3
   

Eye On Israel/Palestine

 
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Nov, 2004 01:19 am
Quote:
Call to exhume Gaza girl's body

The Israeli military is seeking to exhume the body a 13-year-old Palestinian girl killed by Israeli forces in October.


Iman al-Hams was shot by soldiers after straying into a restricted area near Gaza's border with Egypt.

An Israeli commander is accused of repeatedly firing into her lifeless body despite pleas from his colleagues.

Army lawyers want to examine Iman's body to gather evidence in the case against the officer.

Soldiers from the Givati Brigade fired at Iman as she approached an observation post in the Tel Sultan area of Rafah.


'Verifying the kill'

They believed she was planting a bomb but her family maintained she was on her way to school.

The soldiers said the officer walked up to the girl after she was hit and riddled her body with a burst of automatic fire, in an outlawed practice called "verifying the kill".

It is not known whether the girl was already dead when he shot her.
Palestinian hospital officials said the girl was shot at least 15 times, mostly in the upper body.

Prosecutors want to examine the body to determine the range from which the girl was shot and the type of bullets used.

The arrested officer, who has not been named, has maintained his innocence but the Israeli military is expected to press charges against him next week.

Lea Tzemel, a lawyer for the girl's family, said they had so far refused the request. Autopsies are seen by many Muslims as shaming and forbidden.

"Also, the family does not have much faith in the army," said Tzemel.


"They fear the army wants to use the autopsy to clear the officer."
She said the army had agreed to have Palestinian and Arab pathologists present should the examination take place.

Hundreds of Palestinian children have been killed during the intifada, often in clashes between Israeli troops and stone throwers.

The military rarely launches investigations into the incidents.
Source
0 Replies
 
Moishe3rd
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Nov, 2004 07:38 am
Quote:
Moishe3rd, are you denying that those three Egytians were killed by the Israelian tank

Walter,
Of course not. My post was not in response to yours. I came across the data I mentioned and I thought it was worthwhile posting for those that are interested in a more precise analysis of who is killing whom.
That's all.
People be killed is a tragedy. I would call it the tragedy of war.
In many countries, such as Israel, when people are killed stupidly, or criminally, or by mistake, there is often an investigation and public recriminations and apologies. There is often a change in policy so such a tragedy should not happen.

In other places in the world, when innocents are killed, it is a cause for celebration.
These sorts of people also examine how this killing of innocents occurred in order to be able to duplicate the actions....

Your news stories are about tragedies.
Those who celebrate such tragedies are disgusting and inhuman.
0 Replies
 
Thok
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Nov, 2004 08:37 am
Quote:
Israeli troops accused of corpse abuse

The Israeli army has launched an investigation into photographs apparently showing soldiers posing next to the bodies of dead Palestinians.

One such picture, published in the mass-selling Yediot Aharonot Israeli daily, shows a soldier pointing his weapon at a corpse while pressing his foot into the half-naked body.

"I ordered the military police to open an investigation and I intend to shed full light on this matter," chief of Staff General Moshe Yaalon told military radio on Friday.

"It is inconceivable that such things should happen in the ranks of Israel's army," he added.

"They shoot and have their pictures taken" read Yediot's headline as the paper went on to detail "ways that soldiers play with bodies".

Another picture shows a dead man, a cigarette allegedly stuck in his mouth by troops. When walking by a Palestinian shot in combat, several troops would "fire into the dead body. One of them even shot four bullets," one soldier is quoted as saying by the newspaper.

"Our unit commander told us it was morally wrong, especially for that soldier who fired the four shots. His punishment? He was downgraded to serving as the commander's driver and then radio," the soldier was reported as saying.
AFP



Source
0 Replies
 
J-B
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Nov, 2004 05:09 am
not surprised.......
Isn't the suicide bombing also a way to abuse the corpse?
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Dec, 2004 10:26 am
One step foward two steps backwards. It's the peace in the middle east and a settlement of the Palestinian conflict i speak
One candidate for the PA presidency says he will settle for nothing less than Palestinian's right of return while the other is in an Isreali jail serving five lifetimes for murder.


Quote:
Barghouti to seek Palestinian presidency
Posted: Wednesday, December 1, 10:53am EST

Associates of Marwan Barghouti said Wednesday the jailed Palestinian uprising leader has decided to run for president, reversing an earlier decision and throwing Palestinian politics into disarray. Barghouti's candidacy would undermine the prospects of interim Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas, the presidential candidate of the ruling Fatah movement. Fatah officials have warned that a bid by Barghouti, who is a leading Fatah member and more popular than the staid Abbas, could split the movement.

