Newsgroup: it.politica.internazionale
Titolo: UK Mother Writes: The Israeli Army Shot My Son

 
http://www.tomhurndall.co.uk

condemn these actions?
Quando sara' finito il processo e ci sara' il verdetto?
-Stefano

 
War Zone is a dangerous place.
The IDF soldier (an Arab soldier btw) is charged in Israel with
(unintentional) killing.



Unintentional??? As it was the first time that IDF kills innocent
people...(see the American girl killed by a bulldozer, etc...).
War zone is a dangerous place. But don't forget that people that commit war
crimes should (I say should because the justice is shit) be prosecuted.
By the way, what do you mean when you say 'an Arab IDF soldier'?
Is he a Muslim? Or are you referring to the colour of his skin?
Anyway I don't give a shit if he is Arab, Caucasian, Black, etc. He is part
of the IDF..full stop...
K
--
"I personally witnessed Israeli soldiers smashing the interior of houses. I
even saw soldiers stealing one man's hajj  money, and taking jewellery and a
mobile phone from women"
Goan Anderson, International Solidarity Movement

 Or are you referring to the colour of his skin?
No, he is an Arab. Muslim and a soldier in the IDF. 19% of Israel's
population are Arabs. most of them are Muslims.


 population are Arabs. most of them are Muslims.
Really!?
...
Kach activist forms new party with goal of transferring out all Arabs,
Israel Insider, January 11, 2004 (thanks Namib)
By Ellis Shuman
Jan 14, 2004, 14:12
Former Kach leader Baruch Marzel today established a new political party
whose goals are to prevent the removal of Jewish settlements and to transfer
2 million Arabs "over the Jordan River." The party registrar approved the
new party - Hil - the Hebrew acronym for Jewish National Front.
"We are a Jewish party that cares for all the Jewish problems in Israel,"
Marzel told the Jerusalem Post. "We are sitting on a plan exactly how to do
it and where to do it and we are working on an alternative to all the plans
like the Geneva Plan and [Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's] Herzliya Conference
plan."
Marzel, who ran unsuccessfully for the Knesset in the 2003 general elections
on the Herut Party list, said his party's goal was to prevent the removal of
Jewish settlements and to prevent the transfer of territories to the
Palestinians, the Jerusalem Post reported. But Marzel also said that his
party believes in transferring all the Arabs out of the Land of Israel.
"We want to fight our enemies until the Arabs know that this is the Jewish
state and the only state we have and if they want our land we will fight
them," Marzel said.
Other party organizers include Eli resident Hen Ben-Eliyahu, a lecturer at
the College of Judea and Samaria in Ariel, and Dr. Andre Weissman from
Netanya. Party officials refused to state whether they believe in
transferring Israeli Arabs to Jordan, or just Palestinians, ynet reported.
Organizers confirmed that the party promotes the transfer of 2 million Arabs
and their replacement by 2 million new Jewish immigrants.
Marzel said his party's goal was not to receive just one or two seats in the
Knesset, but to change the State of Israel. "The eventual goal is to take
power and to steer the country in the way of Torah and the love of Israel,"
he said.
"Following the failure of the Herut Party, we decided to search for a new
way," added Ben-Eliyahu. "Ours is not a right-wing party," he added. "It is
a party of the center. The entire center has swerved to the left. The Likud
is the extreme left and Labor is the insane left," he said.
Ben-Eliyahu said he wanted to bring Zionism back to its pre-1948 roots, when
it was common to uproot Arab communities and force them to relocate over the
Jordan. "There are no other solutions for the Zionism enterprise. All
solutions suggested by Likud and Labor will only lead to a continuation of
the bloodshed," he said.
Ahead of the 2003 general elections, Attorney General Elyakim Rubinstein
sought to disqualify Marzel from running on the right-wing Herut party list,
based on a law which forbids lists or candidates to run for office if they
are involved in activities of an inciting or racist nature. The High Court
of Justice ruled that Marzel was allowed to run, but Herut failed to get
enough votes to gain Knesset representation. Marzel has been arrested dozens
of times for disturbing the peace and for confrontations with Arabs but has
never been convicted on charges of incitement.
http://web.israelinsider.com/bin/en.jsp?enPage=ArticlePage&enDisplay=view&en
DispWhat=object&enDispWho=Article%5El3180&enZone=Politics&enVersion=0
K

