Only In Israel

Saturday, July 09, 2005

A little more non-violent protesting.

A few months ago, I wrote a series of posts about a typical anti-fence protest in which I described the way Palestinians and various leftist activists attack soldiers with stones, sticks and try to take away soldiers' weapons. The response I got from ISMer was complete denial and one of the comments said:
Protesters do not try to take soldiers weapons. This is an absolutely ridiculous claim.
Ridiculous eh? Well how about a photo:


A Palestinian man attempts to take a way a policeman's rifle
while another woman hits him with a stick.

Right. Ridiculous.

19 Comments:

  • Great post

    By Anonymous Manker, at 9:54 AM, July 10, 2005  

  • Glad to see you posting!

    Do you know if there are rules about how far the police or army have to let these incidents go? While restraint up to a point might (not sure on that) be admirable, how can we defend ourselves if we are seen as weak? What would happen if the gun were actually taken?

    Olah Ima

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 11:55 AM, July 10, 2005  

  • A missed opportunity to blow his hand off.

    Misplaced pity.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 4:22 PM, July 11, 2005  

  • My triggerfinger would have slipped.
    Legal Defense.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10:37 PM, July 11, 2005  

  • More pathetic attempts. So tell us, what village is that photo from ? And why has it taken you three months to find a photo of a man touching a policeman's gun ? Since you claim it happens a lot, it should not have taken you three months to find this single photo. Let's also remember that you were claiming that Israeli activists were taking guns.

    Regarding Kinder USA, ISM, etc., more sloppiness on your part. You are referring to the Holy Land Foundation that was shut down in the USA in 2001. So how did Kinder USA give money to them recently ? Obviously they did not. They probably gave money to Holy Land Trust, a Palestinian organization in Beit Sahour that promotes non-violence.

    But they're all Palestinians, right ? And it doesn't matter when you are in the business of slander.

    Hey, the soldiers in Bil'in are doing a great job. Did you shoot Ramzi Yassin in the head two weeks ago when he was handing protesters bottles of water ?

    ISMer

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9:31 PM, July 21, 2005  

  • OK, I misunderstood the blogger's earlier claim above about Kinder USA.

    Riad Abdelkarim, formerly of Kinder USA, was questioned by US authorities for 75 minutes and then released. He was later held by Israeli authorities for two weeks, and then released. He has never been charged him with any crime, much less convicted of any crime.

    Nonetheless, for our blogger, he is guilty. Not only is he guilty according to our blogger, so is everyone and every organization ever associated with him (Our blogger claims that Adam and Huwaida were associated with Kinder USA).

    Gee, blogger, by that same line of reasoning, you are guilty of being a terrorist also. Some of your fellow Israeli soldiers have killed Palestinian civilians with no justification, and you know and are associated with some of those soldiers. Therefore, according to your own way of thinking, you are guilty of being a terrorist.


    ISMer

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10:36 PM, July 21, 2005  

  • ISMer - The author of this blog serves in the IDF. He is a soldier. He has himself stated that he has - "no free time at all". No matter how serious that claim is, he wouldn't write it without reason. Chances are that he, unlike you, doesn't have all the time in the world to respond to idiotic jabs at him or his country on the internet, although he does chat sometimes, it seems.

    About Ramzi Yassin: Searching for his name brings up very few results. They range from "scoop.co.nz" to NaziMedia and the ISM. I'm not saying it didn't happen, but with the ammount of information available right now... well, let me put it this way: Remember the kids that got shot by Israeli troops a couple months back? The initial story was that they were playing soccer. But the truth was that they were smuggling weapons.

    Actually, the ISM is more about slander than anyone else. To prove this, I refer you to ISM's constant whining about how the Security Fence is illegal. Israel has the right to defend itself, and that right cannot be alienated by any European court. They have ruled it illegal, yes. But if we're gonna talk legality here, I'm all for it. Now, let's start with... the three wars Israel has had to fight to basically keep it and its inhabitants from being destroyed? This is just the tip of the iceberg, let's go just an inch deeper: What about the PA's responsibility in the roadmap? Their president has openly stated that he will do NOTHING about the terrorists. The Arabs have flat out refused to stop violent attacks against innocent people while Israel is about a month away from giving back Gaza. The surrounding arab countries are twice as guilty as Israel, if one can even say that Israel is guilty of breaking any laws. I could go on, but what's the use?

