News In memory: Rachel Corrie (1979 - 2003)

[alexandra]

... surely you agree human life is worth more than any amount of houses and orchards.

Do you know, Yonoz, for *poor* people, who have nothing much, houses and orchards ARE their lives!

 

[Bilal]

Dear Kat,

1. Arafat was elected for 5 years from 1996 till 2001. As you know in 2001, Israel started to destroy the infrastructure of PA and rejected to arrange the election till removal or death of Arafat. Unfortunately, USA supported them. As I know, during wars, elections could be postponed, while the government is considered legal during this period.

2- Here is what my link mentioned about Sharon, but I added information because I am from town near the border and my cousins are eyewitness of some crimes (such as slaughtering hundreds of Jordanian policemen in Azzun/Kalkilia). The other point is the Egyptian prisoners, who are not mentioned in the source, but it was main topic in ME and Egyptian media to know the fate of thousands of Egyptian prisoners who surrendered to Sharon during 1967war:

((Unit 101 undertook a series of retaliatory raids against Palestinians and neighboring Arab states that helped bolster Israeli morale and fortify its deterrent image. However, the unit was also criticized for targeting civilians as well as Arab soldiers, resulting in the widely-condemned Qibya massacre in the fall of 1953, in which more than sixty Jordanian civilians were killed in an attack on their village. In the documentary "Israel and the Arabs: 50 Year War" Ariel Sharon recalls what happened after the raid, which was heavily condemned by many countries in the West, including the U.S.: I was summoned to see Ben-Gurion. It was the first time I met him. and right from the start Ben-Gurion said to me: "Let me first tell you one thing: it doesn't matter what the world says about Israel, it doesn't matter what they say about us anywhere else. The only thing that matters is that we can exist here on the land of our forefathers. And unless we show the Arabs that there is a high price to pay for murdering Jews, we won't survive."Shortly afterwards, Unit 101 was merged into the 202nd Paratrooper Brigade (Sharon eventually becoming the latter's commander), which continued to attack military targets, culminating with the attack on Kalkiliya Police in autumn 1956.))

Just two small points...
1. Maybe you misunderstand how democracy works and maybe you are willing to overlook how Arafat remained in office..but, please, your statement about him being an elected leader is a bit...misleading. Arafat was elected...once...when his term ended...he was not elected again. At that point, he was no longer an elected official but a self appointed one.
2. Your link...does not contain the comments you've placed below it. I think that a lot of people don't bother to click through and read links when they believe that you've pasted the information held in the link onto your message. So, the way you've posted a link and then placed commentary that the link does not include might mislead some people into thinking what you've said is...factual and derived from Wikepedia...which on a percusory search..it isn't.

Of course..Wikepedia as a source has it's own issues as well, but we'll leave that for another time.

 

[kat]

No, it's not. Here you go, a quote from Wikipedia (or perhaps Wikipedia writers are lying?):

"Outcome of the war
[edit]
Casualties
Estimations are that about 17,825 Arabs were killed during the war. There are different estimations about the portions of civilians killed. A Beirut newspaper An Nahar estimated that

17,825 killed during the invasion
Outside Beirut
Military personnel: 9,797 (PLO, Syria, etc.)
Civilians: 2,513
Beirut area: 5,515 (mil. + civ.)
[1] (http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat3.htm#Lebanon)"

Here's the link if you're interested in verifying the information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1982_Invasion_of_Lebanon#Outcome_of_the_war

Well, you see...Bilal was attempting to attribute all of the arab deaths during that war to Sharon. Which, for anyone familiar with the intricacies of the situation in Lebanon to say this...would be an outright lie. My point in my post about Lebanon and the PLO to "Informal logic" is that he doesn't have a clue what he's talking about if he perceives that it's an "exception" for Lebanese to hate..yes outright HATE..Palestinians.
He also attribituted the cause of the war TO israel, which can only be stated as OPINION not as fact. Many here need to get a grasp on the difference between OPINION and fact. From the Wikepedia link (and again, I have problems using Wikepedia as a source,or any publicly editable source for that matter)

Reasons for the war:
Starting in 1968, Palestinian groups in southern Lebanon raided northern Israel, and bombarded Israeli towns with katyusha rockets.

I wonder if Bilal can answer why Arab countries have been so hostile to Palestinians? (Why is this? Hint: It has a little something to do with the PLO)

Also, I want to welcome Yonoz to this thread and to this forum. I'm finding the difference in the tone used with Bilal and that used with Yonoz to be another great indicator of the bigotry so many of the active posters in the Political forum have.

 

[Bilal]

Sources like electronicintifada.net??

You can read again what I mentioned. Only well known information are presented from pro Palestine sources , which you can not deny it as Day Land :

In fact I tried to be neutral as much as possible, so I did my best to use only international and accepted sources . Unfortunately, the discussion shifted to propaganda war, and the discussion is flooded by posts and links which based on biased sources of other side. If I want to reply in the same tactic by using pro Palestine propaganda sources then this discussion will convert to battlefield.(I just used Palestinian sources to show well known information as Day Land).

