugees to return to their own homes in Israel...homes now occupied by Jewish families, there can be no peace. The 4 million Palestinian refugees have the right to return to their homes or given equitable compensation, as dictated by the UN.
Why does Hamas fire rockets at Israel? Because they haven't got the tanks and bombers Israel has. If Hamas does not fire rockets at Israel, would the world even remember the 4 million refugees all over the Middle East?
Why does Hamas target civilians? Because they don't have the technology for targeted killings that Israel possesses.
Why start an itifada when Israel wants peace? Because there is no peace possible when your enemies live in your homes, eat from your fields and live in your land. If Israel desires peace, she must accept a two-state solution, withdraw to its pre-1948 borders, allow Palestinian refugees to return and leave the administration of Jerusalem to an international body administered by the UN. -
Arent IDF soldiers in uniforms supposed to obey to the rules of engagement. That is the responsibilty that comes with the recognition of a uniform.Originally posted by googoomuck:Â…Â….and this is the thanks the Israeli doctor gets for treating a young Palestinian woman.
Fortunately, the bomb was detonated safely.
There it goes again.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_r0H_gos5I&mode=related&search=[url] -
didn't Ehud Barak try that already?
instead of celebrating their advancement of their cause, Arafat started the Intifadah
Originally posted by oxford mushroom:Unless Israel is prepared to allow Palestinian refugees to return to their own homes in Israel...homes now occupied by Jewish families, there can be no peace. The 4 million Palestinian refugees have the right to return to their homes or given equitable compensation, as dictated by the UN.
Why does Hamas fire rockets at Israel? Because they haven't got the tanks and bombers Israel has. If Hamas does not fire rockets at Israel, would the world even remember the 4 million refugees all over the Middle East?
Why does Hamas target civilians? Because they don't have the technology for targeted killings that Israel possesses.
Why start an itifada when Israel wants peace? Because there is no peace possible when your enemies live in your homes, eat from your fields and live in your land. If Israel desires peace, she must accept a two-state solution, withdraw to its pre-1948 borders, allow Palestinian refugees to return and leave the administration of Jerusalem to an international body administered by the UN. -
Since when did Ehud Barak or any Israeli leader ever agreed to the rights of return of Palestinian refugees? Or the return of East Jerusalem?Originally posted by the Bear:didn't Ehud Barak try that already?
instead of celebrating their advancement of their cause, Arafat started the Intifadah
Any partial solution that does not address the issue of the refugees is doomed to failure. If Arafat had accepted the proposal, Israel will point to the agreement as being a final solution. The palestinians will never return to their homes.
Should anyone be surprised by an intifadah? -
which Palestinian papers did you read that from?
Barak gave away the whole thing, and East Jerusalem as the capital for the Palestinians... and even more to be negotiated.. and Yasser started the 2nd Intifadah because he was given everything he wanted?
go on.. tell someone else who doesn't know what happenedOriginally posted by oxford mushroom:Since when did Ehud Barak or any Israeli leader ever agreed to the rights of return of Palestinian refugees? Or the return of East Jerusalem?
Any partial solution that does not address the issue of the refugees is doomed to failure. If Arafat had accepted the proposal, Israel will point to the agreement as being a final solution. The palestinians will never return to their homes.
Should anyone be surprised by an intifadah? -
Which Palestinian paper? It's the BBC, for God's sake:Originally posted by the Bear:which Palestinian papers did you read that from?
Barak gave away the whole thing, and East Jerusalem as the capital for the Palestinians... and even more to be negotiated.. and Yasser started the 2nd Intifadah because he was given everything he wanted?
go on.. tell someone else who doesn't know what happened
"The central failure at the summit was the inability of the parties to come up with a formula to reconcile their competing claims to Jerusalem.
Israel offered: Ehud Barak, and the US bridging proposal, are believed to have offered Palestinian municipal control of some far-flung areas of East Jerusalem, and access by underground tunnel to the Al-Aqsa mosque, the third holiest site in Islam
Palestinians demanded: Yasser Arafat was adamant that Israel must give up East Jerusalem including the Old City, except for Jewish holy sites
UN resolutions call for the return of East Jerusalem and all of the Old City to Palestinian control and sovereignty"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/852834.stm
What Ehud Barak had offered was a means to permanently seal off East Jerusalem by giving the palestinians some remote districts of their own land. Israel has never agreed to obey the UN resolutions calling for their withdrawal from East Jerusalem and the Old City, not to mention about the refugees' right of return.
The bear must have been hibernating over the past 40 years or else he's intent on misleading the masses with zionist propaganda
-
Why didÂ’nt the Arabs accept the proposal of a two state solution in 1947?
Between 1947 and 1972, more than 600,000 Jews were forced to flee their Arab homelands. The Arab governments had confiscated their land and other possessions. This fact is seldom mentioned.
Why did the Palestinian Arabs flee during the 1948 Israeli war of independence? The Arab States encouraged the Palestinian Arabs to leave their homes temporarily in order to be out of the way of the Arab invasion armies, with the promise of return after the Jews were driven out. The Arabs lost the war. Those that stayed behind remained Israeli citizens. Those that left could not return.
The Palestinian ArabsÂ’ ties to the land are tenuous. It was the Jews that turned the desert land into an oasis.
The Arab nations fought the six day war and Yom Kippur war not for the sake of the Palestinian Arabs. They have the money and land to absorb the refugees.. Instead, they blew billions of dollars away to go to war with Israel.
After the 1948 war, there were about 650,000 Pelastinian Arab refugees.
The refugee numbers have swelled to 4.6M today.
If Israel accepts all the refugees for peace, she face a problem.
Given the Arabs' significantly higher birth rate, the Jews would soon be a minority in their own country.
Israel would not agree to peace that tantamounts to signing her own death warrant.
The refugees should be resettled in a future Palestinian state, not in a way that would undermine the existence of the State of Israel as a predominantly Jewish state.
