Monday, October 16, 2006

Appeal for Help

News
This appeal for help, was published on Freckle

"Emad Mohammad Bornat of the village of Bil'in, video photographer for Reuters and documentary film maker...was arrested on Friday October 6th, 2006 while filming...by an Israeli Border policeman. When Emad arrived at the police station in Givat Zeev, he was wounded. The Border Police soldiers claimed a radio "fell" on him in the jeep, on the way to the station."
Read more...

24 comments:

  1. Teapot (Murdock)5:10 PM

    Are we talkin' 'bout an A-Team type opertion? 'cause those days are behind me.

    At any event, what's wrong wit the fence? See how the number of suicide attacks dropped. This means also less checkpoints for Palis.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Fence? Wall? Even Saudi Arabia is building fences on its borders with Yemen and Iraq. Even the US has fences on Mexico's borders, and if not mistaken, there are fences in Ireland... And in all these cases, you dont have terrorists and suicide bombers... So let's not overdo the fences / walls between Israel and the WEest Bank....

    ReplyDelete
  3. imbch, teapot, thanks for your comments, I'll try to reply to them asap...busy week!!

    ReplyDelete
  4. "What's wrong with the fence?"

    You clearly not only don't live near the fence on the Palestinian side; you also know nothing about the fence & its impact on Palestinians.

    First, it has NOT reduced terrorism. Palestinian militants have been forced due to opposition fr. the majority of Palestinians to suicide bombings to curtail such attacks.

    Second, the Wall is a sheer land grab by Israel allowing it to take control of a huge portion of the West Bank it doesn't already own.

    Third, the fence devastates many communities by cutting them off from their fields which may lie on the other side & hence cannot be cultivated.

    As for reducing roadblocks surely you must be joking. There are 450 roadblocks in the West Bank which effectively render it impossible to travel for any distance to do virtually anything. And that number has GONE UP, not down since the Wall was built. If you want to travel somewhere say to the doctor or a hospital, you will be very lucky if you make it there.

    What's wrong with the Wall? Unlike all the other walls you referred to which are on land owned by the state which built the wall, the Israeli Wall is built on Palestinian land, not Israeli.

    I wouldn't have any problem with a Wall built on Israeli land. I'd still say the Wall wouldn't be effective (esp. considering the success of Hezbollah rockets in overflying such a wall). But at least it would be legal. The current Wall is illegal under international law.

    And calling Palestinians "Palis" is a derogatory phrase used by the wingnuts at Little Green Footballs. You'd think that at a Lebanese site, this wingnut would at leave have an elementary level of decency & respect and call them by their proper name.

    But most of these wingnuts weren't taught any manners & so treat others like the barnyard animals they themselves are.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Richard, thanks for finally putting up an intelligent comment on this post.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Teapot4:06 PM

    Richard,
    1. I guess there is a price for terror. There was no wall before the Arafat ordered a new wave of terror.

    2. The west bank belongs to Israel LEGALLY, the fact that the Arab controlled UN sees it otherwise does not mean it is against international law.

    3. Palis is a short. I'd call them Pals, but they are no friends of mine. Palestine is not an Arabic name and means nothing in Arabic. I once asked a Palis what it meant and they were stumped. I told them it has no meaning. The Romans named the land of Israel after the Philistines. But the Palis are Arabs from ARABIA, not Judea.
    Also, the Arabs that occupy North Africa are not Africans.

    ReplyDelete
  7. "The west bank belongs to Israel LEGALLY, the fact that the Arab controlled UN sees it otherwise does not mean it is against international law."

    What a ridiculously void argument Teapot. Do you really think you can convince people with that?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Teapot6:02 PM

    What is ridiculous?
    If the West Bank is an illegal occupation, than all land held by Arabs outside ARABIA are and illegal ARAB OCCUPATION.

    It is legal to win a war when attacked and it is legal to take the land that your enemy used to attack u from. The Sinai desert, the Golan, the west bank, all are legally occupied.

    I guess its great as an Arab to have 20 states and hold most of the oil of the world. But why be astonished that u have power over the UN.

