Only In Israel

Sunday, March 05, 2006

Just an innocent bystander

Bil'in is dead, hail the new attack point, Beit Sira. The anti-terrorist barrier near Bil'in is almost complete, so the human waste that tried to stop the fence there, now moved to nearby Beit-Sira, to continue their favorite hobby of assaulting soldiers and destroying construction equipment. Such protests are now a matter of everyday event in Beit Sira, and I wish to show you photographs from one of them. This is one of the cases where simply shifting through the pictures helps you reach a few surprising conclusions. Don't you worry, I'll detail all about the fence in Beit-Sira when I return, but for now, let's just have the photos.

Here, the protest is only starting. Look at the old man on the left, he's probably as old as my father. He seems civilized, non-violent, someone you can speak with. Certainly not someone who might be hit by soldiers.

My oh my, that old guy is bleeding, those barbaric soldiers, how could they hit an innocent old man. He was only talking, wasn't he?

Oh yeah. He was also trying to take a policeman's bat, thus pinning him down, while one of his friends kicked him while he was on the floor.
Such an innocent man, all he did was keep a police officer on the floor so that his pals beat him into unconciousnes. Why would anyone want a fence to separate themselves from these lovely people? eh?


  • Well, the soldier/blogger is back, and he's not getting any smarter or more truthful with time.

    Last Friday protests against the Wall were held in three locations- Bil'in, Abboud and Beit Sira.

    Looking at the pictures he has provided there is an equal chance that the old Palestinian man is helping to pull the Israeli policeman up from the ground as there is that the old man is trying to take the policeman's baton. In fact to me, looking at how they are both gripping the baton looks more like an effort to help pull the policeman up from the ground. It is clearly impossible to prove from the photo that the old Palestinian man was attempting to hurt the police officer and therefore he deserved to be beaten on the head.

    Let's see, so far in protests against the Wall, nine Palestinians have been killed, many seriously injured, and now a fourth Israeli protester has been seriously injured. The soldier/blogger was justifiably upset months ago because another soldier lost his eye, the single serious injury to Israeli soldiers during three and a half years of nonviolent protests against the Wall. So the Israeli military took the eye of an Israeli proteser Matan Cohen with a rubber-coated steel bullet fired from 20 meters a few weeks back (and they've taken the eyes of many Palestinian protesters including one Palestinian in Bil'in):,7340,L-3220888,00.html

    Let's remember the bigger picture here, Israel is building 80% of the Wall on Palestinian land in the West Bank in order to illegally annex large amounts of Palestinian land to Israel. The soldiers come armed with all the latest weapons to carry out that land theft. They use violence against unarmed protesters.

    In Beit Sira the Wall is being built close to, but not on, one of the two variations of the Green Line:

    In Beit Sira the Wall will cut off 800 dunums of the villages' land.

    The soldiers are the criminals here, using weapons to steal Palestinian land.

    Soldier, if you refuse to serve now and join the protesters, perhaps some of your sins will be forgiven.


    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 4:22 PM, March 05, 2006  

  • "he old Palestinian man is helping to pull the Israeli policeman up from the ground"
    What a bull. A perfect contender for Dave's FIB awards.
    Barking moonbat - did you hear that somewhere?

    By Blogger Woland, at 5:25 PM, March 05, 2006  

  • I really like the whole Iraqi Information Minister/Baghdad Bob routine you've got going, ISMer! You must have given it practice while the blogger didn't post! :-)

    By Blogger Nemesis6, at 1:56 AM, March 06, 2006  

  • Hey Nemesis and Woland,

    Why don't you try to actually look at the photo and exaimine it rather than simply putting forth your knee-jerk reactions


    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 3:16 PM, March 06, 2006  

  • Innocent old man, whatever. If you guys would fail to control more of these daily protests, you'd get to have more soldiers and old men hurt. And then you as a blogger would feel even more righteous. I suppose it wasn't your personal fault that your unit totally failed at crowd control?

    By Blogger brainhell, at 10:29 PM, March 06, 2006  

  • I've looked at the pictures again, and I draw the conclusion that seeing that photo of the old man having been beaten without seeing that man attacking soldiers and thus allowing further harm to come to them by having others kick them while they're down would actually leave me wondering if I'm on the right side... but as usual, I am not stung by the propaganda. Also, funny that you say the blogger doesn't tell the truth when he virtually burries you in a truckload of it, hence the whole "Baghdad Bob" comment.