The Palestinian Arabs should work hard towards the possibility of an emergence of a new Palestinian state. -
haha...You should ask if the Arab states ever agreed to the establishment of a new state of Israel within land occupied by Palestinians. The UN partition plan in 1948 was pushed through despite the objections of the local palestinians who were already living there. Why should they accept the decision of foreigners to unilaterally carve out a piece of territory for Israel?
Now get back to the topic. If Israel wants a lasting peace, it must come to an agreement with the palestinians for a two-state solution. That solution can never come about without the palestinians' right to return, the withdrawal of Israel to its 1948 borders and the question of Jerusalem. Whilst Israel continues to ignore UN Resolution 194 for more than 50 years, why should the palestinians or anyone else in the world bother with UN resolutions?
There is peace between Israel and Egypt only with the return of Sinai. Similarly, if Israel wants peace in the region, she will have to return Golan heights to the Syrians and the West Bank to the Palestinians.
4 million palestinians have been driven from their homes by the fighting and then they aren't allowed to reclaim their property. It's probably one of the worst example of ethnic cleansing in recent history.
This tragedy will not end. Israel will not be able to kill off every single Palestinian and neither will the Palestinians be able to destroy Israel. Both will continue to suffer in a perpetual war of attrition. It may come down to which side has more bullets or suicide bombers.... -
Muslims today claim Jerusalem as the third holiest site in Islam but when the city was under Islamic rule, they had little interest in it. How often is Jerusalem mentioned in the Quran? None. The Jews made Jerusalem famous because itÂ’s their holy city. There were many Jewish artifacts dug up around the city as evidence. The Dome that was built above the ground cannot be used as a claim.
When Mark Twain visited the Holy Land in the 19th century, he was greatly disappointed. He didn't see any people. He referred to it as a vast wasteland. The land we now know as Israel was practically deserted..
As the Jews came, drained the swamps and made the deserts bloom, something interesting began to happen. Arabs followed. I don't blame them. They had good reason to come. They came for jobs. They came for prosperity. And they came in large numbers.
When the lands had title deeds, the Jews bought them at inflated prices. When there were not, they worked the land so they could have a place to live without the persecution they faced throughout the world.
Winston Churchill observed in 1939: "So far from being persecuted, the Arabs have crowded into the country and multiplied till their population has increased more than even all world Jewry could lift up the Jewish population."
The fact is, in 1948, the Arab States, including Jordan, refused to accept the UN action creating the State of Israel; they gambled on WAR with the new State; they lost the gamble. Anyone knows, that if you don't want to lose, you don't gamble.
The Un resolution 194 is not about their right of return . You cannot find the words ‘Arab’ or ‘Israel’ there. If the issue is about the right of return, the Palestinian Arabs should return to their respective Arab states where they came from. The Arab states did not want them. They became pawns used by the Arab power brokers. The Arabs did not want to live in peace with Israel. They insisted then that Israel has no right to exist.
In fact, Israel resettled the Jewish refugees displaced by the Arab/Muslim states(Turkey, Iran are not Arab States) at that time. They came under the protection of Israel from persecution.
It should have been about Resolution 181. If the ArABS cannot agree about two states for two peoples, then there is no point in discussing where to settle Palestinian or Jewish refugees. -
double post
-
Originally posted by googoomuck:
Just because we haven't built a condo on Pedra Branca does not mean we relinquish sovereignty over it. You reveal the contradiction in your own argument. You said the Muslims weren't interested in Jerusalem when they had control over it but insisted that we close our eyes to the imposing mosque, the Dome of the Rock. How hypocritical can you get?
Muslims today claim Jerusalem as the third holiest site in Islam but when the city was under Islamic rule, they had little interest in it. How often is Jerusalem mentioned in the Quran? None. The Jews made Jerusalem famous because itÂ’s their holy city. There were many Jewish artifacts dug up around the city as evidence. The Dome that was built above the ground cannot be used as a claim.
When Mark Twain visited the Holy Land in the 19th century, he was greatly disappointed. He didn't see any people. He referred to it as a vast wasteland. The land we now know as Israel was practically deserted..
[b]As the Jews came, drained the swamps and made the deserts bloom, something interesting began to happen. Arabs followed. I don't blame them. They had good reason to come. They came for jobs. They came for prosperity. And they came in large numbers.
When the lands had title deeds, the Jews bought them at inflated prices. When there were not, they worked the land so they could have a place to live without the persecution they faced throughout the world.
Winston Churchill observed in 1939: "So far from being persecuted, the Arabs have crowded into the country and multiplied till their population has increased more than even all world Jewry could lift up the Jewish population."
The fact is, in 1948, the Arab States, including Jordan, refused to accept the UN action creating the State of Israel; they gambled on WAR with the new State; they lost the gamble. Anyone knows, that if you don't want to lose, you don't gamble.
The Un resolution 194 is not about their right of return . You cannot find the words ‘Arab’ or ‘Israel’ there. If the issue is about the right of return, the Palestinian Arabs should return to their respective Arab states where they came from. The Arab states did not want them. They became pawns used by the Arab power brokers. The Arabs did not want to live in peace with Israel. They insisted then that Israel has no right to exist.
In fact, Israel resettled the Jewish refugees displaced by the Arab/Muslim states(Turkey, Iran are not Arab States) at that time. They came under the protection of Israel from persecution.
It should have been about Resolution 181. If the ArABS cannot agree about two states for two peoples, then there is no point in discussing where to settle Palestinian or Jewish refugees.