Barghouti, who represents the younger generation in Fatah, has wavered repeatedly on whether to run. Several days ago, he announced he would drop out of the race for the sake of unity.

However, on Wednesday, Barghouti's campaign paid a $3,000 bank deposit required of independent presidential candidates, a Barghouti associate said on condition of anonymity.

Barghouti, 45, is serving five consecutive life terms in an Israeli prison for his role in deadly shooting attacks that killed four Israelis and a Greek monk. Barghouti has denied involvement in violence.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Dec, 2004 10:32 am
au1929 wrote:
One step foward two steps backwards. It's the peace in the middle east and a settlement of the Palestinian conflict i speak
One candidate for the PA presidency says he will settle for nothing less than Palestinian's right of return while the other is in an Isreali jail serving five lifetimes for murder.


Had Israel been defeated in 1948, Menachem Begin would also have served a jail sentence for murder, instead of becoming Prime Minister of Israel.

I cannot understand the logic that would proclaim the right of immigration (usually subsidized, by public and private aid from the United States) by Jews anywhere, while, at the same time denying it to the sons and daughters of Palestinian former residents, driven out of their homes by the Irgun and the IDF.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Dec, 2004 10:48 am
georgeob1
Neither can you I am sure understand the desire of Jews for a Jewish State. Perhaps if you looked back at Jewish history for the last 1500 years you could. But I doubt it. I should probably modify that statement. What you do not understand or agree with is Israels right to exist.

As to 1948 the Arabs attempted to destroy Israel at it's inception and several time afterwards and lost. Do you think that they will now commit national suicide with the right of return for Palestinians?
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Dec, 2004 10:58 am
On the contrary I fully accept the right of Israel to exist. However, not as a discriminatory state, and not with unequal status for Jews and non-Jews.

The history of mankind is a story of exploitation and brutality. Nearly every people has been on both sides of that divide many times. The Jews have done a much better job than others in preserving and recording their long history, and that is as much a source of their uniqueness as any other factor.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Dec, 2004 11:28 am
georgeob1

You may as you claim believe that Israel has a right to exist. Knowing full well however, that it will not, if they agree to Palestinian right of return.
I should also remind you that Israel was established as a Jewish State after WW2 for reasons that I am sure I need not recite. Those reasons still exist and in fact are becoming stronger and more virulent.
A Jewish State it was established as and a Jewish State it should remain.

How many of the Arab states welcome Jews within their borders. Do you think those states would welcome back and return possessions taken from them when they were forced to flee with the shirts on their backs and little more. I should note that these communities were in many instances older than Islam itself.
0 Replies
 
Moishe3rd
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Dec, 2004 10:30 pm
georgeob1 wrote:
On the contrary I fully accept the right of Israel to exist. However, not as a discriminatory state, and not with unequal status for Jews and non-Jews.

The history of mankind is a story of exploitation and brutality. Nearly every people has been on both sides of that divide many times. The Jews have done a much better job than others in preserving and recording their long history, and that is as much a source of their uniqueness as any other factor.


It is good to try and right the wrongs of exploitation and brutality.

My question, Georgeob1, would be: have you attempted to recompense the Algonquin Indians or perhaps specifically the Powhatan peoples, upon whose stolen land you reside?
Have you invited their refugee descendants to live with you yet?
If not, why not?

Perhaps you have been busy with attempting to get the Hutus in Rwanda to compensate the Tutusis whose property they stole after they murdered them only ten years ago?
Or maybe you have been too concerned with the white Rhodesians whose land, where they have lived for generations, has been, and is being currently stolen by the black Zimbabwe government?
Oh. I know. Sudan, Darfur... You are involved with stopping the brutality there by the Arab government as it has slaughtered or enslaved over a million non-Muslim black Sudanese over the last ten years or so...
No?
Where then?
Tibet? Chechneya? Greece? Turkey? Iran? Saudi Arabia? Any of these countries where the ethnic cleansing of millions and forced refugee populations have been brutalized for centuries?
Or are you only concerned about those who claim to be Palestinians because.... because their kinsmen; because their co-religionists; because their fellow tribesman; because their brothers and sisters and mothers and fathers hate so much that they are willing to live and die forever homeless and stateless, unlike any other refugee population in the entire history of mankind?

