Yes, the palestianians are indeed the only bad guys in the middle east.

[HoreTore]

Are you prepared to assert (and support) that this is evidence of a larger, programatic effort by the IDF? That those in leadership among the IDF are tacitly authorizing/encouraging the use of violence in this manner in what amounts to a de facto (albeit never publicly acknowledged) policy?

Well, seeing as a lieutenant colonel was holding the guys hand while he was shot, it's not a very big stretch.

[Hosakawa Tito]

I saw this video this morning and whilst it is deeply disturbing, the likelihood is that the soldier will be facing due process.

Whereas if he had been a member of Hamas, he'd be celebrated

And thus lies the main difference, for me, the reaction. One can take whatever side you like in the Israeli-Palestinian debate. One can argue who is entitled to this or that, but you cannot defend the frenzied lovefest that took place in Lebanon for that child killer, Samir Kuntar, recently released last week. How people can condone and celebrate such a killer is beyond me.

[HoreTore]

And thus lies the main difference, for me, the reaction. One can take whatever side you like in the Israeli-Palestinian debate. One can argue who is entitled to this or that, but you cannot defend the frenzied lovefest that took place in Lebanon for that child killer, Samir Kuntar, recently released last week. How people can condone and celebrate such a killer is beyond me.

But were they celebrating a child-killer, or were they celebrating getting one over Israel, the ones who bombed them a few years ago?

[Hosakawa Tito]

Rock Star Oh, I don't know, you decide. All this for the "hero" convicted of smashing a child's head to pieces.

Let me know when the Israelis roll out the red carpet for the soldier in the vid you provided, they'll get the same treatment.

[HoreTore]

Well Nasrallah was talking about getting one over Israel in that vid, so....

[Viking]

Well Nasrallah was talking about getting one over Israel in that vid, so....

That's rather weak, and you know it. It's much like rejoicing Hitler for winning Eurovision Song Contest finals while the holocaust was still going on.

[Hosakawa Tito]

Yeah, and the rock star just happened to be in the neighborhood....for a

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Well Nasrallah was talking about getting one over Israel in that vid, so....

So therefore their celebration of such a "hero" is justified?

Perhaps you might want to articulate your point a bit more clearly...

[HoreTore]

So therefore their celebration of such a "hero" is justified?

Perhaps you might want to articulate your point a bit more clearly...

But were they celebrating a child-killer, or were they celebrating getting one over Israel

any clearer now?

[Don Corleone]

You don't seem to be getting it, HoreTore.

Let me ask you point blank... If John Wayne Gacy happened to choose the local IRS agent's son as one of his victims, would my loathing of the IRS justify my treating Gacy as a hero?

[LittleGrizzly]

And thus lies the main difference, for me, the reaction.

This has always been a contentous point for me as i think any peoples in the same shoes would act the same, they are the victims who keep getting hit in the face, your suprised they celebrate what they feel is a hit back.

If your going to keep people in poverty and slowly take over thier land and hog the essential resources, then kill them in precision revenge strikes at a ratio of 3.1 to how many of yours they killed, logic compassion go out the window, i don't now about you but if i was in those peoples situation i would have lost all compassion long ago

it looks pretty simple to me, Horetore is saying that the crowd was celebrating getting one over on israel, he didn't mention personal celebration once...

Edit: nice to see you hosakawa, haven't been back here for a while... (i think)

[HoreTore]

You don't seem to be getting it, HoreTore.

Let me ask you point blank... If John Wayne Gacy happened to choose the local IRS agent's son as one of his victims, would my loathing of the IRS justify my treating Gacy as a hero?

Of course not.

(and yes, I was referring to your bigger question, not your metaphor)

[Dâriûsh]

Now that we have successfully derailed this thread from Israelis shooting Palestinians to Lebanese celebrating Quntar, I might as well add my thoughts.

Perhaps, and I am going out on a limb here, this magic show was put on due to the upcoming parliamentary elections? The Hizbullah and Walid Jumblatt’s Druze have recently gone from open verbal Sectarian Warfare™ to mutual understanding (). And the Hizbullah are probably also trying to broaden their appeal in Lebanon by celebrating a non-Shia. It could also be a tiny political statement sticking it to Jumblatt. Nasrallah managed to free a famous Druze militant. Jumblatt did not. All Lebanese parties have to appear proponents for a united Lebanon in election times and put the mess earlier this year behind them.


As for celebrating a baby killer, Quntar has consistently denied ever killing a child, and with all the lies and propaganda in the Middle East from officials, why would fans doubt him?

Let me know when the Israelis roll out the red carpet for the soldier in the vid you provided, they'll get the same treatment.

Who knows? Maybe they will elect him Prime Minister, like Yitzhak Shamir and Ariel Sharon.

[Adrian II]

HOSA!!

The great Hosakawa Tito is back.

[Tribesman]

The Hizbullah and Walid Jumblatt’s Druze have recently gone from open verbal Sectarian Warfare™ to mutual understanding

I thought that during the stupid western backed attempt to take on Hezballah Jumblatts militia melted away and the Druze leadership had passed on to another .