    BTW, the settlements are not illegal. It is illegal to re-settle population by force (like the Nazis transferred Jews from all over Europe to Poland).
    Read a little more, will ya?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Who says they're not illegal Teapot? You? The Israeli courts themselves have halted the expansion, development, and propagation of settlements. When they haven't acted, the International courts have. The whole world thinks they're illegal. I suppose you'll tell me the whole world controlled by Arabs?

    Anyway, the legality of settlements in the West Bank is not something worth discussing, it is an issue on which a wide consensus has been reached. The only people who have not acquiesced to this view are extremists.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Teapot6:38 PM

    Consensus is not law. There is a consensus among Arabs that Israel should be destroyed, does that make it legitimate?

    There is a consensus in the west that Arabs are barbaric, is that a law?

    If u gonna talk about the law, read the law.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Teapot, I am an Arab and I deal with Arabs every day, I can tell you that there is no consensus among Arabs that Israel should be destroyed but you wouldn't listen to me. So how about the fact, that Egypt, Jordan, Qatar, the UAE, Bahrain, Oman, Mauritania, Morocco, and Tunis (and probably others like Djibouti etc...) all not only recognize Israel but have some sort of formal relationship with it. Other countries, such as Saudi Arabia and Algiers, have offered Israel comprehensive peace plans which for one reason or another it has avoided. So please, stop bringing that point up, its a fallacy.

    Unlike you, Teapot, I live in the West and I know first hand that people here don't think Arabs are barbaric. Sure, there are extremists and racists out there, but they exist everyone and have those kinds of narrow-minded views towards a multitude cultures and societies (do I need to mention examples here?).

    And finally, there is legal consensus Teapot, thats what the UN is there for, legal consensus across the world that these settlements are illegal. In Israel's legal system, too, there are question marks as to the legality of these land seizures - witness the Israeli courts' condonence of the Gaza 'Disengagement Plan'.

    The West Bank is next, and rightfully so.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Teapot7:18 PM

    One more note to Jade,
    Was the Jordanian occupation of the West Bank illegal?
    Was the Egyptian occupation of Gaza illegal?

    And a note to Richard,
    A few years ago I decided that I will sit next to the bus driver when taking the bus. This way I could jump on the suicide bomber before he enters the bus.
    One day I see an Arab women in Muslim dress climbing the steps of the bus holding a gun (!).
    I'm starting to think what I'm supposed to do. She gets a meter a way from me and I see that she is also holding a baby, and the gun is a toy.
    My point are:
    1. It takes a lot of practice to jump people in a split second.
    2. Don't carry a toy gun into a bus full of soldiers armed to the teeth.
    4. When a bus bombing occurred all the TV channels were talking about it and regular programing was disrupted. (at least "LOST" is on cable and we can have nuclear war and it still be on)
    3. It's easier to take the bus after the fence. Sure, the only people killed on bus bombings are poor, but goddammit I'm poor too (for now).

    ReplyDelete
  13. "Was the Jordanian occupation of the West Bank illegal?
    Was the Egyptian occupation of Gaza illegal?"


    Yes absolutely. The international community refused to acknowledge Jordan or Egypt's annexations,just like they refuse to accept the annexation of the Golan Heights by Israel, or the partial annexation of the West Bank through settlements.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Teapot7:42 PM

    Jade,
    It is very hard to know what Arabs think in dictatorial regimes. The regime can have good relations wit Israel but it does not mean the people are for it.
    Take Jordan for example. Professional associations forbid people to work in Israel. This means that if a Jordanian doctor came to work in Israel he will lose his license to practice in Jordan.

    A journalist from Egypt that came to cover Israel lost his license, and so on.

    On the independent networks like Al-Jazeera and MBC I hear very extremist views.

    Even Arab Israelis living here in the north have insane conspiracy theories. One man told me recently that the Qassam rockets fired from Gaza are actually fired by Israel.
    Whoa? Huh?

    About the fence, it supplies a lot of work for Arab Israelis contractors, why take their jobs away?