 

[kat]

Oh yes, also from your link Alexandra

857 Pal. & Leb. k. by Christian militia in Sabra and Chatila refugee camps in 1982.

I'm sorry...I don't see Sharon's name here anywhere. I have inlaws who were members of the Phalange. In fact, General Aoun is the man who assisted my husband in getting out of Lebanon and to the U.S. to seek asylum. I can tell you, their hatred for the Palestinians who slaughtered their people after they welcomed them to their country with open arms...is very real, and although they have a "soft" bigotry in regards to the Jews..as a whole...it in no way compares to their anger at the Palestinians.

 

[alexandra]

Well, you see...Bilal was attempting to attribute all of the arab deaths during that war to Sharon. Which, for anyone familiar with the intricacies of the situation in Lebanon to say this...would be an outright lie. My point in my post about Lebanon and the PLO to "Informal logic" is that he doesn't have a clue what he's talking about if he perceives that it's an "exception" for Lebanese to hate..yes outright HATE..Palestinians.
He also attribituted the cause of the war TO israel, which can only be stated as OPINION not as fact. Many here need to get a grasp on the difference between OPINION and fact. From the Wikepedia link (and again, I have problems using Wikepedia as a source,or any publicly editable source for that matter).

Ok, Kat - I have three questions for you regarding the above post:

1. What are the intricacies of the situation in Lebanon - how do YOU know about them and where can I find unbiased information about this issue?

2. Show me proof that all Lebanese (without exception) 'outright HATE' Palestinians. Is this your opinion, or do you have proof? If you have a credible source of information to point me to, I will gladly read it and evaluate its trustworthiness.

3. What is your problem with the information cited on Wikepedia (other than that you happen not to agree with it)? Could you please clearly state what is incorrect/not credible about that source of information? Be specific.

I'm finding the difference in the tone used with Bilal and that used with Yonoz to be another great indicator of the bigotry so many of the active posters in the Political forum have.

Well, you pointed out that we must distinguish between fact and opinion. It is your opinion that people who disagree with Yonoz are bigoted; it is my opinion that people who take that viewpoint are bigoted. Who of us is more correct? Is this question worth pursuing, do you think?

 

[kat]

2. Show me proof that it all Lebanese (without exception) 'outright HATE' Palestinians. Is this your opinion, or do you have proof? If you have a credible source of information to point me to, I will gladly read it and evaluate its trustworthiness.

I don't have time for a thorough reply at the moment. I will reply in length later this weekend. BUT, for the moment...I would like you to quote me where I said "All Lebanese" (without exception)". ? PLease, quote me..because I don't remember saying that at any time. Nor can I imagine saying that.

Well, you pointed out that we must distinguish between fact and opinion. It is your opinion that people who disagree with Yonoz are bigoted; it is my opinion that people who take that viewpoint are bigoted. Who of us is more correct? Is this question worth pursuing, do you think?

Actually, I don't think I said people who disagree with Yonoz are bigoted...please quote me if I did. Cause I can't imagine that I would ever consider disagreeing to be bigotry.

 

[Bilal]

Dear Kat,


Lebanon demography from CIAsite :

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/le.html

*******************
Lebanon

Religions:
Muslim 59.7% (Shi'a, Sunni, Druze, Isma'ilite, Alawite or Nusayri), Christian 39% (Maronite Catholic, Melkite Catholic, Armenian Orthodox, Syrian Catholic, Armenian Catholic, Roman Catholic, Protestant), other 1.3%
note: seventeen religious sects recognized
********************

Palestinian Had troubles only with extreme right wing of Maronite Christian.
Maronite Lebansee are less than 20% of total population . Unfortunately, the extremists Maronite are racist also against the rest of Lebanese including Roman Orthodox and Catholic Christian.

Palestinian have strong relations with Muslims Lebanese (Sunni, Shia, Duruz ….etc) , Roman orthodox, Catholic Orthodox and Armenian.
Additionally, there are many Maronite support Palestine than any other people, especially the left wing. Just examples: Elias Khoury, George Saada, Jozef Samaha , Marcel Khalifa, Julia Butrus , Suliman Frenjiah …

The Palestinian treated badly in Lebanon, because the racist right wing Maronite wanted them to live in isolated Ghetto , so they can not mix with Lebanese or get the nationality.They had similar idea of Zionism by creating ‘’Maronite Ghetto’’ in Lebanon.

You know, a lot of the stuff you post doesn't even pass the giggle test. A very large percentage of Lebanese are not PRO-Palestinian. In fact, the Palestinians in Lebanon are treated worse then those in Palestine and have less rights then Arabs in the Palestine AND Israel. In fact, a very large percentage of Lebanese are of the Christian Faith and VERY anti-Muslim and hold very strong feelings against the PLO in part due to their massacre of the Christian people.