    By Blogger Nemesis6, at 11:06 PM, March 06, 2006  

  • That's funny, ISMer. If the old man is helping the soldier get back up onto his feet, how do you explain the guy to the left who is trying to stomp on the soldier's legs? And the guy to the right, whose intentions also don't exactly look peaceful?

    By Anonymous Womble, at 12:20 AM, March 07, 2006  

  • The man is 'helping' him up? Hilarious. ISMer is a total idiot who expects us to believe that while his comrades are attacking IDF soldiers the old man was 'helping' the soldier and got a cracked head in return? Fast and loose with the truth - ISM has no credibility.

    "Illegal annexation"? Nothing is being annexed you fool. There is no other sovereign in the disputed territories after Jordan relinquished her claims to the West Bank. There is no High Contracting Party under Art. 2 of the Convention. The Convention does not apply. The Green Line is not an international border.

    Even if the 4th Geneva Convention applied, Israel may build defensive structures as they so choose under the 4th Geneva Convention, under Art. 27, which states that "Parties to the conflict may take such measures of control and security in regard to protected persons as may be necessary as a result of the war."

    The ICJ opinion on the issue is by its own admission advisory and non-binding, and is at any rate wrong on the legal merits.

    MSM if you recant and stop lying, perhaps you'll even forgive yourself.

    By Anonymous roflmao, at 12:57 AM, March 07, 2006  

  • Perhaps it is something ISMer smokes or drinks.....

    By Blogger Grandma, at 4:11 AM, March 07, 2006  

  • It is unfortunate that the photos prove nothing. Here are two extreme scenarios illustrating that the photos prove nothing:

    1) Angry old man and cunning angry youths decide to attack soldier. They shove and kick and shove. Camera goes click.

    2) Contemptuous soldier strikes innocent old man. Angry old man grabs baton as outraged youths kick and shove. Camera goes click.

    Blogger chooses how to paint the scene. Does not address how or why his unit totally failed at crowd control of 'daily' protests.

    By Blogger brainhell, at 8:07 PM, March 07, 2006  

  • Yes, the old man is helping the soldier up. Also, the guy on the left is doing some kind of dance. Give me a break.

    ISMer, I guess if you looked at that photo long enough, you could also conclude that the soldier is actually a Martian. I mean, being ignorant of the facts is one thing. But willful ignorance in full view of the facts is quite another.

    By Blogger Jason Lomberg, at 10:42 AM, March 08, 2006  

  • I think some of you are so happy for ISMer being here. That way you don't have to think.

    By Blogger brainhell, at 9:51 PM, March 08, 2006  

  • Correct. No effort needed to refute his brand of egregious retardation.

    By Anonymous roflmao, at 2:10 AM, March 09, 2006  

  • Happy for ISMer being here??Well,er no,not exactly....

    By Blogger Grandma, at 3:36 AM, March 09, 2006  

  • I concur. He's not the brightest tool in the bunch, but it makes me happy to know that no matter how I might feel about myself, there's always ISMer. Upon pondering that fact, my day brightens up, I crack a smile, and I'm ready to face the day with more energy and motivation. Finally, I think "It could be worse. You could be the media coordinator for the ISM like ISMer"

    Anyway, note that I don't bother responding to his points. I just let others do it for me and observe.

    In a way, he has his place in this blog - He fills the comments section with easily rebuttable, speculative -- as his arguments were in this case... Hey, I actually his comments this time! -- comments.

    On a personal note - ISMer, you know I can't let go if you trying to call me a fascist... So I was wondering if I could call you Oblivious Man - The brain of the ISM!

    By Blogger Nemesis6, at 3:37 AM, March 09, 2006  

  • Just a simple question, in the first picture.

    On the very top of the picture, follow the heads ot he palestinians and you'll see this guy holding his arms up. I can't tell if it's a shadow or if it's a camera. If it's a camera, well then it becomes fairly obvious that the ISM is trying to stage or provoke the IDF.

    and one more thing

    In fact to me, looking at how they are both gripping the baton looks more like an effort to help pull the policeman up from the ground.

    Ismer your stupidity truly has no bounds.

    If you going to help someone up, you do it be grabbing there arm(s). You wouldn't grab something they were holding because they could possibly let it go and fall again. It's very obvious that the guy is trying to take the bat.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 6:46 PM, March 09, 2006  

  • "Easily rebuttable speculative arguments":

    1) Well let's see. The photo is quite obviously speculative. We have no actual information about what happened. We don't know if the old man was stealing the baton. We don't even really know why the old man is bleeding. Soldier/blogger brought us that speculation.

