Only In Israel

Saturday, September 03, 2005

Eye on Israel

I've discovered an excellent site, titled "Eye On Israel" which presents an interactive map of Israel, with great information on tourist sites and great graphic interface. Specificly check out the old city of Jerusalem, although all of it is good.
Apparently it's a JNF project. Seriously, one of the best sites I've seen about touring Israel.


  • Hello, you have a great blog here! I'm definitely going to bookmark you!
    I have a self employment site/blog. My site pretty covers self employment related stuff.
    Come and check it out if you get time :-)

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 1:43 AM, September 03, 2005  

  • It's funny, Israelis are always complaining Palestinian maps never show Israel. Now look at this map. As far as the JNF is concerned, everything from the river to the sea is Israel.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 4:20 PM, September 03, 2005  

  • 1. It's not a government site. My problem is with Palestinian .gov sites publishing maps of Israel titled Palestine
    2. There is no sovereign state other than Israel between the river and the sea. There's an autonomous region, sovereign states like Jordan and Egypt are clearly marked in the map.
    3. Gaza and the West Bank ARE marked on the smaller scale map. Gaza is also marked on the larger scale one.
    Next time, have a better look.

    By Blogger OnlyInIsrael, at 6:27 PM, September 03, 2005  

  • You may be right, but I don't see where it says West Bank. All I see is "Judea" and "Samaria." You only have a problem w/ .ps sites? Doesn't bother you when Hamas or PFLP does it?

    Saying it's not a government site is splitting hairs, considering the JNF's quasi-official nature. 50% of the ILA board appointees come from JNF. By law if any of its land is leased to Arabs, the government must compensate it with equal land for Jewish use. Not to mention its role in trading in stolen Palestinian land in the West Bank thru fraud using its settlement arm, Himnuta, a company that has received funds from the Israeli state.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 7:03 PM, September 03, 2005  

  • I don't mind when Hamas and PFLP do it. I don't expect better, nor does it hurt me in any way, because I can expect such opinions from non-government organisations, especially terrorists.
    When governments act like that, especially governments who claim to be striving for peace act like that, that's what I find troubling.
    JNF isn't a government organisation. The government has no control of the way it uses its funds, and the agreement they have about the land they own is limited to that land only.
    The JNF's land is largely used for reforestation efforts, and not for building homes or appartments, so the entire Jews/Non-Jews argument is mostly irrelevant.
    I have to admit I have never heard of an organisation called "Himnuta". And as for it's "shadowy" dealings, it is well known the JNF owns large portions of land in the West Bank, Jordan, Lebanon and Syria since as early as the 1910s.
    Judea and Samaria are the correct geographical names for those two regions. They have been in use for centuries. The term West Bank is a political term, coming to refer to arab controlled lands west of the Jordan river. It's not a geographical term, and hence has no place in a geographical map.

    By Blogger OnlyInIsrael, at 7:36 PM, September 03, 2005  

  • There is a huge difference between refusing to recognise a sovereign an independant state like Israel and failing to label a state that does not actually exist as yet.

    Palestine will hopefully exist in the near future, but does not exist today.
    Complaining that it is not labelled West Bank is riddled with naivety.

    When the Palestinian state is established it will be called Palestine not "The West Bank".

    Israeli organisations are entitled to refer to that geographic location by its biblical name. The green line can clearly be seen on the map showing that there is a difference between that area and the rest of Israel (just like Gaza can clearly be traced out).

    By Anonymous Steve, at 4:57 PM, September 05, 2005  

  • I do want to thank our soldier/blogger for providing this great space for me and the ISM to post our views to the public. At this point I am posting more information to this blog than the soldier/blogger is. Many of my friends are now reading this blog to get updated information from me. Maybe I will suggest that the ISM website link to this blog as well, because it has turned into a good ISM site? This is almost as good as Israel Indymedia, another really cool activist site.

    Gee, it really saves me from having to spend the time and money of setting up my own blog.

    See the editorial below from Ha'aretz re soldiers' behavior in Bil'in. Another Ha'aretz article notes that the army says some soldiers have been disciplined from their actions in Bil'in. I wonder if our soldier/blogger was one of them?


    Where's the restraint in Bil'in?

    By Haaretz Editorial
    September 6, 2005

    After proving their sensitivity and intelligence in dispersing the demonstrations in Gush Katif, the Israel Defense Forces and police could have been expected to apply the same policy in handling the demonstrators against the separation fence in the village of Bil'in.