    About the KINDERUSA thing - There are many shreds of evidence to suggest that the ISM isn't just a peaceful group of idiots. This is just another link in the chain.

    Finally, I have a question for you: I assume that the ISM's intention is to promote international solidarity as your name suggests, well, actually I don't really care what its intentions are, but, if you were to work for international solidarity as the name suggests, shouldn't your organization and its members be spread much more thin around the globe to promote actual solidarity in other places? Another question would be: How does protecting weapon smuggling tunnels promote solidarity?

    In summery; you haven't really rebutted anything. Here's an advice: Mix facts with common sense and logic to generate a post representative of any opinions you might have.

    By Blogger Nemesis6, at 2:47 AM, July 22, 2005  

  • Attn: ISMer

    I would like to ask you about something on the ISM website

    http://web.archive.org/web/20040623070113/www.palsolidarity.org/traveltopalestine/travelingtopalestine.php

    In this page (that has subsequently been taken down), why does it say this:

    We don't usually recommend people ride Israeli busses!

    I'm just wondering, why does the ISM tell people to specifically to avoid Israeli busses?

    By Anonymous Manker, at 11:58 AM, July 22, 2005  

  • Also ISMer

    So tell us, what village is that photo from ?

    What does it matter?

    And why has it taken you three months to find a photo

    As nemisis has pointed out, and the from the way he has been posting. It doesn't exactly look like the guy has a lot of free time on his hands.

    of a man touching a policeman's gun ?

    LOL, it looks the guy and the cop could fall over if the former lets go of the gun.

    Let's also remember that you were claiming that Israeli activists were taking guns.

    Actually no he didn't.

    http://onlyinisrael.blogspot.com/2005/04/response-for-ismer.html

    Protestors have tried to take soldier's weapons and so did Laila in the photo I've posted.

    He said protestors have tried to take weapons. He said it in a general format. He was using Laila (I assume an Israeli activists) as a specific example.

    And from all this you stil have yet to correspond to his response to you. All you have done is come in here, post another set of accusations, with no proof, and then get on high donkey. And ride off to protect another terrorists.


    To nemesis:

    and that right cannot be alienated by any European court. They have ruled it illegal, yes.

    1. The international court has no jurisdiction over Israel. It's ruling was advisory.

    2. The above court case was done without any Israeli defense. For the simple reason as previously stated that it has no jurisdiction over Israel.

    3. This led to a biased ruling.

    4. The ruling was based completely on arab arguements. And on the false premise that the territory is 'occupied' and the path of the fence. Not excluding the complete and willing ignorance of the terrorism that plagued Israel and created the entire reason for it.

    The fact is that the territory is disputed. As by the historical facts.

    By Anonymous Manker, at 12:23 PM, July 22, 2005  

  • ISMer, I have honestly no idea where that photo was taken. Though I hardly see how the village it was taken in is relevant. Do you have another explanation for what's happening in the picture other than a protestor pulling a weapon off a policemen while another one is attacking him with a stick?
    I'd love to hear it.
    I wasn't LOOKING for the photo. I found a photo of Leila trying to take the weapon from a soldier. This photo I just stumbled on in the internet. It was in a news story covering protestors in the Walla website.
    I didn't shoot Ramzi Yassin, and to tell you the truth, I'm not exactly in on the details of that incident, although I have to sincerely remark, that I have yet to see anyone giving out water bottles in anti-fence protests. The only bottles I've seen in protests had a rag sprouting from the topand were lit on fire and thrown in my direction.
    It's no secret the ISM is involved with KinderUSA, and if Riad Abdelkarim wasn't involved in terrorist funding how come he's no longer in that organisation?

    By Blogger OnlyInIsrael, at 3:29 PM, July 22, 2005  

  • Manker: I haven't really researched that story, but it doesn't surprise me. Kind of reminds me of the Durban conferance where they pushed that resolution that stated "Zionism is Racism", although A LOT of countries voted yes on the resolution -- Which shows that they're sell-outs --, it was essentially the Arabs who hijacked it and used it for their own agenda.

