The Israeli Occupation in a Microcosm

[Idaho]

The House That Became A War Zone

And interesting article - all though of course it will be seen as anti-Israeli propaganda. It does none-the-less give some insight into what the daily nature of occupation is about - and why I fully expect the withdrawl from Gaza to decrease Palestinian militancy in the long term.

The house that became a war zone

Chris McGreal
Tuesday October 4, 2005
The Guardian


The first soldiers to arrive on Khalil Bashir's doorstep in Gaza five years ago explained the new geography of his home in terms he understood only too well. His three-storey house was to be like the West Bank, the Israeli officer said, with its areas of divided security and administrative control.
The army designated the living room as "Area A", after the part of the occupied territories where the Palestinians have control, and told all three generations of the Bashirs, from 81-year-old Zanah to her five-year-old granddaughter, that they were confined there for most nights and sometimes for much of the day. It was the only part of the house they could still call their own.

[English assassin]

Last month, after the soldiers hauled off the machine guns and finally drove away, Mr Bashir ventured up the stairs of his home for the first time in five years. What he found was a relatively small thing compared with the shootings of his sons and the destruction of his orchards, but it left him flummoxed for the first time since the soldiers arrived: placed around the walls were the Bashirs' cooking pots, each with a pile of human excrement in the bottom.

"The moralistic army used our cooking pots as lavatories," Mr Bashir said. "They dominate my bathroom and they use the toilet all the time. So why did they behave in this way? They used our cooking pots and they left them behind deliberately. They gathered everything, even empty bottles, sandbags and took it with them. But they left this as a souvenir."

By their fruits ye shall know them.

[Tribesman]

By their fruits ye shall know them.
Hey come on , they can clean up the excrement the soldiers left behind , pity they can't clean up the bullet in his sons back .

[King Henry V]

Yep, another case of evil, Christ-murdering Jews torturing the innocent, freedom-loving Palestinians.

[King Henry V]

By their fruits ye shall know them.
Hey come on , they can clean up the excrement the soldiers left behind , pity they can't clean up the bullet in his sons back .

They can always take it out

[Tribesman]

They can always take it out
Yes Henry , removing a bullet from next to someones spine is so very easy , I wonder why the doctors didn't just dig it out

[Goofball]

This is most definitely not a microcosm of the situation as a whole. Microcosms are by definition representative of a larger whole. If this were a true microcosm of the larger situation, the Palestinian father would have spent his time trying to figure out how he could somehow strap a few kilos of C4 to his son and sneak him into the middle of the group of soldiers. Actually, belay that last; he would more likely try to sneak his explosive-laden son onto the bus the soldiers' children took to school.

The Palestinian family in this story are reasonable, calm, almost saintly people who appear only to want peace between Israelis and Palestinians.

If that were truly the case will all Palestinians, there would be no conflict.

Sadly, this is not the case.

[Azi Tohak]

Newspaper: Guardian.



Azi

[Beirut]

If that were truly the case will all Palestinians, there would be no conflict.

Sadly, this is not the case.

Hmm, perhaps not. Even if from 1948 onwards the Palestinians were Ghandiesque in their comportment, the intent of the Zionist and Jewish leaders, in their own words, was to take control of the entire country, by force if necessary.

That being said, the only difference would be that the Palestinians would have been peacefully living under Israeli subjugation instead of violently living under Israeli subjugation. The subjugation, however, would still have existed.

For my part, given human nature, I cannot imagine anyone living peacefully under such conditions. JFK said you can have freedom without peace - but not peace without freedom.

[Goofball]

Hmm, perhaps not. Even if from 1948 onwards the Palestinians were Ghandiesque in their comportment, the intent of the Zionist and Jewish leaders, in their own words, was to take control of the entire country, by force if necessary.

Makes a nice offset to the Palestinian leadership, whose stated goals in their own words have always been nothing less than the complete destruction of Israel, and the murder of every Jew in Israel (sometimes they even throw in some nice little phrases about the raping and subjugation of Jewish women, just for a little color).

No wonder they can't get along.



Here's our impasse Beirut: I know that both sides are at fault.

You don't seem to understand that.

[Proletariat]

Under the sea
Under the sea
Darling it's better
Down where it's wetter
Take it from me

[Beirut]

Here's our impasse Beirut: I know that both sides are at fault.

You don't seem to understand that.

I'm well aware that both sides are at fault. But in my opinion one side is much more at fault than the other.

[Goofball]

I'm well aware that both sides are at fault. But in my opinion one side is much more at fault than the other.

Lemme guess: the side that is unilaterally giving up territory even as they continue to be attacked?

[Beirut]

Lemme guess: the side that is unilaterally giving up territory even as they continue to be attacked?

