SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Ilaine who wrote (54241)10/23/2002 5:16:22 PM
From: Sir Francis Drake  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 281500
 
CB - well, that's your choice.

If you think that it is better for Israel not to be held to the higher Western standards, standards WE WOULD FEEL DISHONORED IN NOT FOLLOWING OURSELVES, then fine, you can hold them to the Arab standards or one of Nadine's Bibi-The-Great multiple-choice, mix-and-match menu standards replete with secret codes. If you think it is too much to ask of Israel, in having a desire to be part of Western culture, to follow the admittedly and PROUDLY higher standard, then just say so. If you don't think Israel should follow the higher standard YOU yourself would follow, fine.

It is not for me to say - let the Israeli's decide. You don't see me holding Arabs up to some "rarified" Western standard - I let them tell ME what their standards are. Same with the Israelis - I let them tell ME what standards do they prefer to be judge on, and I'll accept that. I know what standards I hold up MY country to, and MY culture. But as I've said repeatedly - I don't feel we have the right to impose our culture on others - so with Arabs, so with Israelis. I welcome the people with open arms, but I don't force myself in.

As to:

Everybody "understands" the Palestinian side, but few "understand" the Israeli side.

I direct you to the latter part of the post you are responding to:

Message 18148511

"But here is the second problem and this is at the root of this. Simple - an oppressed people, victims, in general are given more lattitude than the oppressors. Now, regardless of how you feel about it, that is exactly how most of the world sees it: Israelis as oppressors, Palestinians as victims. Nobody recognizes the settlements. Nobody. The occupation is not seen as a noble Israeli burden by anyone in the world. The internationally recognized borders are the pre-67 ones. There's your problem. Now, a victim is seen as justifiably enraged, and people tend to forgive excess there. But they'll come down like a ton of bricks on any excess by the victimizer. Which really is the explanation of the phenomenon you are seeing.



To: Ilaine who wrote (54241)10/23/2002 8:06:13 PM
From: Hawkmoon  Respond to of 281500
 
The Mitchell report is a nice read and generally fair to both sides (probably more fair than it should be).

But to this day, I reject that Israeli shots killed 12-year-old Muhammad al Durra.. I still believe that was a stage killing by Palestinian militants given the evidence and ballistic analysis presented.

And it is one of those factors that, just as it might have galvanized Palestinian violence, caused me to realize that the Palestinian cause was one where children would be "martyred" in the name of the "cause".... And I find that utterly disgusting...

Go the the following website and review the video:
al-bushra.org

And ask yourself why, after all the shooting that took place while he was filming that father and son, he remained steady UNTIL there were shots fired that killed the son and wounded the father.. suggesting he was startled from behind.. Additionally, the sound seemed to "block out" for a moment, normally associated with loud noises causing distortion.. But there should have been no loud sounds other than the impact of the bullets, since the Israeli rifle fire was coming from some distance away. Furthermore, there was excessive dust. Finally, if you look at the photos of the track of the bullet holes, it's indicative of a burst of automatic rifle fire, not single shots. It travels in a vertical like (barrel rise from multiple shots and over to the right, indicative of a right-handed shooter).

That's because the shot came from behind the Photographer, not from his right where the Israeli compound lay... The photographer jerked because he felt the bullets fly past him and strike the wall perpendicular, creating circular bullet holes, not angled strikes which would be the case from any shots from Israeli rifles being aimed at Palestinian gunmen on the other side of that wall...

info.jpost.com
abbc.com

If you look at the last photo, it shows the bullet hole behind the father.. a circular hole, not one that would be elongated by a shot being fired from a 45 degree angle from the right (where the Israelis were).

And some more info:

metimes.com

"The film footage shows that the father and son were hit by a volley of bullets. However the (Israeli) sharpshooter at Magen (the army post) was firing single shots only. According to soldiers interviewed, no automatic gunfire was used."

But can I "prove it".. no... not without being to see a video that tracks when all the bullet holes were made. But I can state that at some point, bullets were being fired at the spot where that father and child were hiding from a position perpendicular to that wall.

The Israelis, in a feat of incompetence, destroyed the wall out of security concerns without preserving evidence of the incident...

Hawk