But... no... you believe that this is the fault of Israel. How odd.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Dec, 2004 11:00 pm
georgeob1 wrote:

I cannot understand the logic that would proclaim the right of immigration (usually subsidized, by public and private aid from the United States) by Jews anywhere, while, at the same time denying it to the sons and daughters of Palestinian former residents, driven out of their homes by the Irgun and the IDF.


Personally, I oppose "right of return" because I feel it too tough a bone for Israel to swallow (because of demographic considerations) and as such an impediment to conflict resolution.

Many Arab nations also recognize this and have softened their diplospeak from "right of return" to "fair and equitable settlement" in this matter.

I think the Palestinians should have the right to return, but do not think this should be a part of anyone's realistic attempt to settle this dispute because it is a right of a few that would deny peace to many.
0 Replies
 
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Dec, 2004 12:33 am
How would the right of return deny peace to many?
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Dec, 2004 12:04 am
InfraBlue wrote:
How would the right of return deny peace to many?


I assume, Infrablue, that, because it appears to be a real sticking point for Israel, that insistence upon it would prevent an agreement, and thus continue the current situation.



I just saw this on the BBC news site: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4076935.stm

Mid-East peace claims 'premature'

Egyptian reports said Israel and the Palestinians would agree a ceasefire
Israel has dismissed claims it has reached understanding on a peace plan with the Palestinians as premature, despite reports from Egyptian sources.
Egypt's state-run news agency Mena said on Tuesday that Israel and the Palestinians had agreed in principle to steps that would end their conflict.

But a senior official for Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said it was too early to say a deal had been reached.

He conceded the Israelis would respond positively if militants ceased attacks.


Key players

The official told Reuters news agency: "There are a few correct elements but it's a little premature to say there's an agreement.

"We will respond positively if on the other side there will be arrangements for a ceasefire, a cessation of hostilities."

Mena had quoted unidentified senior Egyptian sources as saying the key players in the Middle East had reached an understanding on a plan for a comprehensive settlement.

Mena said the "framework for the plan has effectively been established... and discussions are under way to agree clearly on the points to be included".

Its report said the steps, including an Israeli-Palestinian ceasefire, had the support of both the US and the European Union.

The agency said officials expected "preparations [for a plan of action] would take place until July, after which political action will begin".

This could be followed by an "important political conference in Washington", the agency added.

The Palestinians and Egypt have not made an official response to Mena's report.



Looking for other stuff - but - might this be a wee bit hopeful?
0 Replies
 
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Dec, 2004 03:17 am
I understand your take on the issue of the Right of Return denying peace to many, dlowan.

There is so much potential for an agreement and lasting peace between the two sides right now; more so, I think, than during the Oslo Accords.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Dec, 2004 04:57 am
Well, I got everything crossed!
0 Replies
 
Einherjar
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Dec, 2004 10:32 am
InfraBlue wrote:
There is so much potential for an agreement and lasting peace between the two sides right now; more so, I think, than during the Oslo Accords.


How do you figure?
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Dec, 2004 10:39 am
Einherjar
Because it looks as though both sides are ready to compromise and there is no Arafat to stand in the way.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Dec, 2004 10:43 am
Quote:
Israel says 148 unarmed Palestinians killed by army in West Bank in 2004
(AFP)

8 December 2004

JERUSALEM - Israel has killed 148 unarmed Palestinians in the West Bank since the start of the year, the army said Wednesday.


"148 civilians and 119 terrorists have been killed in 2004," a senior officer based on the West Bank told Israeli military radio, adding that "at least 29 were innocent victims killed by mistake."

The Israeli army is currently hunting 560 Palestinian activists in the West Bank suspected of involvement in anti-Israeli attacks, while some 3,000 others are behind bars, the unnamed officer said.

An Israeli military spokesman confirmed the figures to AFP but said that many of the civilians killed were militants "involved in the preparation of attacks but not actually armed".

Army chief of staff General Moshe Yaalon said Tuesday that 70 percent of all victims of the intifada were civilians and warned the army against losing its "moral values" after a series of blunders reported in the media.