    2) I bring you maps, quotes, historical articles and reports. Nemesis views this. A bit of a bizarre sense of reasoning and judgement Nemesis.

    Let's take another favorite from many people on this blog - Israeli settlements do not violate international law. Let me give you more of my typically easily rebuttable, non-factual "speculation."

    Gershom Gorenberg in today's New York Times wrote:

    "Here is one critical example. In early September 1967, Prime Minister Levi Eshkol was considering granting the first approval for settlements in the West Bank and Golan Heights, conquered three months earlier in the Six-Day War...

    The legal counsel of the Foreign Ministry, Theodor Meron, was asked whether international law allowed settlement in the newly conquered land. In a memo marked "Top Secret," Mr. Meron wrote unequivocally, "My conclusion is that civilian settlement in the administered territories contravenes the explicit provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention."

    In the detailed opinion that accompanied that note, Mr. Meron explained that the Convention — to which Israel was a signatory — forbade an occupying power from moving part of its population to occupied territory. The Golan, taken from Syria, was "undoubtedly 'occupied territory,' " he wrote."

    Read the rest of his article if you'd like more easily rebuttable speculation. But it doesn't seem like you let facts get in the way of your arguments.


    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 4:32 PM, March 10, 2006  

  • *sigh*

    Don't say facts get in our way when the only "evidence" you ever present is palsolidarity or the New York Times, but then again, we ALL know where the New York Times' sympathies lie. Geneva conventions, ahhh yes. Only problem with that logic is that all land taken by Israel has been taken during several wars against its very existance. When you launch a war against someone, and lose, it's possible that the people you tried to destroy will take some of your land. And the funny thing is - Israel didn't take the land which is now considered "occupied" to punish the Arabs. It "occupied" it because the Arabs used it to attack Israel.

    By Blogger Nemesis6, at 6:07 PM, March 10, 2006  

  • Well, Nemesis, this was an article written in the New York Times by Israeli writer Gershom Gorenberg. If you don't like The New York Times, you can go read Gorenberg's new book on the subject instead.

    Better yet, why don't you read the legal opinions quoted by Gorenberg from Theodor Meron Legal Council to the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs in 1967. But I guess you know more about it than Gorenberg, Meron, etc..

    More speculation from untrustworthy sources I guess. Funny how you actually don't even have any sources.

    It's quite amazing what people will do to enable themselves to maintain their delusions.


    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 6:41 PM, March 10, 2006  

  • Gershon Gorenberg is an "Israeli writer' only by virtue of having fled the radical San Francisco/Berkely Bay Area scene and moved to Israel--as far as I know, he barely speaks Hebrew, never served in the IDF and has done nothing but spew left-wing anti-Israel propaganda columns for which various English-language journals pay him. Amos Oz, he ain't. I know the family, and they all get off on being 'radicals." Quoting this guy as a source is like quoting Donald Duck.

    And ISM'er -- you can't have it BOTH ways: Israel is 'stealing' the 5-7% of Palestinian land on which the fence is being built, but Hamas, the True Face Of Palestinian Intent, won't negotiate with Israel as a matter of principle, whereas Arafat & Co. woulnd't negotiate as a matter of political strategy. "No Peace, No Negotiation, No Recognition" is still the by-word of Palestinian nationalism. Terrorism leads to fences, failure to negotiate leads to unilateral borders. Live with it.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 7:52 AM, March 12, 2006  

  • Are there people who are still responding to ISM loser? Why waste your time reading his garbage and responding to it?

    I guess you must feel sorry for the poor bastard. He obviously has no life- certainly no sex life-and comes here to get the attention he so desperately craves-and you people give it to him. Very nice of you to make this loser feel like a somebody.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 5:31 PM, March 12, 2006  

  • > Are there people who are still responding to ISM...?

    Because he fills a need. It's not all of us who are lucky to have opponents who perfectly suit the rhetorical ammunition we have stored up. Without ISMer, y'all'd have to do some actual thinking.