He is part of the IDF..full stop...
But if he shot of his own the IDF have no guilty.
Unfortunatly the antisemitic as you are forget about the terrorist and
that the Al-Aqsa Brigade is part of Fatah that it's Arafat party :)
-Stefano

 
So? What are you trying to say? Kach is not representing the Jewish
citizens of Israel. And the solution that Marzel suggested was to
evacuate Palestinians from Judea and Samaria, not to evacuate Arabs
with Israeli citizenship.
Some info about about kach:
Kach is an illegal movement in Israel because the Israeli court
decided that it's a racist movement and racist movements are illegal
in Israel.
This is why the article writes: "_former_ Kach leader".
Kach is legal and operating in the US (exactly as the KKK is legal in
the US).
Only a miniscule number of Jews support those fanatic extremists. Even
if Kach was legal - they never had the chance to be elected into the
Israeli parliament. Unfortunately in a few European parliaments there
are small fascist parties, and they sometimes are suspicoused with
having a hidden racist agenda. Again, This is not the case in Israel
were undemocratic or racist parties are illegal and forbidden from
participating in the election.
You also may be interested to know that in the current ruling party in
Israel - the Likud, there are Arab Knesset (parliament) members.
In the city I live in (Haifa) there are apprx. 60,000 Arabs and
240,000 Jews who live together and the issue of ethnicity is not an
issue in the daily life. Haifa is the city were the suicide bomber
from the Swedish Museum blew himself up - she did it in an Israeli
Arab restaurant and killed both Jews and Arabs.


 Arab restaurant and killed both Jews and Arabs.
I wish you were saying the true (I am not saying that you are a liar, but I
am afraid you see things in a such biased way that what you see is what
you/they want you to see).
Unfortunately people are dying. The cause of their death is the terrorism
(from both sides). If the situation in Israele/Palestina were as you have
described, then this escalation of violence would not have a reason to
exist...
K

 Israel Insider, January 11, 2004 (thanks Namib)
You have nothing better to answer what Quant wrote? :)
-Stefano

...

I didn't state any opinion in my post. Only facts. Maybe except my
opinion that ethnicity is not an issue in the daily life in Haifa -
but I have an advantage here because I live in this city, buy from
Arab shop owners, learn together with Arab students in the Technion
(University), I rented an apartment with Arab partners few years ago,
etc.
Also, look at the bottom of the article you posted - it is written
there that Marzel tried again but didn't succeed to enter into the
parliament in the last elections. This is despite of the fact that it
is quite easy to enter into the Israeli parliament (until the last
elections we had something like 15-16 parties for 120 parliament
members).

...