(You do know how to turn a phrase. )

Yes, the side that is unilaterally giving back some of the land it took and is still unilaterally holding onto a whole whack more while it continues to unilaterally hold well over a million people under subjugation and unilaterally controls the borders and airspace of the land it unilaterally stole then unilaterally gave back.

[Goofball]

(You do know how to turn a phrase. )

Yes, the side that is unilaterally giving back some of the land it took and is still unilaterally holding onto a whole whack more while it continues to unilaterally hold well over a million people under subjugation and unilaterally controls the borders and airspace of the land it unilaterally stole then unilaterally gave back.

I say tomayto, you say tomahto...

[Kraxis]

To put the thread back on a seemingly more on topic discussion...

I saw some time ago a nice little piece in the news about a Palestinian family living inside the infamous fence. If it wasn't so serious I would laugh! To get out they passed a door in the fence that they and only they had a key to.
The sad fact was that they had to pass this door (it wasn't a gate) to do basically anything on their own land. And at times the door was forcibly shut, so they couldn't get to their water for isntance.

[Tribesman]

Oh well at least it cannot happen again , the Israeli courts have finally ruled that the army cannot establish military posts in civilian houses with civilians still living in them , it is using them as human shields which is a war crime .
They also banned using civilians as human mine detectors , which strangely enough is also a war crime .

[Beirut]

I say tomayto, you say tomahto...

And all this time I thought it was just ketchup...

[Kraxis]

Oh well at least it cannot happen again , the Israeli courts have finally ruled that the army cannot establish military posts in civilian houses with civilians still living in them , it is using them as human shields which is a war crime .
They also banned using civilians as human mine detectors , which strangely enough is also a war crime .

Won't it just prompt a kickout of the civilians?

[Crazed Rabbit]

Yes, the side that is unilaterally giving back some of the land it took and is still unilaterally holding onto a whole whack more while it continues to unilaterally hold well over a million people under subjugation and unilaterally controls the borders and airspace of the land it unilaterally stole then unilaterally gave back.

Israel is hardly holding on to any more land. They did not steal the land, they got them after the Arab states, who completely surroung Israel, declared war on Israel a number of times.

Yet, even though they just gave away-as in no deal, no bargaining to get the PLO to concede anything-the whole Gaza strip, and are still being attacked they have to give away all land that they didn't control as of 19848, huh? Israel could give go back to its 1948 borders and it wouldn't matter. The 'subjugation' doesn't matter, the terrorists will keep on attacking until Israel is completely destroyed. They target only women and children, yet you continue to support them.

And gee, if they didn't control the borders, guess who'd pour into Israel? Friendly arab labourers? No, the suicide bombers would pour in.

Crazed Rabbit

[Tribesman]

They target only women and children, yet you continue to support them.

Oh dear oh dear Rabbit , have you been listening to Gawain ?
Try reading the IDF website , a purely unbiased source that rips your statement to pieces .

[Beirut]

The 'subjugation' doesn't matter, the terrorists will keep on attacking until Israel is completely destroyed. They target only women and children, yet you continue to support them.


Crazed Rabbit

I'll happily give you a week to find even one phrase of one post in one thread posted by me anywhere, anytime, that says that I support terrorists attacking women and children.

And when you don't, I will accept your apology with grace and goodwill.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

I'll happily give you a week to find even one phrase of one post in one thread posted by me anywhere, anytime, that says that I support terrorists attacking women and children.

Since he never accussed you of that I would say it is you who owe him the apology.

They target only women and children, yet you continue to support them.

Oh dear oh dear Rabbit , have you been listening to Gawain ?
Try reading the IDF website , a purely unbiased source that rips your statement to pieces .

For once Id like you to post the relevant passages instead of you incesant go look BS. The point is the Palestinians target women and children with no military target in sight.

I'm well aware that both sides are at fault. But in my opinion one side is much more at fault than the other.

Well that seems to be unamimous. The difference again is how can you back the side that targets women and children ? Do any of you who back the Palestinians think if the shoe were on the other foot Israel would still be here today?

[Crazed Rabbit]

First find where I said you support terrorists.

And when you don't, I will accept your apology with grace and goodwill.

I said you support them, i.e. the Palestinians, despite the Palestinians support of; terrorism, the charter of their 'governing' body including the goal of a destroyed Israel, the goal of widely popular Hamas to actively annihilate Israel.

Your support is not of terrorists directly, but you support the supporters of terrorism, while degenerating the Israels for trying to survive.

Crazed Rabbit

[Crazed Rabbit]

Well, I found some interesting stuff and was torn between creating a new thread that'd probably turn into yet another Israel-Palestine thread or just double posting in the one already made. You can see my choice.

It seems that Hamas, those peaceful, tolerant people who only want to blow up everyone who's the slightest bit different, now want to ban dancing and want to take all rights from gays.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...814968,00.html

The argument put forth was a most eloquent one, an argument that will undoubtedly cause babies to cry for its straigtforwardness and beautiful construction:

“A man holds a woman by the hand and dances with her in front of everyone. Does that serve the national interest?” Dr Zahar [Hamas' Terrorist in Chief-Ed.] said on the Arabic website Elaph.