[LittleGrizzly]

And the Hizbullah are probably also trying to broaden their appeal in Lebanon by celebrating a non-Shia

Thats what some expert on the BBC news said, what exactly is the make up of lebanon ?

christian, shia and sunni's ?

[Dâriûsh]

Thats what some expert on the BBC news said, what exactly is the make up of lebanon ?

christian, shia and sunni's ?

Shia, Sunni, Maronites, Greek Orthodox, Druze, and a lot of other sects. They are not likely to attempt a census in Lebanon anytime soon.


Add to that communists, nationalists, etc.

[LittleGrizzly]

maybe rather than a defeat for israel we should see this as a victory for a multicultural lebanon ;)

Are all these groups involved in terrorism against israel or is it limited to one or two of them ?

[Banquo's Ghost]

Was this guy a terrorist? No? Then what does he have to do with the terrorists? His nationality? Are you responsible whenever some brit screws up?

Also, the investigation of this incident started after the video was known, even though there were high officers present.

As far as I am aware, the individual concerned was not a terrorist, but the point you picked upon was directed at the environment terrorism creates. Whether you like it or not, constant threat creates an environment of brutality wherein incidents like this become all too common. That constant threat is nurtured by the occupation, but created by the constantly violent response to that occupation directed at Israeli civilians.

When I was directing riot control in Northern Ireland, whilst we had very clear rules of engagement for the firing of baton rounds, it was not unusual for one or two to "go astray". As a fresh faced (aka naive newbie) officer at the beginning of my first tour, I was scrupulous in ensuring my troops followed the letter. After months of bricks, sniping, pipe bombs, little old ladies offering sandwiches full of ground glass, and sad to say, funerals of colleagues, I was somewhat less punctilious. The baton round of the day was a sturdy piece of plastic that had been designed to be fired into the ground so it ricocheted upwards into the rioter, persuading him to retire homeward. There were, I am ashamed to say, days when a direct shot to the groin area was considered more effective. None of my troop ever shot at the face, but there were those who did, and fatalities that resulted from that use of "plastic bullets".

That was a nasty, but not remotely comparable conflict. I note the above not to excuse, but to explain. Any of my soldiers who fired as the Israeli did would face a court martial and rightly so. But put young men into a constant state of menace where their friends and families are threatened and you get moments of madness. This applies to both sides of that conflict, which is why suicide bombers may be understood - but similarly not condoned.

My view--given the early history of Israel (Irgun, stern gang, deir yassin massacre etc) is that if the israelis were weak and the palastinians strong the situation would be reversed today, and you would now be calling the israelis terrorists.

I would in fact be calling many of the Israelis who founded their state terrorists. Unlike many, I do not consider the word perjorative, but descriptive. Several of my own relatives were terrorists. The tactic is not always one of weakness, nor is it always as efficacious as was seen in the establishment of Israel and the Republic of Ireland.

I have always advocated that the Palestinians (whose cause I am strongly in favour of) should reject terrorism on the utilitarian ground that it will not work in their current situation. Embracing non-violence - real martyrdom in the face of overwhelming force - would progress their cause far further and quicker. Perhaps some of their young men would die in the struggle - I doubt as many as currently and certainly fewer of the women and children - but the United States would blanch at supporting a regime that murdered peaceful protestors over any period of time. And I believe Israeli public opinion would also turn hugely in favour of the oppressed people rather than seek refuge in one-dimensional hard right politicians.

For sixty years violence and terror tactics have failed to achieve anything except the brutalisation of the youth of Israel and Palestine. Terror tactics finally worked against the British of the first half of the 20th century because they were a fundamentally decent people who really wanted to get out of the nasty business of ruling those who demanded independence. The Israelis however, have nowhere else to go, so they will fight back real nasty.

Time for a change; and that can only be by Palestinian hands because they have to prove they can co-exist peacefully with the sovereign state of Israel. Every last man-jack of them too, no room for madmen who prefer exploding themselves in restaurants to watching their children grow up happy and safe.

[Goofball]

I have always advocated that the Palestinians (whose cause I am strongly in favour of) should reject terrorism on the utilitarian ground that it will not work in their current situation. Embracing non-violence - real martyrdom in the face of overwhelming force - would progress their cause far further and quicker. Perhaps some of their young men would die in the struggle - I doubt as many as currently and certainly fewer of the women and children - but the United States would blanch at supporting a regime that murdered peaceful protestors over any period of time. And I believe Israeli public opinion would also turn hugely in favour of the oppressed people rather than seek refuge in one-dimensional hard right politicians.

For sixty years violence and terror tactics have failed to achieve anything except the brutalisation of the youth of Israel and Palestine. Terror tactics finally worked against the British of the first half of the 20th century because they were a fundamentally decent people who really wanted to get out of the nasty business of ruling those who demanded independence. The Israelis however, have nowhere else to go, so they will fight back real nasty.

Time for a change; and that can only be by Palestinian hands because they have to prove they can co-exist peacefully with the sovereign state of Israel. Every last man-jack of them too, no room for madmen who prefer exploding themselves in restaurants to watching their children grow up happy and safe.