    The IDF and police did not fire at the protesters on the roof in Kfar Darom, even when the latter threw dangerous substances at them, and they refrained from using force even against violent protesters. Similarly, it could have been hoped that the soldiers would hold their fire when facing left-wing and Palestinian protesters.

    Instead, outrageous images are published week after week of soldiers kicking left-wing demonstrators and firing salt or rubber-coated bullets - showing their general contempt for the right to legitimate protest.

    Three different judges have recently castigated the defense forces for the excessive use of force in Bil'in. Despite this, they once again fired at the demonstrators, this time - last Friday - even before they had left the village area toward the fence.

    The demonstrations of the West Bank villagers, whose lands have been confiscated for the construction of the separation fence, have been taking place for the past two years. Together with the petitions to the High Court of Justice, they are a legitimate and sometimes effective means of protest against the annexation of land intended to expand settlements, under the pretense of building the fence. The lands taken from the residents of Bil'in, some of which are privately owned, are mostly intended to expand existing settlements, but also to build a new settlement called Nahlat Heftziba.

    Expropriating more than half the village's lands for nonsecurity purposes arouses unnecessary anger, and it is doubtful whether such measures are necessary or wise. The flexible building plans of the settlements are in dispute. In Bil'in's case, it is doubtful whether there are even confirmed plans.

    Demonstrations that took place in other villages have been effective in getting the fence line moved closer to the Green Line. In Bil'in, the residents still hope their protest will reduce the scope of the disaster.

    The demonstrations in Bil'in and the adjacent villages have become the Palestinians' main protest against the continued expansion of the settlements, and they are even dubbed the "fence intifada." If the authorities are thinking of putting an end to these demonstrations forcibly, and taking protesters into preventive detention, they should also consider the alternative. There is a fear that the legitimate and very restricted "fence intifada" will lead to the eruption of another armed intifada.

    The separation fence is a means to stop terror, but all the sides know that its line marks, to a large extent, the future border between Israel and the Palestinian state. The attempt to annex more territories, to build more settlements and to arouse more hatred among those whose land is confiscated is superfluous.

    The most obvious lesson from the dismantling of the Gaza settlements is that they should never have been set up in the first place. One day's settlement success became another day's political and security millstone. The injustice imposed on Bil'in residents could still be fixed. But, in any case, the village's legitimate right to protest must not be tampered with.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 5:55 PM, September 11, 2005  

  • Boohoo.

    The boor Balestinians and their boor leftist friends.


    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 11:17 AM, September 12, 2005  

  • ISMer - if you don't mind, I wanna try something: Stating the obvious and see if you deny it.

    1 -
    Let's start by stating the obvious - If you put yourself in harms way, there is a chance that you will be harmed.

    2 - Throwing stones, physically attacking, or grabbing or even touching the weapons of police and/or armed military personel on active duty classifies as putting yourself in harms way to some degree, and putting yourself in harms way is generally not a good idea. That makes sense, doesn't it?

    3 - If a mob advanced, throwing stones, molotov cocktails, and whatnot at you, you would feel threatened, regardless of who or what you are. Even if you have been trained, you're still only human.

    Now, baring the above in mind, picture yourself as a soldier. Now, I know that you hate Israeli ones, so it doesn't have to be one of them. Hell, you probably hate Israelis in general, but anyway: Imagine yourself as facing an angry mob armed, composed of who knows who and who knows what(terrorists, stones throwers, etc.). You would feel justly threatened and, possibly, anxious or afraid. Now let's turn to the mob: They've put themselves in harms way by confronting you, an armed soldier, by throwing molotov cocktails and other things, and coherently, they constantly present you with a distraction big enough to divert your attention from any possible attacks from gunmen. You can't shield your face from stones, keep them from forcefully pushing past you, and at the same time keep an eye open for gunmen. Not efficiently, anyway.

    What do you think of the 1, 2, and 3? Do you think they are errornous or incorrect?

    By Blogger Nemesis6, at 9:59 AM, September 13, 2005  

  • Nemesis, you have painted a completely inaccurate picture of what happens at protests. Your image is one based in propoganda not reality. I will attach links to videos of pretty typical protests below.

    This is what typically happens. A crowd of Palestinians, Israelis and internationals marches, chanting and singing. There is no stone throwing and there are no molotovs. In hundreds of anti-wall protests over three years, there has never been a gunman. And the Israeli army has never claimed there has been one.