    By Blogger Nemesis6, at 6:49 PM, July 22, 2005  

  • Nemesis:

    I've learned to stop caring what the UN does and says.

    The fact is that UN resolutions are UN resolutions. While wusses like ISMer, would like to act as if the UN is the world gov't it isn't. It simply is an organisation that really was meant for people to peacefully talk out their differences. Thats it.

    The UN when it makes a resolution about territory, it literally means nothing. The UN has no more right to tell one to leave/take/transfer territory, than it does have the power of taking New Mexico and handing over to Mexico. It can't do it physically and simply it doesn't have those powers.

    Also look into how many organizations the UN has for 'palestinians'. At least a dozen or so, the most famous is the UNRWA. Or more specifically an illegal organization (even by the UN's own charter) that specifically takes care, and promotes interests of one group of people above all else, giving them preferential treatment.

    Hell look at their definition for a 'palestinian refugee'.

    http://www.un.org/unrwa/refugees/whois.html

    "Under UNRWA's operational definition, Palestine refugees are persons whose normal place of residence was Palestine between June 1946 and May 1948, who lost both their homes and means of livelihood as a result of the 1948 Arab-Israeli conflict. UNRWA's services are available to all those living in its area of operations who meet this definition, who are registered with the Agency and who need assistance. UNRWA's definition of a refugee also covers the descendants of persons who became refugees in 1948. The number of registered Palestine refugees has subsequently grown from 914,000 in 1950 to more than four million in 2002, and continues to rise due to natural population growth.

    This is beyond ridiculous for two reasons.

    1. The fact that people who left just because they wanted too, are now refugees if they left during that window of time.

    2. They are the ONLY group afforded the right to pass on their refugee status to their decendants. This is beyond BS. If a someone has a 'palestinian' step-parent, they are a refugee. Regardless if they've never been outside their city and have absolutely no connection with the area. Also it's just a joke that someone's grandkid can be a refugee from a war long ago. By that standard, I'm a refugee of Poland, Eastern Europe, and ancient Israel pre-diaspora.

    The UN is garbage when an organization allows Sudan and Iran onto it's human rights council, and syria onto the security council. While Israel cannot even participate in any of these things and in many cases has to sit out meetings because is not included into the grouping thing the UN does. While the PA can go into these meetings (when it's not even a nation!) and can even propose things.

    It's just a joke.

    Look up about this, you'll get more shocked as read up about it.

    By Anonymous Manker, at 9:29 PM, July 22, 2005  

  • As I've said, a protester touching a soldier or policeman's weapon is highly unusual and infrequent. I've seen it happen twice in about 40 protests. Once when a soldier charged into a crowd of civilians for no reason and looked like he was about to shoot a young Palestinian man at close range - again for no reason, nothing had happened. Another young Palestinian man held his rifle briefly, then people got in his way, then the soldier backed away, calmed down as adult Palestinians talked with him about his reponsibilities, and he then returned to his position. The other time, I saw an Israeli protester push a gun out of their face.

    In this photo it is obvious the Palestinian can't take the gun because the policeman has the gun strapped around his body with a green strap.

    Again, Riad Abdelkarim was accused of no crime by the US or Israeli governments. This is more guilt by slander, distortion and association of the type that has been practiced from the beginning against ISM. They said Tom Hurndall was armed, remember ? They said Bian Avery was not shot by Israeli soldiers. Gradually the lies are exposed and the truth comes out.

    The Wall is illegal not because of the UN, or because Israel has no right to protect itself, the Wall IS ILLEGAL BECAUSE ISRAEL CHOSE TO BUILD 89% OF IT ON PALESTINIAN LAND. It was built to take more land, to secure more settlements This is why it is illegal. It is also clearly immoral.

    Our friend who pretenda above that the West Bank (including East Jerusalem) and the Gaza Strip are "disputed territories" rather than "occupied territories" probably also believes the world is flat. Go read the Geneva Conventions. It's simple, clear and obvious. It's also a basic question again of morality. DON'T STEAL SOMEONE ELSE'S LAND. Clear enough ?