[/b]
So Israel can take the Palestinians' land because they are better at making use of it? By your reckoning, I will have a right to your business if I can make it more successful, I have a right to your house if I can develop it and increase its value; and I suppose I have a right to your wife too if I can make her pregnant more often
The home of the palestinians is in Galilee, in Gaza, in Tel-Aviv, in Jerusalem....and the UN resolutions confirm that they have the right to return to their homes. On the other hand, the Jews only came to this land during the British Mandate. Go read your history books. And by the way, even Abraham, the father of Israel if you believe the biblical account, was a foreigner. He came from Ur, in present day Iraq. He even had to buy land from a Hittite to bury his wife, for heaven's sake. If you want to send everyone home, perhaps the jewish nation of Israel should have been created in Iraq instead. -
[quote]Originally posted by oxford mushroom:
Just because we haven't built a condo on Pedra Branca does not mean we relinquish sovereignty over it. You reveal the contradiction in your own argument. You said the Muslims weren't interested in Jerusalem when they had control over it but insisted that we close our eyes to the imposing mosque, the Dome of the Rock. How hypocritical can you get?
ThereÂ’s no contradiction. There is a total ignorance of history and archeology. Al Aqsa Mosque was built at the site of the former Jewish temples. The temples were built more than 3000 years ago. The dome was built in about 690AD. ThereÂ’s a gap of 1700 years in between..
ThereÂ’s document to proof the sovereignty over Pedra Branca. DonÂ’t need to erect a shrine. The lighthouse is good enough.
So Israel can take the Palestinians' land because they are better at making use of it? By your reckoning, I will have a right to your business if I can make it more successful, I have a right to your house if I can develop it and increase its value; and I suppose I have a right to your wife too if I can make her pregnant more often
Perhaps you are on Arabs payroll to frustrate infidels like me when we post untowards comments about the Arabs.
I like the idea of temporary marriage. You take her, I divorce her and get another one...with a contract of between one hour and 99 years.
The religion of peace is a comprehensive and complete religion and has a solution for every problem. It's wonderful.
The home of the palestinians is in Galilee, in Gaza, in Tel-Aviv, in Jerusalem....and the UN resolutions confirm that they have the right to return to their homes. On the other hand, the Jews only came to this land during the British Mandate. Go read your history books. And by the way, even Abraham, the father of Israel if you believe the biblical account, was a foreigner. He came from Ur, in present day Iraq. He even had to buy land from a Hittite to bury his wife, for heaven's sake. If you want to send everyone home, perhaps the jewish nation of Israel should have been created in Iraq instead.
The question of Palestine as a Jewish homeland goes back to the solemn promise that had been made to them [the Jews] by the British in the Balfour Declaration of 1917 - a promise which had stirred the hopes and the dreams of these oppressed people. This promise, I felt, should be kept, just as all promises made by responsible, civilized governments should be kept – Harry S Truman
Talk about the biblical account, the holy land of Israel was a gift from God in exchange for AbrahamÂ’s recognition of God as the only Supreme Universal Lord. ThatÂ’s where it ends.
So it did not matter where Abraham came from. The Hindu bible even linked his ancstry all the way back to India!
Remember ! The religion of peace is a comprehensive and complete religion and has a solution for every problem.
If they canÂ’t take a country by force, theyÂ’ll take their time and take it through marriage. The people who submit to the world of God doesnÂ’t want the U.S., or even Israel. They want the world.
Read the article about the 3rd largest city of Sweden, Malmo. Police are no longer in control of the city.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1222484/posts?page=118
and watch this clipÂ…filmed in London, UK.
http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/187002.php
The British lost their empire for not keeping the promise made to the Jews.
The British might not be in control of their country in future unlessÂ…Â….you embrace the Arabs ! Â…Â…Â…Adios! -
Salaam,Originally posted by the Bear:the thing about the whole situation is that no one is right.. and everyone is wrong...
the bottom line is that the civilians are all suffering...
what i don't get is why Hamas and whatever the hell they want to call themselves insist on firing rockets into Israeli suburbs? to force the kneejerk action of the IDF?
parading the dead around to rouse more hatred is no way to 'build a nation'
or do they really want to build a nation after all?
arafat, burning in hell right now, has a lot to answer for...
that being said, the israelis with their 'overwhelming force' reactions are not helping either..
pointing fingers is not the way to move forward.. so, what do you think is the answer? because in the past, the israelis tried peace and all it got was arafat starting an intifadah... he was documented telling the world one thing and telling the palestinians another just to incite more hatred...
mayhap they should ask why his family continues to live in luxurious safety while the rest of the palestinians dream about their own gory death in the murder of israeli citizens?
i guess the palestinians have no clue what to do.. while Hamas and the PLO were in the midst of their bloody gun battles, showing the world what kind of degenerates are running the place, the only thing they knew to do was to make the fight even bigger by firing rockets into israel.. and getting helicopter gunships to go shoot missiles at their own people in order to have a common enemy to hate instead of hating one another...
look at them.. leave them alone and they start fighting each other..
i guess my long and short of this rambling rant is this: israelis are reactive.. while the palestinians seem to go out of their way to provoke violence..
as long as these lea-duhs of the palestinians insist on fighting, instead of improving the lot of their own people, the palestinians will end up with the short end of the stick...
frankly, much has been said about the brutality of the israelis... however, i put it to people who look in.. when an organisation's manifesto consists of 'the destruction' of your country and is aggressive, what do you do? the manifesto of the PLO, the Hamas and all these armed lot include 'the destruction of israel'
it is a wonder to me that the israelis keep trying to negotiate with people like that...
would you?
I agree both sides are wrong,both sides want's the lands.
When you ask why Hamas ttacks Isreal is simple,we dont read the atrocities that is happeing daily done by Isrealis unto Palestinians.
we jsut read the "knee jerk reaction" of Hamas and Palestinians.
We do not read the itnernational news of rape,murder oppression and so on.
Even we in Asia fought back againnst the Japan occupation.
Chinese were tortured burtally and should the Chinese just keep silent and take the abuse?
No,we fight for our rights.
And that is what the Palestinian are doing,theya re fighting for their right of return.
But the Jews claim the same.
Isreal is the only nation where you become a citizen by being a JEW.
Jews want the right of reutrn to their acnestral lands,
But when you search history,Isreal is not their ancestral land but rahter their "promised" land according to their Holy Books.