    The heavily armed soldiers wait in riot gear. The marchers reach the soldiers. Generally the marchers stop and try to negotiate. Sometimes they try and walk around the soldiers. In either case, the soldiers begin hitting, teargassing and shooting rubber bullets at marchers who have used absolutely no violence. Sometimes after the soldiers attack like that, some youths who are away from the protest throw rocks. The soldiers invade the village, whether youths have thrown rocks or not. When the soldiers enter their village, youths do frequently throw rocks.

    Here is how Ha'aretz described the situation after viewing videotapes of protests. Note also the reaction of Israeli judges to the protest videotapes:

    A July 28 Ha'aretz Daily article, “Border Police `lie about violence at fence protests”, by Jonathan Lis concluded that: "An investigation by Haaretz has found that policemen from that company have made false accusations against demonstrators and even made arrests on the basis of those accusations.... In other cases, soldiers gave false testimony about rock throwing and other violence when most of the protests were peaceful... In recent weeks, three judges harshly criticized troops after watching videotapes that nullified their allegations."

    Here are some videos:

    April 28 2005 Bil'in protest video:

    July 20,2005 Bil'in demo:

    Choose from about ten IWPS videos here:

    Bil'in December 14, 2004 is one above that I am familiar with.


    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8:23 PM, September 13, 2005  

  • Mkay, I see we're not going anywhere with this, so I'll be blunt:

    If you, for whatever reason, plan to annoy, harass, and possibly cause physical harm to armed soldiers, you are not the sharpest tool in the box. I mean it's just plain stupid. You don't accomplish anything other than putting both yourselves and the soldiers in danger. It's called staying out of trouble, and you guys should try it.

    By Blogger Nemesis6, at 10:12 PM, September 13, 2005  

  • As I suggested, take a look at the protest videos.

    Let's see, in democratic countries people have a right to peaceful protest. Oh yeah, I forgot, Israel is not a democracy for Palestinians living in Israel or for those living in the Occupied Territories. Palestinians get shot and beaten for protesting.

    So, in Israel, as opposed to other democratic countries, you have no right to protest in front of police or soldiers if you are Palestinian.

    Does Nemesis apply this standard of no peaceful protest ("annoying or harrassing soldiers") everywhere in the world, or just to Palestinians? Did Israeli settlers have a right to peacefully protest? Did African-Americans have a right to protest the denial of their civil rights? Blacks in South Africa?

    Hmmm.. if Nemesis only applies the no peaceful protest rule to Palestinians, it would seem Nemesis is a racist. If Nemesis applies this no protest rule worldwide, Nemesis would be a fascist.

    Which is it? Racist or fascist?


    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 6:54 AM, September 14, 2005  

  • I'm gonna ignore your political banter and challenge a couple of things: Me being a fascist or a racist among them. First, yes. People have a right to protest in democratic countries, BUT LET THE PEOPLE THEMSELVES PROTEST. You don't have an obligation to come to the middle-east just to protest. But you took the initiative to come and join the Arabs in their hatred of Jews, displayed, among many ways, as angry mobs at checkpoints. The Middle-east, by popular opinion, isn't the best place to protest. Be glad you're facing Israelis and not Arabs stopping you from your so-called "peaceful protesting" protesting. Notice the quotation marks, illustrating that I think that's complete bullcrap. If these were peaceful protests, there would be no major problems. But they're not.

    Now I'd like you to explain how I'm a fascist and/or a racist for saying that YOUR DEFINITION of peaceful protesting is stupid. You can't call me what you want me to be just because you don't agree with me. Remember when you didn't believe that protesters tried to take soldiers' weapons? In that case you wanted it not to be true and initially denied this ever happening, and then you were presented with several images proving you wrong. Kind of the same thing here. I can provide you footage of this, too, and easily.

    Peaceful protesting(even if you decide to leave your country to protest with some diluted Arabs) is OK, but what you're doing is not peaceful protesting and you know it. In peaceful protests you leave behind many things such as hatred, rocks, sling-shots, and any will to harm fellow human beings.

    And please, don't refer to me in the third person as if you're preaching to anyone that agree with you. You're not.

    By Blogger Nemesis6, at 4:06 AM, September 15, 2005  

  • Yes, take a look at their protest videos. Or you can sit back, relax and watch the movie.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8:58 AM, September 15, 2005  

  • Whipped! :-)

    By Blogger Nemesis6, at 4:13 AM, September 17, 2005  

  • Yes, so I watched some of the videos, and I didn't get the point. I was expecting to see something difficult to explain or defend. There is nothing! It's hilarious. Who did this website? What's the point? Couldn't they find any better videos than those?

    Surely after a five year uprising and millions of minutes of tapes someone could have found something to embarrass Palestinians. Not on this website, evidently.