    That enough Israelis have managed to deceive themselves and one another into believing it's OK to steal Palestinians' land for settlements and for the Wall is a sign of serious self-delusion, denial and dysfunction within Israeli society.

    Ramzi Yassin was shot in the head for no reason by a soldier at Bil'in, as hundreds, even thousands of Palestinians have been shot for absolutely no reason over the last four years.

    Soldier, where was the protest in Tulkarem that you are claiming to describe, Nazlat Issa ? Tell me the location and I will post an accurate account.

    ISMer

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 5:08 AM, July 23, 2005  

  • The Wall is illegal not because of the UN,

    Hey some common sense

    or because Israel has no right to protect itself,

    Well atleast we know how you feel

    the Wall IS ILLEGAL BECAUSE ISRAEL CHOSE TO BUILD 89% OF IT ON PALESTINIAN LAND.

    You do realise by typing IN CAPITAL LETTERS (I CAN DO IT TOOOOOO!!!!!) does not make your statement true. You have done nothing to show that this territory actually belonged to the 'palestinians' except DOING THIS!!SHIFT+1!!!!

    It was built to take more land, to secure more settlements This is why it is illegal.

    Really? amazingly where ever the fence has been built terrorism has drastically fallen. So stopping terrorism to you is illegal?

    It is also clearly immoral.

    I guess saving lives is really immoral in your world.

    Our friend who pretenda above that the West Bank (including East Jerusalem) and the Gaza Strip are "disputed territories" rather than "occupied territories" probably also believes the world is flat.

    Why don't shut your cock holster of a mouth for a second, and actually do some research.

    Obviously ignoring the entire history of the region. You ignore the fact that the "green line" was an armistice line. This was specifically done by the arab states so as not to recognize Israel, and any kind of border. THIS IS WHY THE TERRITORY IS DISPUTED.

    Also let's look at the admission of the PLO in 1964

    http://www.palestine-un.org/plo/pna_two.html

    Article 24: This Organization does not exercise any territorial sovereignty over the West Bank in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, on the Gaza Strip or in the Himmah Area. Its activities will be on the national popular level in the liberational, organizational, political and financial fields.

    Now lets hope you get yourself out of perpetual dumbass mode.

    Go read the Geneva Conventions.

    I have, the problem is that this is a unique situation. The territory is disputed, and so creates a lot of issues.

    However I do know that YOU HAVEN'T READ IT. For if you did you would know that Israeli military operations are legal, checkpoints are legal, and hell the fence is legal too (since the territory is DISPUTED [WOW WRITING IN CAPS IS FUN!!!])

    It's simple, clear and obvious.

    So why don't you get it???

    It's also a basic question again of morality.

    Your morality of the most effective way of killing Israeli's

    DON'T STEAL SOMEONE ELSE'S LAND.

    GUESS WHAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


    We're not

    Clear enough ?

    By Anonymous Manker, at 1:06 PM, July 23, 2005  

  • And before I forget TSMer

    Why the hell did the ISM tell people not to ride Israel busses?

    By Anonymous Manker, at 1:10 PM, July 23, 2005  

  • Correction:

    *Smacks self on forhead*

    The Wall is illegal not because of the UN,

    Atleast you admit the UN has no power

    By Anonymous Manker, at 1:32 PM, July 23, 2005  

  • Manker, I already know what a sham the U.N. is, but I didn't know its juristiction. Well, hopefully they won't get any of that anytime soon! :-)

    But... why don't they do what they did to the BBC, just to the U.N.? Just walk out. I mean... Israel being in the U.N. is more harm than good. The U.N. has made so many resolutions against Israel that it's just plain rediculous and shows how afraid they are to actually talk with the Arab members - Who shouldn't even be members -, that they just try to condemn Israel as much as possible to get on their good side. I haven't even seen it through yet, but UNDANGER.PPS taught me a lot! (Search for it on google, it's a powerpoint presentation!)

    But anyway, I'm noticing a pattern here. I've seen it before. Let me elaborate: A guy criticizes Israel, yet he brings NO evidence and denies anything that might make him question if his loyalty is just. ISMer has already ignored several questions and asking him would just be cruel as it would back him into a corner.