So thus religion muddy the water.
And,the western world hyprocrisy is also casuing much strife.
they look aways at the abomination doen by sirealis but condemn the strikes by Palestinina.
When you do not have justice you cant have peace.
for me i beleive that for peace to come,both sides who kill and maim should be punished and dealt according to the law not according to race or religion.
But again,the hyprocrisy is simple..
take for exaple,after losing the war with Hezbollah,Isreal dropped 1 million cluster bombs.
Where is the condemnation,the aid?
Searcha and you will it but a handful.
So the fight continues until justice comes.
justice wihout race import.
Justice without religion connotation. -
Salaam,Originally posted by qpicanto:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rXq57XK2L0A&mode=related&search=
Palestinians kids as human shield news clip interview with Israeli human rights group director.
thanks for the video will take a look at it..
But want to also show you this link..
this is from a Haaretz..
So far to date there has only been acccusation that the Palesitnian are using civillian as a cover up.
B'Tselem: IDF uses Palestinians as human shield
Human rights organization investigation claims that IDF used 6 Palestinians as human shields for 12 hours. IDF examining claim
Efrat Weiss Published: 07.21.06, 00:18 / Israel News
The human rights organization B'Tselem claims that IDF soldiers used six Palestinians, two of them underage, as human shields for twelve hours during IDF operations this week in Beit Hanoun in the northern Gaza strip.
A B'Tselem investigation published Thursday states that during the operation, IDF forces took over two buildings in Beit Hanoun. The residents served as human shields at that time, during which exchanges of fire took place between IDF forces and Palestinian operatives. The organization claims that the soldiers endangered the lives of the Palestinians in the buildings, who were forced to remain where they were, contrary to their wishes.
The investigation further states that, among other things, the soldiers forced a female resident to accompany them during a search of the buildings' apartments, bound the hands of the residents, and put them in a stairwell exposed to gunfire.
B'Tselem drafted a letter to the Military Advocate General, requesting that he open an investigation regarding this matter. The organization demanded that, pursuant to the investigation, the responsible parties be held legally accountable. The letter explained that use of civilians as human shields by military forces, in order to protect the forces from attack, is a violation both of IDF commands and of international humanitarian law.
'IDF warned local population'
The IDF spokesperson's office said: "Claims of improper treatment of Palestinian civilians during IDF operations in Gaza three days ago are under investigation. Even during the hard fighting in the north and south, the IDF is careful to act in accordance to high moral principles and the rules of war. Any claims of a breach of these standards will be investigated."
IDF sources said that "considering the difficult reality of armed terrorists operating from the midst of densely populated areas and residential neighborhoods in Gaza, the IDF, as part of its operation to eliminate terrorist infrastructure in Beit Hanoun, positioned themselves in homes in order to protect the operating forces."
They added that "prior to and during this operation, the forces operated ethically, with an emphasis on professionalism, a high moral standard and prevention of collateral damage. The IDF warned the local population, using pamphlets and other means, to stay away from those areas where terror organizations operate to plan and implement Qassam and other attacks."
But one must this simple question.
Do the IDF trully care if Palestinian are killed?
read this stroy to find out ..
http://www.voicesofpalestine.org/outrageous/13yearoldgirl.htm
Israelis fired on girl 'having identified her as a 10-year-old', military tape shows
By Donald Macintyre in Jerusalem
24 November 2004
Israeli soldiers continued firing at a Palestinian girl killed in Gaza last month well after she had been identified as a frightened child, a military communications tape has revealed.
The tape is likely to be crucial in the prosecution case against the men's company commander, who faces five charges arising from the killing of Iman al-Hams, 13, in the southern border town of Rafah on 6 October.
It shows that troops firing with light weapons and machine guns on a figure moving in a "no entry zone" close to an army outpost near the border with Egypt had swiftly discovered that she was a girl.
In the recorded exchanges someone in the operations room asks: "Are we talking about a girl under the age of 10?" The observation post, housed in a watchtower, replies: "It's a little girl. She's running defensively eastwards, a girl of about 10. She's behind the embankment, scared to death."
Not until four minutes later was it reported that the girl had been hit and had fallen. The observation post reports: "Receive, I think that one of the positions took her out." ... Operations room: "What, she fell?" Observation post: "She's not moving right now."
The tape records the commander as telling his men, after firing at the girl with an automatic weapon and declaring he has "confirmed" the killing: "Anyone who's mobile, moving in the zone, even if it's a three-year-old, needs to be killed."
The tape, broadcast on Israel's Channel Two TV, gives the most graphic account of the killing after which soldiers in the company, part of the Givati Brigade, complained that they had been "besmirched" by the company commander's insistence on "confirming the kill".
The army admitted shortly after the shooting near the Girit outpost that it had been a mistake. The girl was carrying a bag which the army said that the soldiers had thought contained explosives, but which was found to contain schoolbooks. Although the family is at a loss to explain why she had wandered into a dangerous prohibited zone, they say she was on her way to school at the time.
The soldiers said that the commander had fired two shots at the girl from close range as she lay on the ground before withdrawing, turning and "emptying his magazine" by firing some 10 bullets at her body.
This account is broadly confirmed by the terms of the indictment issued this week. Although the family's Israeli lawyer believes - and Palestinian witnesses said last month - that she was wounded but alive when the commander fired his first two shots, he has not been charged with manslaughter, apparently on the grounds that there is no evidence that the two bullets killed the girl.
After the report that she has been hit, the tape records the company commander as saying: "I and another soldier ... are going in a little nearer, forward, to confirm the kill ..." After a pause he adds: "Receive a situation report - we fired and killed her. She was wearing pants, jeans, an undershirt, a shirt. Also, she was wearing a keffiyah on her head. I also confirmed the kill. Over."
The charges include obstruction of justice because of a false explanation - which was accepted by senior commanders until soldiers came forward with their version of events to the newspaper Yedhiot Ahronot - that he came under fire from Palestinian gunmen 300 yards away as he approached the girl and shot at the ground to deter the fire.