As to the quotes you posted - I can't promise but I will answer if I
will have the time.
I wasted too much time on usenet the last few days.
Part of the quotes are very true.
For example Golda's claim that there were no Palestinians until
recently. My grandfather was a Jews and in the papers the British gave
to him it was written: "nationality: Palestinian". On the other hand,
on the Palestinian ID's it was written: "nationality: Arab". This is
because the Arabs claimed not to be Palestinians, but Syrians, or
Arabs and part of the Arab nation. Arabs can't even pronounce the
Latin word "Palestine". They call it "falestin" instead.
(The Romans were the ones who named the land of Israel - "Palestine",
before of that the was never a Palestine).
Other posts are out of context or false. Someone did a very good
propaganda job in combining this list. An example for an out of
context quote is the quote of Ehud Barak:
"The Palestinians are like crocodiles, the more you give them meat,
they want more..."
Barak talked about the negotiations with the Palestinian negotiators
and especially with Arafat. Read for yourself what Deniss Ross, the
American Mediator think about the negotiations between Barak and the
Palestinians. Note: Deniss Ross was accepted as a fair mediator by the
Palestinians before the negotiations.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,50830,00.html
Following is a transcripted excerpt from Fox News Sunday, April 21,
2002.
BRIT HUME, FOX NEWS: Former Middle East envoy Dennis Ross has worked
to achieve Middle East peace throughout President Clinton's final days
in office. In the months following Clinton's failed peace summit at
Camp David, U.S. negotiators continued behind-the-scenes peace talks
with the Palestinians and Israelis up until January 2001, and that
followed Clinton's presentation of ideas at the end of December 2000.
Dennis Ross joins us now with more details on all that, and Fred
Barnes joins the questioning.
So, Dennis, talk to us a little bit, if you can -- I might note that
we're proud to able to say that you're a Fox News contributing
analyst.
DENNIS ROSS: Thank you. 
HUME: Talk to us about the sequence of events. The Camp David talks,
there was an offer. That was rejected. Talks continued. You come now
to December, and the president has a new set of ideas. What unfolded?
ROSS: Let me give you the sequence, because I think it puts all this
in perspective.
Number one, at Camp David we did not put a comprehensive set of ideas
on the table. We put ideas on the table that would have affected the
borders and would have affected Jerusalem.
Arafat could not accept any of that. In fact, during the 15 days
there, he never himself raised a single idea. His negotiators did, to
be fair to them, but he didn't. The only new idea he raised at Camp
David was that the temple didn't exist in Jerusalem, it existed in
Nablus.
HUME: This is the temple where Ariel Sharon paid a visit, which was
used as a kind of a pre-text for the beginning of the new intifada,
correct?
ROSS: This is the core of the Jewish faith. 
HUME: Right. 
ROSS: So he was denying the core of the Jewish faith there. 
After the summit, he immediately came back to us and he said, "We need
to have another summit," to which we said, "We just shot our wad. We
got a no from you. You're prepared actually do a deal before we go
back to something like that."
He agreed to set up a private channel between his people and the
Israelis, which I joined at the end of August. And there were serious
discussions that went on, and we were poised to present our ideas the
end of September, which is when the intifada erupted. He knew we were
poised to present the ideas. His own people were telling him they
looked good. And we asked him to intervene to ensure there wouldn't be
violence after the Sharon visit, the day after. He said he would. He
didn't lift a finger.
Now, eventually we were able to get back to a point where private
channels between the two sides led each of them to again ask us to
present the ideas. This was in early December. We brought the
negotiators here.
HUME: Now, this was a request to the Clinton administration... 
ROSS: Yes. 
HUME: ... to formulate a plan. Both sides wanted this? 
ROSS: Absolutely. 
HUME: All right. 
ROSS: Both sides asked us to present these ideas. 
HUME: All right. And they were? 
ROSS: The ideas were presented on December 23 by the president, and
they basically said the following: On borders, there would be about a
5 percent annexation in the West Bank for the Israelis and a 2 percent
swap. So there would be a net 97 percent of the territory that would
go to the Palestinians.
On Jerusalem, the Arab neighborhoods of East Jerusalem would become
the capitol of the Palestinian state.
On the issue of refugees, there would be a right of return for the
refugees to their own state, not to Israel, but there would also be a
fund of $30 billion internationally that would be put together for
either compensation or to cover repatriation, resettlement,
rehabilitation costs.
And when it came to security, there would be a international presence,
in place of the Israelis, in the Jordan Valley.
These were ideas that were comprehensive, unprecedented, stretched
very far, represented a culmination of an effort in our best judgment
as to what each side could accept after thousands of hours of debate,
discussion with each side.
FRED BARNES, WEEKLY STANDARD: Now, Palestinian officials say to this
day that Arafat said yes.
ROSS: Arafat came to the White House on January 2. Met with the
president, and I was there in the Oval Office. He said yes, and then
he added reservations that basically meant he rejected every single
one of the things he was supposed to give.
HUME: What was he supposed to give? 
ROSS: He supposed to give, on Jerusalem, the idea that there would be