    By Blogger Nemesis6, at 1:37 AM, July 25, 2005  

  • But... why don't they do what they did to the BBC,

    Well technicaly they didn't walk out of the BBC. They make it so that most workers in the BBC have to constantly be shifted, they can't stay longer than five months. And have severly limited access, to pretty much anywhere.

    But I get what you mean.

    just to the U.N.? Just walk out. I mean... Israel being in the U.N. is more harm than good.

    You have to remember that walking out of it, has a lot of significance. No matter what, you have to admit that Israel isn't the strongest nation on the block. Leaving the UN might really isolate Israel badly. If lets say that their were multiple countries, or something like the US, than it would signify the collapse of the organization, and then no one would care (except koffee and weenie ISMer's).

    The reason also is that historically when members walk out of international organizations it represents a sign of war, such as the Japanese walking out of the League of nation. Or when the Arab leaders walked out, after the 1947 partition vote. (While they didn't leave as members, it still was an important sign).

    Honestly while the UN is bad, it's not the worst thing. After all these resolutions, what has really happened? Nothing.


    The U.N. has made so many resolutions against Israel that it's just plain rediculous and shows how afraid they are to actually talk with the Arab members - Who shouldn't even be members -, that they just try to condemn Israel as much as possible to get on their good side.

    Right now three big things are happening to the UN

    1. If Bolton gets to become the UN representative, I promise you things will either get better or a lot more funny.

    2. The US congress I believe has passed a bill demanding that the UN clean up it's act.

    Ahh there it is

    http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3097534,00.html

    It's a good read.

    and
    3. Their have currently been some whispers of creating a "league of democracies". Pretty much a rival "UN", but one that actually makes sense.

    It's making koffi nervous, so it's a good thing.

    I haven't even seen it through yet, but UNDANGER.PPS taught me a lot! (Search for it on google, it's a powerpoint presentation!)

    I'll look into this.

    But anyway, I'm noticing a pattern here. I've seen it before. Let me elaborate: A guy criticizes Israel, yet he brings NO evidence

    WHAT DO YOU MEAN NO EVIDENCE!, HE WAS WRITING IN CAPS, SO IT MUST BE TRUE!

    and denies anything that might make him question if his loyalty is just.

    He's been brainwashed, he avoids anything that make him wrong.

    ISMer has already ignored several questions and asking him would just be cruel as it would back him into a corner.

    Several!, he's dodged OnlyinIsrael's answers to him completely in his post "response to ISMer". Also he's ignored all the other questions.

    But saying that would back into a corner isn't so great. It's more like he back agaisnt a cliff.

    By Anonymous Manker, at 10:01 AM, July 25, 2005  

  • One more thing TSMer

    You say go read the geneva convention, amazingly I know for a fact you haven't. If you had, you'd have known that your own presence of 'protesting' and the ISM activities in the disputed territories puts you and other members in a very precarious situation.

    "Article 4

    Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals.

    Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention are not protected by it. Nationals of a neutral State who find themselves in the territory of a belligerent State, and nationals of a co-belligerent State, shall not be regarded as protected persons while the State of which they are nationals has normal diplomatic representation in the State in whose hands they are.

    The provisions of Part II are, however, wider in application, as defined in Article 13.

    Persons protected by the Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field of August 12, 1949, or by the Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea of August 12, 1949, or by the Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War of August 12, 1949, shall not be considered as protected persons within the meaning of the present Convention.

    Article 5

    Where, in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State.

    Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention.


    In each case, such persons shall nevertheless be treated with humanity, and in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed by the present Convention. They shall also be granted the full rights and privileges of a protected person under the present Convention at the earliest date consistent with the security of the State or Occupying Power, as the case may be. "

    It's amazing how all these groups go under the banner of 'international law'. When it clearly doesn't even side with them.

    Technically most ISMer's don't even have protection under the geneva convention when doing their 'activities and protest'.

    At most they can be considered enemy spies or saboteurs.

    But I am (and everyone else here) is still waiting for responses on all the other stuff we've challenged you on.

    By Anonymous Manker, at 4:25 PM, July 26, 2005  

Post a Comment

<< Home