Because "confirmation of the killing" is not dealt with under military regulations the commander - who has been named only as Captain R - has been charged with "illegal use of a weapon" and overstepping his authority to the extent of jeopardising human life. He has been remanded in custody.
The al-Hams family's lawyer, Leah Tsemel, said that she was angered by what she said was the relative lightness of the charges. "I believe that the commanders and the soldiers who fired should all have been charged with murder."
The family have declined an army request to exhume the body for a post-mortem examination, because of the pain it would cause relatives.
Has video content
So it begs the qeustion,why would the Plaesitnina use their own people as a defence shield when the Isrealis spare no thought to killing Palestinians?
Also,if Palestinian are trully inhumane,why would Isrelais soldiers use Palestinian as defence shield if they are of no value to Palestiian fighters?
So would you still say that Plaestinian use civillian as defence shieldS?
LOL.. -
One thing to note is that, since they are technically at war amidst the civilian /refugees population, one cannot take thing for granted for both sides in such a scenario, as in the case of the sorry girl who was shot with the school bag of books mistaken for bombs as indicated. What if the bag really contain IED?
-
Originally posted by googoomuck:
Salaam,
[b][quote]Originally posted by oxford mushroom:
Just because we haven't built a condo on Pedra Branca does not mean we relinquish sovereignty over it. You reveal the contradiction in your own argument. You said the Muslims weren't interested in Jerusalem when they had control over it but insisted that we close our eyes to the imposing mosque, the Dome of the Rock. How hypocritical can you get?
ThereÂ’s no contradiction. There is a total ignorance of history and archeology. Al Aqsa Mosque was built at the site of the former Jewish temples. The temples were built more than 3000 years ago. The dome was built in about 690AD. ThereÂ’s a gap of 1700 years in between..
ThereÂ’s document to proof the sovereignty over Pedra Branca. DonÂ’t need to erect a shrine. The lighthouse is good enough.
So Israel can take the Palestinians' land because they are better at making use of it? By your reckoning, I will have a right to your business if I can make it more successful, I have a right to your house if I can develop it and increase its value; and I suppose I have a right to your wife too if I can make her pregnant more often
Perhaps you are on Arabs payroll to frustrate infidels like me when we post untowards comments about the Arabs.
I like the idea of temporary marriage. You take her, I divorce her and get another one...with a contract of between one hour and 99 years.
The religion of peace is a comprehensive and complete religion and has a solution for every problem. It's wonderful.
The home of the palestinians is in Galilee, in Gaza, in Tel-Aviv, in Jerusalem....and the UN resolutions confirm that they have the right to return to their homes. On the other hand, the Jews only came to this land during the British Mandate. Go read your history books. And by the way, even Abraham, the father of Israel if you believe the biblical account, was a foreigner. He came from Ur, in present day Iraq. He even had to buy land from a Hittite to bury his wife, for heaven's sake. If you want to send everyone home, perhaps the jewish nation of Israel should have been created in Iraq instead.
The question of Palestine as a Jewish homeland goes back to the solemn promise that had been made to them [the Jews] by the British in the Balfour Declaration of 1917 - a promise which had stirred the hopes and the dreams of these oppressed people. This promise, I felt, should be kept, just as all promises made by responsible, civilized governments should be kept – Harry S Truman
Talk about the biblical account, the holy land of Israel was a gift from God in exchange for AbrahamÂ’s recognition of God as the only Supreme Universal Lord. ThatÂ’s where it ends.
So it did not matter where Abraham came from. The Hindu bible even linked his ancstry all the way back to India!
Remember ! The religion of peace is a comprehensive and complete religion and has a solution for every problem.
If they canÂ’t take a country by force, theyÂ’ll take their time and take it through marriage. The people who submit to the world of God doesnÂ’t want the U.S., or even Israel. They want the world.
Read the article about the 3rd largest city of Sweden, Malmo. Police are no longer in control of the city.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1222484/posts?page=118
and watch this clipÂ…filmed in London, UK.
http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/187002.php
The British lost their empire for not keeping the promise made to the Jews.
The British might not be in control of their country in future unlessÂ…Â….you embrace the Arabs ! Â…Â…Â…Adios! [/b]
So what you are saying that if there is a temple longer than the Jewish temple then the race then have a right to destroy it?
Also when you say that "on arabs" payroll...all muslim revere the Dome of the rock it is not only Arabs.
As for temporary marriage,both the man and woman must take a responsible attitute if there are any offspring ,unlike prostituion and debauchery.
thus Islam saves botht he man and woman from from lusts and makes it lawful.
For Allah knows full well man weakness and strengths.
A dnf or your biblical reference,may i ask who are seeds of Abraham as? Only Jews or dont you admit Arabs as the seeds of Abraham?
And in Islam,we do not care if you convert or not,it is your own salvation or damnation.
And what happen to areas where there are no muslim but the police are unable to control the situation?
would you then say that those people are following the chosen religon?
Do read more about the US ghettos or black areas.even New york for that matter.
In the US alone every 3 minutes a woman is raped,would you say it is synonomous with the chrsiitan faith? -
Salaam,Originally posted by qpicanto:One thing to note is that, since they are technically at war amidst the civilian /refugees population, one cannot take thing for granted for both sides in such a scenario, as in the case of the sorry girl who was shot with the school bag of books mistaken for bombs as indicated. What if the bag really contain IED?
Yes it is a noraml mistake would you not say..
But then may i ask,if the suspect was carrying bombs,would it be more "realistic" to shoot her at point blank to enusre she is dead?
Such "reasoning" show a lots of abuse of resoning.
May i ask what you amke of this story?
the best line is simple...PROTECT THEIR OWN.