Around 4,600 people have been killed since the September 2000 start of the Palestinian uprising, or intifada, including more than 3,500 Palestinians and nearly 1,000 Israelis.
Source

Similar article by Haaretz - Israel News
0 Replies
 
Einherjar
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Dec, 2004 11:17 am
au1929 wrote:
Einherjar
Because it looks as though both sides are ready to compromise and there is no Arafat to stand in the way.


I must have missed something, what concessions do the palestinians seam ready to make now that they wouldn't make under Arafat? And what has changed in the Israeli possition? I'm genuinely curious.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Dec, 2004 11:41 am
Einherjar
I said compromise. However, if you note the rhetoric on both sides has cooled down and much of the violence has subsided.



Quote:
Sharon's Showdown With Likud

By WILLIAM SAFIRE

Published: December 8, 2004
The political tectonic plates under the Middle East may have at last begun to shift.

Some Arab leaders, facing four more years of George W. Bush, seem to have understood the policy message he sent from Canada last week: "Achieving peace in the Holy Land is not just a matter of pressuring one side or the other on the shape of a border or the site of a settlement. This approach has been tried before without success. As we negotiate the details of peace," said Bush, "we must look to the heart of the matter, which is the need for a Palestinian democracy."

That message - putting the bedrock principle of democratic interaction ahead of the endless process of "engagement" - is reverberating through the Arab world. A few days ago, Egypt's president, Hosni Mubarak, swapped a Druse Israeli citizen, Azzam Azzam, imprisoned for seven years on phony spy charges, for a group of captured Egyptian infiltrators. Israel sets great store on freeing its citizens, and the release of Azzam was a major gesture by Egypt.

This followed Mubarak's surprise description, after Yasir Arafat's death, of Ariel Sharon as the Palestinians' best chance for peace - "he asks for only one thing: the end to the explosions, so they can work together on a solid basis." It also follows Mubarak's offer, accepted by Israel, to station troops along Egypt's border with Gaza to stop Hamas's arms smuggling as Israel begins its withdrawal.

Hopes are rising that Sharon's prospective pullout, along with easements to facilitate Palestinian elections and his promise "to give quiet for quiet," will lead to the return of the long-absent Egyptian and then the Jordanian ambassadors. (The euphoria does not extend to Syria, whose president is suddenly offering talks without preconditions about the Golan Heights. Nobody trusts Syria.)

Today's sense of early movement comes on the eve of Sharon's showdown with Likud, the rightist party he helped found. Its 3,000-member central committee meets tomorrow to accept or reject the prime minister's plan to form a unity government with leftist Labor, which supports him on leaving Gaza to the Palestinians but opposes his budget.

Sharon welcomes the showdown within his party. If a Likud majority were to reject his new coalition, that would trigger unwelcome new elections, a re-freezing of the current thaw with Arabs and the splintering of Likud. But yesterday, the former Likud Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu met with Sharon, urged reciprocity from Palestinians and continued economic reform, and pledged his support. (Bibi wants Arik to succeed because he wants to succeed him.)

As Palestinians elect a new government that can restrain its violence-prone bitter-enders, I'm told that Sharon's coalition of Likud, Labor and several religious parties would agree to start Palestinian negotiations with a clean slate. The previous Barak-Clinton offers, including a division of Jerusalem - anathema to most Israelis - came off the table when Arafat chose war.

That unencumbered start would please Likud's right and annoy Labor's left, but here's the delicious complexity of the first "unified disunity government": On foreign affairs, Sharon will have his center-left coalition; on domestic budgets, his rightist coalition.

This swinging Knesset majority would be designed to last until the next election in 2006, enough time to negotiate a settlement that Palestinians and Israelis could abide.

The dangers: rebellion in Likud if Gaza settlers are seen to be heroic, or an "end run" by Labor's Shimon Peres to appeal to pro-Palestinian European, Russian and U.N. concessioneers.

Already we see outside pressure for "return to the pre-'67 borders." As documented in Dore Gold's "Tower of Babble," this ignores Lyndon Johnson's defeat of Aleksei Kosygin's attempt to slip the specific word "the" in front of the general "territories" in crafting U.N. Resolution 242 - which would have left Israel's borders vulnerable.

No global bureaucrat can belatedly dictate who owns what part of those disputed territories. As Bush noted, "This approach has been tried before without success."

What could succeed is a direct negotiation between democratically elected officials of two Middle East nations who can control their extremists. That has not happened yet, but Jews and Arabs may soon have a narrow window of opportunity.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 05/19/2024 at 09:34:03