    ReplyDelete
  15. Changing its path back to its original one - following the Green Line - won't result in them losing their jobs, Teapot.

    So thats what your argument has degraded to? Your undying concern for Arab workers and their income?

    ReplyDelete
  16. Teapot8:03 PM

    I'm just using humor.
    BTW, The international community can say pigs can fly, it does not make it a law. After 9/11 the west changed its mind a few times about "morality".
    I would not take moral advice from dictatorial Arab regimes or former Nazi-occupied Europe.
    The fence foll owes the green line very closely, there were changes made. U are being picky.

    ReplyDelete
  17. "U are being picky"

    :D

    Teapot, I'm really happy with your comments today, you've saved us all the trouble of proving the indefensibility of your position.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Teapot8:17 PM

    Did u find out what the LAW, or the Geneva convention has against the settlements?
    The paragraph about moving a population by force is being cynically used for political reasons.
    But I think u knew that.
    I don't need to convince people of the legality of settlements, its clear in the law.
    I'm all for a Uni-Pull from the west bank, but most of the unpopulated land will still be in the hands of Israel.
    And it would be legal.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Ah Teapot, what I would argue a valid interpretation of the Geneva Convention you would call a manipulation. But it doesn't matter in 2 ways Teapot:
    a) The UN has already voted in favor or a resolution declaring these settlments illegal (UNSC-R 446, March 1979)
    b) Israel doesn't care, and hasn't adhered to this resolution for 27 years.

    In fact, the Israeli governments and military organisations that have pushed for these settlements have done so in violation of Israeli law:

    If u gonna talk about the law, read the law

    ReplyDelete
  20. Anonymous10:25 PM

    Teapot:

    What does the Geneva convention say about destroying peoples' homes and ripping up their orchards in order to build a wall on confiscated land to protect settlements built on stolen land!!??

    ReplyDelete
  21. Teapot11:35 PM

    Jade,
    Are u saying the settlers were forced to live in settlements? The law is very clear black on white.
    What does not matter is the UN resolution. A UN resolution does not comply with International Law.
    The UN passed a resolution that Zionism is racism, a few years after, it reversed this joke. The UN says Sheba farms do not belong to Lebanon and passed a resolution on the subject, so? Where's your UN now?

    "International humanitarian law prohibits the forcible transfer of segments of the population of a state to the territory of another state which it has occupied as a result of the resort to armed force. This principle, which is reflected in Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, was drafted immediately following the Second World War. As International Red Cross' authoritative commentary to the Convention confirms, the principle was intended to protect the local population from displacement, including endangering its separate existence as a race, as occurred with respect to the forced population transfers in Czechoslovakia, Poland and Hungary before and during the war. This is clearly not the case with regard to the West Bank and Gaza"

    "The agreements reached between Israel and the Palestinians contain no prohibition whatsoever on the building or expansion of settlements. On the contrary, it is specifically provided that the issue of settlements is reserved for permanent status negotiations, which are to take place in the concluding stage of the peace talks."

    Anonymous,
    stolen land? show me the word "Palestine" or the word "Jerusalem" in your Koran.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Teapot,
    Yeah I, obviously, know about the Shebaa farms issue and I support the UN's stand on it. According to all documentation available, Shebaa is Syrian. If the Syrians want it to give us the farms then they should formally, something they haven't done yet.

    Anyway, did you read the link I sent you? It talked about law violations in Israel.

    You can think whatever you want about the UN's right to exist and its legal ability to impose international law, but like I said before, it doesn't matter. The UN does pass international law in the form of its resolutions and Israel has violated dozens of them.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Teapot12:03 AM

    So, Jade, now u agree the Israeli settlements in the west bank are legal. It has nothing to do wit how u feel!

    ReplyDelete
  24. What? Legal? Where have u been this whole discussion?

    No No, completely ILLEGAL - by any standards except those of religious extremists (and Teapot).

    And thats the end of that...I think I've made my point (and u, urs) and I have other things to do my dear Teapot then discuss your delusions.

    ReplyDelete

Powered by Blogger.