'I can't imagine anyone who considers himself a human being can do this'
On Friday a four-year-old Palestinian boy was shot dead by a soldier - the most recent child victim of the Israeli army. Chris McGreal investigates a shocking series of deaths
Monday July 28, 2003
The Guardian
Nine-year-old Abdul Rahman Jadallah's promise to the corpse of the shy little girl who lived up the street was, in all probability, kept for him by an Israeli bullet. The boy - Rahman to his family - barely knew Haneen Suliaman in life. But whenever there was a killing in the dense Palestinian towns of southern Gaza he would race to the morgue to join the throng around the mutilated victim. Then he would tag along with the surging, angry funerals of those felled by rarely seen soldiers hovering far above in helicopters or cocooned behind the thick concrete of their pillboxes. Haneen, who was eight years old, had been shot twice in the head by an Israeli soldier as she walked down the street in Khan Yunis refugee camp with her mother, Lila Abu Selmi.
"Almost every day here the Israelis shoot at random, so when you hear it you get inside as quickly as possible," says Mrs Selmi. "Haneen went to the grocery store to buy some crisps. When the shooting started, I came out to find her. She was coming down the street and ran to me and hugged me, crying, 'Mother, mother'. Two bullets hit her in the head, one straight after the other. She was still in my arms and she died."
Later that day, the crowds pushed into the morgue at the local hospital to see the young girl on the slab, partly in homage, partly to vent their anger. Rahman pressed his way to the front so he could touch Haneen. Then he went home and told his mother, Haniya Abed Atallah, that he too wanted to die. "Rahman went to the morgue and kissed Haneen. He came home and told us he had promised the dead girl he would die too. I made him apologise to his father," Mrs Atallah says.
Weeks passed and another Israeli bullet shattered the life of another young Palestinian girl. Huda Darwish was sitting at her school desk when a cluster of shots ripped through the top of a tree outside her classroom and buried themselves in the wall. But one ricocheted off the window frame, smashed through the glass and lodged in the 12-year-old girl's brain. Huda's teacher, Said Sinwar, was standing in front of the blackboard. "It was a normal lesson when suddenly there was this shooting without any warning. The children were terrified and trying to run. I was shouting at them to get under their desks. Suddenly the bullet hit the little girl and she slumped to the floor with a sigh, not even screaming," he says.
Sinwar dragged Huda from under her desk and ran with her across the road to the hospital, itself scarred by Israeli bullets. After weeks in hospital, she has started breathing for herself again, through a windpipe cut into her throat. She has regained use of her arms and legs, but will be blind for the rest of her life.
Rahman was in another class at the same school. The next day, lessons were cancelled and the boy defied his mother to tag along at the funeral of a slain Palestinian fighter. The burial evolved into the ritual protest of children marching to the security fence that separates Gaza's dense and beggared Khan Yunis refugee camp from the spacious religious exclusivity of the neighbouring Jewish settlement. As Rahman hung a Palestinian flag on the fence, a bullet caught him under his left eye. He died on the spot. "It looks as if the soldiers saw him put the flag on the fence and they shot him," says Rahman's brother, 19-year-old Ijaram. "There were many kids next to him, next to the fence. But he was the only one carrying the flag. Why else would they have shot him?"
Britain's chief rabbi, Jonathan Sacks, recently praised the Israeli military as the most humanitarian in the world because it claims to risk its soldiers' lives to avoid killing innocent Palestinians. It is a belief echoed by most Israelis, who revere the army as an institution of national salvation. Yet among the most shocking aspects of the past three years of intifada that has no shortage of horrors - not least the teenage suicide bombers revelling in mass murder - has been the killing of children by the Israeli army.
The numbers are staggering; one in five Palestinian dead is a child. The Palestinian Centre for Human Rights (PCHR) says at least 408 Palestinian children have been killed since the beginning of the intifada in September 2000. Nearly half were killed in the Gaza strip, and most of those died in two refugee camps in the south, Khan Yunis and Rafah. The PCHR says they were victims of "indiscriminate shooting, excessive force, a shoot-to-kill policy and the deliberate targeting of children".
And children continue to die, even after the ceasefire declared by Hamas and other groups at the end of June. On Friday, a soldier at a West Bank checkpoint shot dead a four-year-old boy, Ghassan Kabaha, and wounded his two young sisters after "accidentally" letting loose at a car with a burst of machinegun fire from his armoured vehicle. The rate of killing since the beginning of the ceasefire has dropped sharply, but almost every day the army has continued to fire heavy machineguns into Khan Yunis or Rafah. Among the latest victims of apparently indiscriminate shooting were three teenagers and an eight-year-old, Yousef Abu Jaza, hit in the knee when soldiers shot at a group of children playing football in Khan Yunis.
The military says it is difficult to distinguish between youths and men who might be Palestinian fighters, but the statistics show that nearly a quarter of the children killed were under 12.
Last year alone, 50 children under the age of eight were shot dead or blown up by the Israeli army in Gaza: eight, one of whom was two months old, were slaughtered when a one-tonne bomb was dropped on a block of flats to kill a lone Hamas leader, Sheikh Salah Mustafa Shehada. But Rahman, Huda and Haneen were not "collateral damage" in the assassination of Hamas "terrorists", or caught in crossfire. There was no combat when they were shot. There was nothing more than a single burst of fire, sometimes a single bullet, from an Israeli soldier's gun.
It was the same when seven-year-old Ali Ghureiz was shot in the head on the street outside his house in Rafah. And when Haneen Abu Sitta, 12, was killed while walking home after school near the fence with a Jewish settlement in southern Gaza. And when Nada Madhi, also 12, was shot in the stomach and died as she leaned out of her bedroom window in Rafah to watch the funeral procession for another child killed earlier.
The army offered a senior officer of its southern command to discuss the shooting of these six children over a period of just 10 weeks earlier this year. The military told me I could not name him, even though his identity is no secret to the Israeli public or his enemies; it was this officer who explained to the nation how an army bulldozer came to crush to death the young American peace activist, Rachel Corrie.