    By Blogger brainhell, at 1:00 AM, March 13, 2006  

  • Speak for yourself, Brainhell...Cogito, ergo sum, ad infinitum, especially when it comes to the fossilized Leftys who haven't figured out The Sixties ARE over, like Gorenblather and ISMer--like their intellectual forebears, the Left of the Thirties, they fall willingly into bed with Fascism (whether Aryan, as then, or Arab, as now) in the name of a self-aggrandizing anticolonialism that is largely imaginary.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 5:20 AM, March 13, 2006  

  • Hi All,

    Well I'm glad we are having more of a substantive debate here. Funny how someone like Nemesis will claim I present no facts and just speculate, while what see above from most posters here is just venom and personal attacks on me and other people, nothing factual,

    When I present carefully sourced facts, historical research, maps, websites, it all gets discounted immediately as lies.

    So now we've established some of you don't trust The New York Times (an establishment US newspaper). We already know that many of you discount anything from Ha'aretz Daily, B'Tselem, the ICJ, Benny Morris, Human Rights watch, Amnesty International, etc.. Now we learn that you hate Gershom Gorenberg.

    Do you think Gorenberg lied in his book and in The New York Times when he quoted Theodor Meron, Legal Council to the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs in 1967? Meron wrote in 1967 that Israeli settlements would be illegal.


    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 2:43 PM, March 13, 2006  

  • Yes. Selective out-of-context quoting, which was the basis of Left-wing and Palestinian criticism of From Time Immemorial, applies just as validly to pseudo-intellectual anti-Israel writers. Selective ommission is a form of lying.

    Funny how you only quote Meron when there are ample sources out there that disagree with him on the issue of international law and the legality of settlements. You need to read something more than your own ISM press releases. Since the Arab states in 1948 never recognized the partition, and illegally invaded Israel AND Palestine and OCCUPIED Palestinian land, the land was up for grabs since it was in the hands of Arab OCCUPIERS. All of it.

    Any discussion of alleged Israeli illegality is ridiculous when the Palestinians and their Puppet Masters have wholly failed to follow UN Resolution 181. As soon as the Arabs decide to follow the law, I am more than happy to insist that Israel follow it also. Until then, a state of war exists, fed by hate-mongers like you and other vicarious outlaws of the anti-Israel Left who like to pour gasoline on this particular fire because you revel in being the Great White Hope of the poor brown oppressed people. Ugh. I saw this Act in the 60s, the ever-so-patronizing White Liberal As Savior to the Minority and Female.

    Have a nice day.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 12:29 AM, March 14, 2006  

  • Dear Anonymous Writer,

    Most of the people who post on this site are relatively rightwing. However, as a defender of Joan Peters thoroughly discredited and now completely forgotten "From Time Immemorial", you have staked out new rightwing ground.



    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 12:16 PM, March 14, 2006  

  • A perfect example of Far Left spin---please note that that was CRITICISM of From Time Immemorial, not a defense, that was posted. "Selective omission is a form of lying" doesn't sound like a defense of Peters or anyone else who practices it. Your political agenda has so befogged your brain that you can't process the truth any more.

    Aside from which, who appointed you the arbiter of credibility in cyberspace? The White Male Liberal as Savior is now the Sole Arbiter of all that is crecible or not credible? Someone reads a book you don't agree with, and suddenly that person has NO credibility? Gee, what happened to the marketplace of ideas? Oops, I forgot -- under Far Left Fascism, only politically correct books can be read, and only politically correct ideas can be expressed.

    This is exactly why Wanna-Be 60s clones like you are as ridiculous as the 'real' White Male Liberal Saviors in days of yore -- you are all so ridiculously preachy and narrow minded, and so ready to dictate to everybody else what is allowed in thought, in speech, or in opinion. You are the Far Left version of Jerry Falwell, except that you preach anti-Israel politics with the same venom that Falwell reserves for preaching against you. You have the same narrow minded world view that Falwell has -- namely, that ONLY you have the truth. You have the same venom for Jewish self-determination that Falwell does for Jews, and you publish your ridiculous loathing of Israel the way Falwell thunders against homosexuals. There is really no difference between you and your intolerant, sanctimonious hate and Falwell's--he just has slightly different targets.

    You're a bigot. And worse, a self-righteous bigot to boot. And like all bigots, you think you hold a monopoly on the sole truth of any matter, and see all issues in purely simplistic black and white, good and bad paradigms: Palestinians always noble brown good people oppressed by horrible Israeli Jews. No exceptions in your one-dimensional world view. Of course, this works for you because it doesn't require any real depth of thought or analysis--you can just go on being passionate about your religion, ooops, political views without ever having to examine them too closely.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 6:00 PM, March 14, 2006  

  • Regarding Gershom Gorenberg's recent comments in the NY Times, please read The Real Tragedy in Israel.