for the Israelis sovereignty over the Western Wall, which would cover
the areas that are of religious significance to Israel. He rejected
that.
HUME: He rejected their being able to have that? 
ROSS: He rejected that. 
He rejected the idea on the refugees. He said we need a whole new
formula, as if what we had presented was non-existent.
He rejected the basic ideas on security. He wouldn't even countenance
the idea that the Israelis would be able to operate in Palestinian
airspace.
You know when you fly into Israel today you go to Ben Gurion. You fly
in over the West Bank because you can't -- there's no space through
otherwise. He rejected that.
So every single one of the ideas that was asked of him he rejected. 
HUME: Now, let's take a look at the map. Now, this is what -- how the
Israelis had created a map based on the president's ideas. And...
ROSS: Right. 
HUME: ... what can we -- that situation shows that the territory at
least is contiguous. What about Gaza on that map?
ROSS: The Israelis would have gotten completely out of Gaza. 
ROSS: And what you see also in this line, they show an area of
temporary Israeli control along the border.
HUME: Right. 
ROSS: Now, that was an Israeli desire. That was not what we presented.
But we presented something that did point out that it would take six
years before the Israelis would be totally out of the Jordan Valley.
So that map there that you see, which shows a very narrow green space
along the border, would become part of the orange. So the Palestinians
would have in the West Bank an area that was contiguous. Those who say
there were cantons, completely untrue. It was contiguous.
HUME: Cantons being ghettos, in effect... 
ROSS: Right. 
HUME: ... that would be cut off from other parts of the Palestinian
state.
ROSS: Completely untrue. 
And to connect Gaza with the West Bank, there would have been an
elevated highway, an elevated railroad, to ensure that there would be
not just safe passage for the Palestinians, but free passage.
BARNES: I have two other questions. One, the Palestinians point out
that this was never put on paper, this offer. Why not?
ROSS: We presented this to them so that they could record it. When the
president presented it, he went over it at dictation speed. He then
left the cabinet room. I stayed behind. I sat with them to be sure,
and checked to be sure that every single word.
The reason we did it this way was to be sure they had it and they
could record it. But we told the Palestinians and Israelis, if you
cannot accept these ideas, this is the culmination of the effort, we
withdraw them. We did not want to formalize it. We wanted them to
understand we meant what we said. You don't accept it, it's not for
negotiation, this is the end of it, we withdraw it.
So that's why they have it themselves recorded. And to this day, the
Palestinians have not presented to their own people what was
available.
BARNES: In other words, Arafat might use it as a basis for further
negotiations so he'd get more?
ROSS: Well, exactly. 
HUME: Which is what, in fact, he tried to do, according to your
account.
ROSS: We treated it as not only a culmination. We wanted to be sure it
couldn't be a floor for negotiations.
HUME: Right. 
ROSS: It couldn't be a ceiling. It was the roof. 
HUME: This was a final offer? 
ROSS: Exactly. Exactly right. 
HUME: This was the solution. 
BARNES: Was Arafat alone in rejecting it? I mean, what about his
negotiators?
ROSS: It's very clear to me that his negotiators understood this was
the best they were ever going to get. They wanted him to accept it. He
was not prepared to accept it.
HUME: Now, it is often said that this whole sequence of talks here
sort of fell apart or ended or broke down or whatever because of the
intervention of the Israeli elections. What about that?
ROSS: The real issue you have to understand was not the Israeli
elections. It was the end of the Clinton administration. The reason we
would come with what was a culminating offer was because we were out
of time.
They asked us to present the ideas, both sides. We were governed by
the fact that the Clinton administration was going to end, and both
sides said we understand this is the point of decision.
HUME: What, in your view, was the reason that Arafat, in effect, said
no?
ROSS: Because fundamentally I do not believe he can end the conflict.
We had one critical clause in this agreement, and that clause was,
this is the end of the conflict.
Arafat's whole life has been governed by struggle and a cause.
Everything he has done as leader of the Palestinians is to always
leave his options open, never close a door. He was being asked here,
you've got to close the door. For him to end the conflict is to end
himself.
HUME: Might it not also have been true, though, Dennis, that, because
the intifada had already begun -- so you had the Camp David offer
rejected, the violence begins anew, a new offer from the Clinton
administration comes along, the Israelis agree to it, Barak agrees to
it...
ROSS: Yes. 
HUME: ... might he not have concluded that the violence was working? 
ROSS: It is possible he concluded that. It is possible he thought he
could do and get more with the violence. There's no doubt in my mind
that he thought the violence would create pressure on the Israelis and
on us and maybe the rest of the world.
And I think there's one other factor. You have to understand that
Barak was able to reposition Israel internationally. Israel was seen
as having demonstrated unmistakably it wanted peace, and the reason it
wasn't available, achievable was because Arafat wouldn't accept it.
Arafat needed to re-establish the Palestinians as a victim, and
unfortunately they are a victim, and we see it now in a terrible way.
HUME: Dennis Ross, thank you so much.