Good Lord yes!

I am probably as staunch a supporter of Israel as you will find. But I guarantee you, were the Palestinians to put forward a leader like Ghandi, as opposed to on like ol' Yasser, then pursue a course of non-violent protest and civil disobedience, but were still met with violence from the Israelis, my support for Israel would quickly disappear and be replaced by support for the Palestinians.

And I suspect I would not be the only one...

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

Palestinian cry when Isreails do something to them, but it's ok other way around?

[Incongruous]

Are you prepared to assert (and support) that this is evidence of a larger, programatic effort by the IDF? That those in leadership among the IDF are tacitly authorizing/encouraging the use of violence in this manner in what amounts to a de facto (albeit never publicly acknowledged) policy?

Is this sarcasm?

I'd like to add that the only, one and single reason Isreal exists at all, is the U.S.A so perhaps the Palestinians should just wait till that bird is done and dead?
Or perhaps the U.S could soilve the major rallying point of Islamists everywhere and and tell Israel to shove it?
I mean, I am really interested as to why you people support that country. But then again you do support fascists.

[Husar]

Tell Israel to shove it where?
Where should they go? Should they commit mass suicide, migrate to the south pole or invade some other country that is not palestine?

[HoreTore]

Tell Israel to shove it where?
Where should they go? Should they commit mass suicide, migrate to the south pole or invade some other country that is not palestine?

The only true solution to the middle east problem is that the Israelis and Palestinians learn to live together in the same country. A two-state solution won't solve the problem, both sides will always want more land from the other one. They have to learn how to live together. Or one side has to be exterminated.

[Dâriûsh]

...then pursue a course of non-violent protest and civil disobedience, but were still met with violence from the Israelis, my support for Israel would quickly disappear and be replaced by support for the Palestinians.

Okay, this has been mentioned enough times now.

Believe it or not people, but just because you never read about them doesn’t mean they don't occur. These peaceful protests, be they hunger strikes, human chains along the separation barrier, or rallies, are far more common than the violent uprising you see on TV. But peaceful or not, they still get met with the occasional tear gas, batons, and rubber bullets.

[Tribesman]

But peaceful or not, they still get met with the occasional tear gas, batons, and rubber bullets.

What you mean like that peaceful protest about the destruction of their farmland last year where a tank commander thought it would be a great idea to fire a shell into them because a wall was obstructing his view ?
Its a wonderful thing about peaceful protests isn't it , it only takes one dickhead on either side to make it a violent incident

[Banquo's Ghost]

Okay, this has been mentioned enough times now.

Believe it or not people, but just because you never read about them doesn’t mean they don't occur. These peaceful protests, be they hunger strikes, human chains along the separation barrier, or rallies, are far more common than the violent uprising you see on TV. But peaceful or not, they still get met with the occasional tear gas, batons, and rubber bullets.

Indeed they do happen, and get responses as you describe.

But the violence takes the lion's share of coverage because violence always does - and because of an utter failure of leadership. Palestinian leaders fail to condemn the violent responses unequivocally, which would allow them to both highlight peaceful protest and facilitate its use. The men of violence have to be shunned for peace to work.

When Gandhi's resistance led to violent responses from the British authorities, and thence to a violent reaction back, he condemned that reaction utterly, withdrew the non-co-operation campaign and took to a fast that nearly killed him to show his utter disgust at his countrymen's indiscipline. He even said that the violence showed him that maybe Indians were not ready to be given independence.

There are few Gandhis about, but the principles are the same. Palestinians will never achieve their aim of an independent homeland by force of arms. They are completely outclassed militarily, have few friends (indeed most countries who offer "support" do so entirely for their own ends) and unrealistic goals. They are as screwed as any people in history.

They need leaders that recognise this, and who can focus the undoubted courage and perseverance of the Palestinian people towards a non-violent solution that will have the unanswerable force of moral certitude. They do not face callous dictatorships but a democracy, backed by a democracy, that would be very vulnerable to such moral pressure.

[Dâriûsh]

A Gandhi in Jerusalem.

[Banquo's Ghost]

A Gandhi in Jerusalem.

Defeatist article which glosses over the fact that throughout that time of "failed non-violent protest", Palestinian terrorism was always threatening Israel's people and existence.

Non-violence is a hard road, and yes, may well be ignored. But as the Mahatma noted, the purpose of a civil resister is to provoke a response.

And if non-violence has not gotten anywhere, the violence most certainly hasn't - and won't. Non-violence cannot be effective whilst violence runs alongside. Unless someone can tell me just how constant terrorism against civilians will bring Israel to its knees I will continue to advocate peaceful protest as the only way forward.

We already have a brutalised generation on both sides. How many more will it take for the penny to drop?

[Don Corleone]

I think that extremists on both sides, Israeli and Palestinians will always block the only way forward to peace: two viable states coexisting next to each other. I don't blame the Palestinians, and I don't blame the Israelis. I think the majority of people on both sides would settle for such a solution. But it will never happen. Ever. Too many hard-liners on both sides that would rather die than compromise.