"I want you to know we are not a bunch of crazies down here," he says. At his headquarters in the Gush Khatif Jewish settlement in Gaza, the commander rattles through the army's version of the shootings: either the military knew nothing of them, or the children had been caught in crossfire - a justification used so frequently, and so often disproved, that it is rarely believed. But three hours later, after poring over maps and military logs, timings and regulations, he concedes that his soldiers were responsible - even culpable - in several of the killings.
The Israeli army's instinctive response is to muddy the waters when confronted with a controversial killing. At first, it questioned whether Huda was even shot. I described for the soldiers the scene in the classroom with blood rippling up the wall behind the child's desk.
"I don't know how this happened," says the commander. "I take responsibility for this. It could have been one of ours. I think it probably was."
The killing of Haneen is clearer in the commander's mind. "We checked it and we know that on the same day there was shooting of a mortar," he says. "The troops from the post shot back at the area where the mortar was launched, the area where the girl was killed. We didn't see if we hit someone. I assume that a stray bullet hit Haneen. Unfortunately." Doesn't he think that simply shooting back in the general direction of a mortar attack is irresponsible at best? He says not. "You cannot have soldiers sitting and doing nothing when they are shot at," he says.
Haneen's mother, Mrs Selmi, believes her daughter was shot from "the container". The metal box dangling from a crane evokes more constant fear in Khan Yunis than the helicopter rocket attacks and tank incursions. Nestled inside is an Israeli sniper shielded by camouflage netting and hoisted high enough to see deep into the refugee camp. From inside, it is striking how much the box moves around in the wind, leaving little hope of an accurate shot. Peering from behind the camouflage, the view is mostly of Palestinian houses riddled with bullet holes, a testament to the scale of incoming Israeli fire. Haneen's home sits a few metres from the security fence separating Khan Yunis from the Jewish settlement. But, because the house is inhabited, the damage is mostly limited to the upper floor, with 27 bulletholes around the windows. "In this area, we shoot at the houses," says the Israeli commander. "We don't want people on the second floor. I gave the order: shoot at the windows."
He may concede his soldiers are responsible for shooting Huda and Haneen, but he denies their responsibility for the slaying of Rahman, the nine-year-old shot while hanging the flag at the security fence. "We saw the children, we saw them for sure. They always demonstrate in this area after funerals. But I don't have any report from the troops on our shooting on this occasion," he says. "We have rules of engagement that we don't shoot children."
Seven-year-old Ali Ghureiz's father scoffs at the claim. "They meant to kill him, for sure," says Talab Ghureiz. "I can't imagine anyone who considers himself a human being can do this."
The killing of Ali and wounding of his five-year-old brother is particularly disturbing because the commander admits there was no combat and the boys were the focus of the soldier's attention. The Ghureiz house lies on the very edge of Rafah. At the bottom of the street, an Israeli armoured vehicle and guard posts sit in the midst of a "no-go" area of tangled wire, broken buildings and mud. On the other side is the Egyptian border. "There were three kids. They were playing 50m from the house," says Ghureiz. "The Israelis fired two or three bullets, maybe more. No one could have made a mistake. They were only 100m from the children. I don't know why they did it. Ali was shot in the face immediately below his left eye. It was a big bullet. It did a lot of damage," he whispers.
"This is the first I've heard of this," says the commander. "According to the log, in the afternoon there were children trying to cross the border. The tower fired five bullets and didn't report any children hurt. Usually with children this age, we don't shoot. There is a very strict rule of engagement about shooting at children. You don't do it." But Ali is dead. "They [Palestinian fighters] send children to the fence. An older guy, usually 25 or so, gives them the order to go to the fence, or dig next to it. They know we don't shoot at children. If one of my soldiers goes out to chase them away, a sniper will be waiting for him."
Fences usually mark defined limits but, as with so much in the occupied territories, the rules are deliberately vague. There is an ill-defined ban on "approaching" the security fences separating Gaza from Israel or the Jewish settlements. "We have a danger zone 100 to 200m from the fence around Gush Katif [settlement]. They [the Palestinians] know where the danger zone is," the commander says. But many houses in Rafah and Khan Yunis are within the "danger zone". Children play in its shadow, and many adults fear walking to their own front doors.
"We have in our rules of engagement how to handle this," the commander says. "During the day, if someone is inside the zone without a weapon and not attempting to harm or with hostile intent, then we do not shoot. If he has a weapon or hostile intent, you can shoot to kill. If he doesn't have a weapon, you shoot 50m from him into something solid that will stop the bullet, like a wall. You shoot twice in the air, and if he continues to move then you are allowed to shoot him in the leg."
The regulations are drummed into every soldier, but there is ample evidence that the army barely enforces them. The military's critics say the vast majority of soldiers do not commit such crimes but those that do are rarely called to account. The result is an atmosphere of impunity. Israel's army chief-of-staff, Lieutenant General Moshe Yaalon, claims that every shooting of a civilian is investigated. "Harming innocent civilians is firstly a matter of morals and values, and we cannot permit ourselves to let this happen. I deal with it personally," he told the Israeli press. But Yaalon has not dealt personally with any of the killings of the six children reported on here.
The army's indifferent handling of the shootings of civilians has even drawn stinging criticism from a member of Ariel Sharon's Likud party in the Israeli parliament, Michael Eitan. "I am not certain that the responsible officials are aware of the fact that there are gross violations of human rights in the field, despite army regulations," he said.
The case of Khalil al-Mughrabi is telling. The 11-year-old was shot dead in Rafah by the Israeli army two years ago as he played football with a group of friends near the security fence. One of Israel's most respected human rights organisations, B'Tselem, wrote to the judge advocate general's office, responsible for prosecuting soldiers, demanding an inquiry. Months later, the office wrote back saying that Khalil was shot by soldiers who acted with "restraint and control" to disperse a riot in the area. However, the judge advocate general's office made the mistake of attaching a copy of its own, supposedly secret, investigation which came to a quite different conclusion - that the riot had been much earlier in the day and the soldiers who shot the child should not have opened fire. The report says a "serious deviation from obligatory norms of behaviour" took place.