    Shabbat Shalom!

    By Anonymous Shy Guy, at 3:10 PM, March 17, 2006  

  • "Bil'in is dead"? How can that be when the village continues to protest?

    "The anti-terrorist barrier near Bil'in is almost complete?"

    Well, thanks to Bil'in protests and the attention that they drew to land seizure and settlement construction on Bil'in's land, Israel's "High Court of Justice yesterday gave the state 30 days to explain why houses built illegally in the Matityahu East neighborhood of the Modi'in Ilit settlement should not be demolished." So the Wall may be moved when these homes are demolished.

    The case of Bil'in, like many other villages, has again revealed that the Wall was built to steal Palestinian land and to expand settlements. Our soldier/blogger and his heavily friends go out and beat up the civilians in order to defend Israeli land theft. Soldier/blogger, the case of Bil'in should convince you that what you are doing is illegal, and violates even Israeli laws. The response is clear: refuse to serve.

    For more information, read about the High Court's decision:

    "A three-justice panel also ordered the state to explain why a criminal investigation should not be opened against those responsible for issuing the illegal building permits."

    Of course, I'll be accused of speculating again and failing to make factual arguments.


    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 2:46 PM, March 22, 2006  

  • ISMer, let me respond to your points one by one.
    The anti-terrorism barrier is being built where it is needed, security wise. The notion that 80% of it is built on Palestinian land is ridiculous, because even the parts of it that are beyond the Green Line are usually very close to it. The land on the Israeli side of the fence doesn't change properties. The same Palestinians who owned it, still do. They are also free to go to it, as long as they pass through a checkpoint. If they own the land, nothing changes. It's still theirs, there will just be a security check on the way, that's all.
    As for rioters getting injured, I have to say, I could hardly care. It is my sincere belief that people who attack soldiers and policemen should not go unpunished. They're the ones who go there and start the protest. The ISMers travels thousands of miles from all kinds of far away countries just to stir up trouble, and then they whine about IDF troops defending their home. You guys should go back to your comfy little subrbian appartments in Norway, Sweden, France and wherever the hell you came from.

    As for the suggestion the old man is helping the soldier up, that's simply ridiculuous, and you know it. It's outright insulting you'd think any of the readers of this blog will buy that kind of cheap propaganda.

    Thank you for the tips on crowd control. I'm sure you've been to many protests and have a lot of experience in controlling mobs of lunatics who would like nothing more than to lynch you and play with your body parts.
    I'm confident, it's very convinient to sit next to your computer and throw some tips to the people being attacked in the protest.
    Just to make the goal of the police action in protests clear. Our goal is to stop the mob from reaching the construction site and harming equipment or personell. Our goal IS NOT to keep as many of the people who would like to lynch us in good health. If you think that's our goal you need to get in touch with reality.
    As for your suggestion that the old man was first hit, and then attacked the soldier, that's obviously wrong, because in the picture where he's pinning the soldier down, his head isn't injured.

    And a few more notes to ISMer.
    You should learn the difference between the legality of Mattityahu Mizrah and the legality of the fence. The fence in that region is perfectly legal and noone is stopping or has stopped its construction. While a portion of the homes built in that settlement may be illegal, the fence there is perfectly legitimate and the supreme court said that.

    As for your continous assertions that Settlements are illegal, how about we go to the source of it all. The Geneva convention. Instead of posting opinions of people who read it, how about posting a portion of it, and thinking for yourself. bet that thought never occured to you.
    The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.

    Says "deport or transfer". The settlers were neither deported nor transfered into the West Bank. They went there, and bought land, on their own accord. The government didn't put them on busses and threw them on some hill in the west bank. They went there and bought it.
    If I buy land in France, it's my land. The same logic applies to the West Bank. No one annexed the settlements or the West Bank. The land is privately owned by Jews. Even if, at any point, that area will be transfered to Palestinian control, the private ownership of that land, was, and will remain in the hands of the settlers.
    This, in complete appliance to the Geneva convention. Now, unless you have another Geneva convention article to supply, I will expect you to quit whining and get a real job (being an ISM media coordinator isn't one).

    By Blogger OnlyInIsrael, at 12:38 AM, March 26, 2006  

  • OnlyinIsrael, ISMer will have a bright future as an anti-Israel college professor (which is a bit redundant).

    By Blogger Jason Lomberg, at 8:52 PM, March 26, 2006  

Post a Comment

<< Home