    Did any of you actually watch the clips? Please explain to me what are the terible things they are supposed to expose? Cause I didn't see anything.

    Great job,


    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9:07 AM, September 19, 2005  

  • If you didn't understand it the first time, enable either your speakers and/or your ears.

    You seriously didn't find anything wrong with the footage you were presented with? You're beyond reasoning with at this point, and I'm not gonna bother.

    Seriously, you're presented with pictures of people firing into an empty room for no reason, supposedly injured people being dropped by the people carrying them, their wounds changing places, all whilst exhibiting no visual signs of blood-loss, and people, supposedly injured, lying on the ground, casually checking their cellphones.

    Don't forget those ambulances instantly showing up when needed. Aren't these the same ambulances that are supposedly held up till the last minute by those vicious, evil, Zionist Jews at checkpoints? They actually seem to arrive rather quickly. See: That's kind of the point of the film - things aren't always as they seem, or as they're seen, for that matter. Hmm, I guess I did end up bothering. There's more in the film than this. I think the reason you don't see anything wrong with this is because you're used to this. You've probably been in plenty of these situations, and haven't really been aware that what you're seeing is merely, as it's titled, Pallywood.

    By Blogger Nemesis6, at 4:14 AM, September 22, 2005  

  • OK, the last time I looked I did not notice the 18 minute documentary and just watched some of the raw footage. Now I watched the documentary. The only segments that raised any question were the Palestinian gunman shooting into the building and the possibly "moving corpse". However, we don't really know where the Israeli military was at that moment. Soldiers could have approached in a jeep, APC or on foot, or the scene could have been staged. I couldn't see the corpse move on my screen, but I would not be completely surprised if Palestinians tried to smuggle out a wanted gunman posing as a corpse.

    Otherwise the scenes all look like ones I've witnessed where Palestinians are actually shot. The behavior is the same. It's not anything staged. Nor is the ambulance presence at a place like Netzarim anything unusual.

    The filmmaker makes an extremely weak case here. It is a propaganda film. Again, if that's all he can do with millions of minutes of footage, there is clearly not much that is staged. His these is disproven by his own film.


    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 6:36 PM, September 22, 2005  

  • So when you see protests, people's injuries change places, there's no blood whatsoever, and injured people show no signs whatsoever, other than acting injured, of actually being injured?

    By the way, you say "possibly" about the "moving corpse". Do you also see moving corpses activating muscles that only living people could activate and use frequently? You see lots of things over there, don't you? Is this one of them?

    By Blogger Nemesis6, at 11:06 PM, September 22, 2005  

  • Nemesis, as I wrote, in the video I watched I could not see the corpse move. It was not clear. It was very blurry. So I do not accept that is what happened, although I will not rule it out, as I wrote. It is possible that they were trying to get a wanted fighter out of the area.

    Using a video like that from a drone the Israeli army claimed they saw a Qassam taken out of an UNRWA ambulance in Jabalia. The Israeli army later withdrew the claim and admitted it was a stretcher not a Qassam. Much in those blurred distant photos depends on what you want/expect to see.

    Let us also remember that video was shot from an Israeli military drone. If it was really "a live corpse", there is no evidence it was staged for the media, but rather it was likely a trick to avoid the Israeli military.

    The other things you write about I did not see. One man falls after being shot in the leg. The filmmaker freezes the frame and tries to claim there was no blood in the picture so the man was not really shot. Again, the frame was very blurry, hard to see. He may have been shot with live ammunition and there may have been blood that was just hard to see in a very blurry picture, and/or he could have been shot with a rubber-coated steel bullet, not live ammunition, and in that case there may have been little to no blood. Again, that video was very blurred and very inconclusive.

    I didn't see any wounds change places in the video.

    Many of the young men behaved in a manner consistent with being shot with rubber-coated steel bullets and not with live ammunition. With rubber-coated steel bullets there is less blood, fewer fatalities and obviously the wounds are generally (though not always) less painful and debilitating than wounds from live ammunition. You probably don't know how people react when shot at and hit with all these different kinds of weapons as you have not been shot at by the Israeli military and had people getting hit all around you. I have. It looked authentic to me.

    So no, none of it was suprising or unusual.

    What was suprising to me, with all the hoopla, was how weak the case was that the filmmaker made. As I said, if that is the best case that can ba made that Palestinians fake scenes for the press, then there is not a case to make.


    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 3:40 AM, September 23, 2005  

  • The ISMer is just another Rat Corrie. May they rot in hell.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 4:09 AM, November 03, 2005  

Post a Comment

<< Home