In the report, the chief military prosecutor, Colonel Einat Ron, then spelled out alternative false scenarios that should be offered to B'Tselem. B'Tselem said the internal report confirmed that the army has a policy of covering up its crimes. "The message that the judge advocate general's office transmits to soldiers is clear: soldiers who violate the 'Open Fire Regulations', even if their breach results in death, will not be investigated and will not be prosecuted."
Towards the end of the interview, the commander in Gaza finally concedes that his soldiers were at fault to some degree or other in the killing of most - but not all - of the children we discussed. They include a 12-year-old girl, Haneen Abu Sitta, shot dead in Rafah as she walked home from school near a security fence around one of the fortified Jewish settlements. The army moved swiftly to cover it up. It leaked a false story to more compliant parts of the Israeli media, claiming Haneen was shot during a gun battle between troops and "terrorists" in an area known for weapons smuggling across the border from Egypt. But the army commander concedes that there was no battle. "Every name of a child here, it makes me feel bad because it's the fault of my soldiers. I need to learn and see the mistakes of my troops," he says. But by the end of the interview, he is combative again. "I remember the Holocaust. We have a choice, to fight the terrorists or to face being consumed by the flames again," he says.
The Israeli army insists that interviews with its commanders about controversial issues are off the record. Depending on what the officer says, that bar is sometimes lifted. I ask to be able to name the commander in Gaza. The army refuses. "He has admitted his soldiers were responsible for at least some of those killings," says an army spokesman who sat in on the interview. "In this day and age that raises the prospect of war crimes, not here but if he travels abroad he could be arrested some time in the future. Some people might think there is something wrong here."
while the children die.
As i have pointed out before the ISrelais live in fear that they will be a minortiy and thus to ensure that they remain a majority the onyl solution is to kill as many palestinian as possible.
Which they are doing now
They fear the Holocasut,they remeber the pain and so in fear of pain,in fear of feeling powerless and despondent,they NOW DO IT TO ANOTHER RACE> -
This will answer your question. Israelis do spare a thought.Originally posted by Zulkiflim:http://www.voicesofpalestine.org/outrageous/13yearoldgirl.htm
Has video content
So it begs the qeustion,why would the Plaesitnina use their own people as a defence shield when the Isrealis spare no thought to killing Palestinians?
Also,if Palestinian are trully inhumane,why would Isrelais soldiers use Palestinian as defence shield if they are of no value to Palestiian fighters?
So would you still say that Plaestinian use civillian as defence shieldS?
LOL..
Published on Monday, November 20, 2006 by the Guardian / UK
Palestinians Use Human Shield to Halt Israeli Air Strike on Militants' Homes
· Hundreds of neighbours join first successful action
· Air force calls off missile attack to protect civilians
by Conal Urquhart
Palestinians yesterday stopped Israel from destroying the home of two militants by surrounding it with a human shield.
In the first incident of its kind, hundreds of neighbours surrounded the home of Mohammed Baroud and climbed on its roof after he received a call from the Israeli army informing him he had 30 minutes to vacate his home before it was destroyed by missiles.
The Israeli airforce called off its strike because of the risk of killing a large number of civilians.
It is the first time Palestinians have thwarted an Israeli air strike in this way. Israel has developed a strategy of telephoning its targets to ensure that nobody is inside when the homes are struck. Residents are given about half an hour to gather some clothes and escape. Neighbours are also contacted if the explosion is likely to be big enough to endanger them.
Dozens of homes have been blown up on suspicion that they are the site for a smuggling tunnel or arms cache. It is likely that Israel will have to find a new way of destroying homes as yesterday's protest began to be copied elsewhere.
Nizar Rayan, a Hamas member who led the Jabalya protest, said Palestinians would continue to rush into every house to be threatened by bombardment. "We will pay with our lives to protect the houses of the fighters so they can resist the enemy assured that their homes are being protected," he said.
The home of Mr Baroud, a member of the Popular Resistance Committees in Beit Lahiya was the first to be saved. Mosques and Palestinian television sent out appeals and protesters gathered outside, chanting "Death to Israel. Death to America," and "We prefer martyrdom to surrender."
Two hours later Israel warned Mohammed Nawajeh, a member of Hamas, that his house would be targeted and the same process occurred. Both men are accused by Israel of involvement in firing rockets at Israel.
There was a sense of euphoria in Gaza that people had managed to stand up to the Israeli airforce but Israel proved its military muscle later yesterday when an aircraft fired a missile at a car in Gaza City, wounding nine, including two Hamas militants. Four were children, aged five, 13, 14 and 16, who suffered shrapnel injuries, hospital officials told Associated Press. Later an elderly man died of his wounds, they added.
The military said the air strike target was a vehicle carrying senior members of the Hamas rocket-launching operation.
Palestinians often avoid peaceful protest against Israel because they fear the army will treat them as if they were armed. However, during Israel's occupation of Beit Hanoun this month, a group of women managed to create a diversion to allow gunmen to flee a mosque, where they had been surrounded.
Israel has been under added pressure to avoid killing civilians after 19 Palestinians were killed by shells in Beit Hanoun.
Ismail Haniyeh, the Palestinian prime minister, visited Mr Baroud's home to offer his support to the protest yesterday.
"We are so proud of this national stand. It's the first step toward protecting our homes, the homes of our children," he said. "This strategy was decided by our people. [It] was decided by our leaders, who were here from all the factions ... and so long as this strategy is in the interest of our people we support this strategy."
A spokesman for the Israeli army confirmed that the strike had been called off. "There was a building targeted last night but once civilians gathered on the roof we cancelled the attack," he said. "We will continue operating against the terrorist infrastructure despite their use of uninvolved civilians as human shields." -
look like the Palestinian refugees has got company lots of them, 5 millions refugees from Iraq are streaming into the neighbouring countries according to a news artcicle relesed by UN.