A most pointed question. How does dancing serve the national interest? I can't see how it does. For that matter, how does me eating birds made of marshmellow fluff on Easter serve the national interest? Deep questions to ponder.

“If so, why have the phenomena of corruption and prostitution become pervasive in recent years?”

To those misguided fools who'd say that dancing is in the national interest, Dr. Evil, er...Dr. Zahar offers a stern and effective rebuttal. A rise in prostitution is most certainly not acceptable, unless of course it is done in the correct, 'marry' a woman for the night, way. If, continuing my earlier example, eating marshmellow fluff birds is in the national interest, why has obesity risen in recent years?

Hmm? Answer that one, you tool of the marshmellow fluff bird industry!

Crazed Rabbit

P.S. Anyone else find it slightly disturbing radical Muslims want to ban dancing that was viewed by medieval Europeans - not the most tolerant of promiscuousness behavoir - as acceptable? In fact, they want to ban almost all dancing that has occured for thousands of years.

[Soulforged]

It seems that Hamas, those peaceful, tolerant people who only want to blow up everyone who's the slightest bit different, now want to ban dancing and want to take all rights from gays.

I see emotional appeals ahead...

A most pointed question. How does dancing serve the national interest? I can't see how it does. For that matter, how does me eating birds made of marshmellow fluff on Easter serve the national interest? Deep questions to ponder.

The question over nationalism sentimentalism is always obscure and open to new considerations, everything could be considered of certain national value for the nationalist in every nation.

To those misguided fools who'd say that dancing is in the national interest, Dr. Evil, er...Dr. Zahar offers a stern and effective rebuttal. A rise in prostitution is most certainly not acceptable, unless of course it is done in the correct, 'marry' a woman for the night, way. If, continuing my earlier example, eating marshmellow fluff birds is in the national interest, why has obesity risen in recent years?

I don't know what any of this posted has anything to do with the problems of jurisdictions and domination in the middle east. This is for another thread perhaps: "The strange way of thinking of those evil people..." or something suitable.

[Ser Clegane]

First find where I said you support terrorists.

And when you don't, I will accept your apology with grace and goodwill.

I said you support them, i.e. the Palestinians, despite the Palestinians support of; terrorism, the charter of their 'governing' body including the goal of a destroyed Israel, the goal of widely popular Hamas to actively annihilate Israel.

Your support is not of terrorists directly, but you support the supporters of terrorism, while degenerating the Israels for trying to survive.

Crazed Rabbit

In your whole post the broader term "Palestinian" is not used once, while the last sentence is

They target only women and children, yet you continue to support them.

The "them" can actually only refer to the "they" at the beginning of the sentence (with some goodwill it might also refer to the "women and children" but I somehow doubt that you had that in mind).
Even in the sentence previous to the last one, the "terrorists" are the subject of the sentence.

So at least technically you indeed accused Beirut of supporting the terrorists that target women and children - IMO an apology might be a fine idea...

[Tribesman]

P.S. Anyone else find it slightly disturbing radical Muslims want to ban dancing that was viewed by medieval Europeans - not the most tolerant of promiscuousness behavoir - as acceptable? In fact, they want to ban almost all dancing that has occured for thousands of years.
Nutters on all side Rabbit .
Would you like a quote from a Christian church leader , who is also a leading domestic and international politician , where he condemns dancing as sinful , he even says that Line Dancing leads to lustful thoughts and encourages promiscuity , ban it , ban it all
now want to ban dancing and want to take all rights from gays.

Of course his views on dancing a very mild compared to his views on the damn sodomites

[Papewaio]

I think that was a matter of tit for tat in a war of escalation... I don't think the US was the first nation in WWII to target cities and hence women and children with bombing raids. And it certainly wasn't the first nation (nor did it) attack women to bet on the sex of unborn children and then slit open their mothers womb to find out who had won...

I also suggest you watch footage of Okinawa and US Marines pleading with women and children not to jump from sea cliffs... compare that with the Japanese war of aggression before and during WWII.

[Beirut]

In your whole post the broader term "Palestinian" is not used once, while the last sentence is

The "them" can actually only refer to the "they" at the beginning of the sentence (with some goodwill it might also refer to the "women and children" but I somehow doubt that you had that in mind).
Even in the sentence previous to the last one, the "terrorists" are the subject of the sentence.

So at least technically you indeed accused Beirut of supporting the terrorists that target women and children - IMO an apology might be a fine idea...

I'm just messing with him. I know Crazed Rabbit didn't mean it that way. But his style of writing is endemic to many who speak about the Palestinians and jump back and forth between "Palestinian" and "terrorists" in their conversation like it's understood by all that they are one and the same.