this escalation of violence would not have a reason to exist...
If you say so... :))
*LOL*
-Stefano

 
You are talking with an antisemite.  Have fun :)
-Stefano

 
The source of the shit that was wrote from ams67:
http://www.iap.org/zionism9.htm
http://www.mostpreciousink.com/palestine/articles/commandments.htm
http://www.mideastjournal.com/zionquotes1.html
etc... etc...
-Stefano

 them to the entire world? :)
Incredibile!!!
Le sue cazzate le dice pure in Inglese.
Questo aspira a diventare nobel per le cazzate!!!!

 
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,50830,00.html
I really can't see any American as a fair mediator for the war/dispute
between Palestianians and Israelis...for obvious reasons...
His mission failed anyway as it appears someone does not want to get the
peace:
http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/980919/1998091914.html
"...This comes as U.S. Middle East peace coordinator Deniss Ross prepares to
leave the area after a failed effort to break the deadlock in
Palestinian-Israeli negotiations due to Israel's refusal to accept the US
proposal for a 13 percent second phase withdrawal from Palestinian
territories..."
"...Meanwhile, the Israeli government ratified new plans for expanding its
settlements by 600 housing units. Settlers confirmed that the Israeli prime
ministers promised them compensations for any losses they incurred..."
"On Thursday, Jewish settlers gunned down a Palestinian student after two
Palestinian militants were shot dead by Israeli forces earlier last week."
http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/980916/1998091602.html
Regarding Mr Barak I have read many interesting things that do not make Mr
Barak a 'fair' politician...
http://www.ihrc.org/New_Folder5/amosyaron%20alert.htm
"ISRAELI WAR CRIMINAL PROMOTED BY BARAK
Ehud Barak's perceived image as a peacemaker was further dented, with the
news that he has promoted Amos Yaron to Director -General of the Israel
Defence Ministry. Yaron has been implicated in the infamous Sabra and
Shatila massacre, by an official Israeli commission of inquiry..."
http://www.gush-shalom.org/archives/article154.html
"The Peace Criminal
...Ehud Barak is a peace criminal. He brought about the failure of the Camp
David summit and its consequences, primarily the present intifada, in which
hundreds have already died. This might well lead to a general war, in which
thousands will perish..."
http://www.cnn.com/2000/WORLD/meast/01/27/israel.barak.02/
"Allegations against Barak might affect Mideast peace
A campaign fund-raising scandal involving Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak
may hinder his plans to reach a comprehensive Middle East peace agreement.
Israel's attorney general, Elyakim Rubinstein, announced Thursday he had
ordered a criminal investigation into Barak's One Israel political
coalition, based on an Israeli comptroller's report naming questionable
fund-raising methods for Barak's 1999 election campaign. "...
The list is long...
K

Questo aspira a diventare nobel per le cazzate!!!!
...disse il bue all'asino...
-Stefano

 The list is long...
Only because it's easy to throw **allegiations** at anyone without any
proofs.
-Stefano