 

[alexandra]

I don't have time for a thorough reply at the moment. I will reply in length later this weekend. BUT, for the moment...I would like you to quote me where I said "All Lebanese" (without exception)". ? PLease, quote me..because I don't remember saying that at any time. Nor can I imagine saying that. Actually, I don't think I said people who disagree with Yonoz are bigoted...please quote me if I did. Cause I can't imagine that I would ever consider disagreeing to be bigotry.

Ok, Kat - please don't play word games with me. Here you go, the quotes you are demanding...

My point in my post about Lebanon and the PLO to "Informal logic" is that he doesn't have a clue what he's talking about if he perceives that it's an "exception" for Lebanese to hate..yes outright HATE..Palestinians.

Also, I want to welcome Yonoz to this thread and to this forum. I'm finding the difference in the tone used with Bilal and that used with Yonoz to be another great indicator of the bigotry so many of the active posters in the Political forum have.

In effect, you are saying that it's NOT an exception for Lebanese people to hate Palestinian people, and you definitely specifically wrote that different tones used (which, anyway, you have not substantiated - plenty of people have addressed the issue in quite neutral tones) indicate bigotry.

 

[Bilal]

Victims of Civil war is another issue, they are from 140000 to 170000 within 15 years. The topic is only about victims of Israeli invasion for 6 months.

Israel murdered civilians in 6 months of its invasion to Lebanon more than all Jews victims (militants and civilians) in one century.

Looking into that first site you linked to was enough - it said "during invasion". What you seem to forget is that prior to and during the invasion there was already an atrocious civil war. Attributing all casualties in Lebanon to the fault of Israel is a little out of the envelope IMO.

 

[Bilal]

Dear Kat,
I understand your situation, and I know that your husband is Maronite Lebanese .

If Arab hate the Palestinian, so why the decided to fight with them for decades? Why they do not receive the Israeli by kisses and roses because they destroyed the Palestinian? Why there a lot of anger from USA in Arab world because they responsible about Palestinian tragedy?

I visited many Arab countries, I agree that security men scare from me because they think that Palestinian are danger on their dictators, while normal Arab people cry when they hear the word ‘’Palestine’’.

Concerning Lebanon,

You already said that Christian Lebanese are anti Muslims … this is incorrect. during the civil war , both Lebnese left wing and Syrian social party were under Maronite leadership. Both groups were fighting with PLO against the right Maronite wing.

Emil Lahoud who is Maronite Lebanese and president is big supporter of Palestine. Also Sulieman Frenjiah , who is from the leaders of Maronite is anti Israel and pro Palestine. Even El Ktaed new leadership , Karim Pakradouni (right wing), became supporter of Palestine and Syria.

Here are links about very well known Lebanese Maronite heros and artists who supports Palestine (Obviously, most of Muslims, Orthodox, catholic, Duruz and Armenian support Palestine):

- Suha Beshara

http://www.lebwa.org/life/becharas.php

Beshara attempted the assassination of Antoine Lahad by opening fire on him in his house. He was seriously wounded in the shoulder and chest. (General Antoine Lahad: Leader of South Lebanon Army. he is agent of Israel, he working in nightclub in Tel Aviv now. )

- Marcel Khalifa

He is the most popular singer in Arab world. He is the voice of Palestine.
http://www.marcelkhalife.com/

-Julia Butrus

One of most popular Maronite singers. She also the voice of Palestine in Arab world.
http://www.julia-boutros.com/

- Elias Khouri

This good link show the opinion of Maronite Lebanese thinker from Left wing about the conflict in his country:

http://www.lcps-lebanon.org/pub/breview/br5/khourybr5.html

Elias Khouri is one of greatest Arab artists. He is writer of many movies concerning the Palestinian catastrophe.

As I know most of well known characters who support Palestine in this conflict are Maronite Lebanese, so please no need to generalize even about Maronite.

There is pro Palestine Maronite and there are anti Palestine Maronites as any community in the world. While the rest of Lebanese, in general, are supporters of Palestine.

I wonder if Bilal can answer why Arab countries have been so hostile to Palestinians? (Why is this? Hint: It has a little something to do with the PLO)

 

[Informal Logic]

...My point in my post about Lebanon and the PLO to "Informal logic" is that he doesn't have a clue what he's talking about if he perceives that it's an "exception" for Lebanese to hate..yes outright HATE..Palestinians..

This is the kind of post to which I made earlier reference:

…I apologize for not participating in this thread more, but I do not have as much tolerance as you do for the lack of 'objectivity' often by the same members who claim this is needed.

To say that Arabs tend to be pro-Palestinian, and Jews tend to be pro-Israeli is being clueless? Though already addressed in this thread, I did not bother to source this because this is such basic knowledge (or one would think so).

...Many here need to get a grasp on the difference between OPINION and fact.

If you are going to attack others for posting opinion, it would be more credible if you provided reliable and neutral sources for your claims, as well as showing a more neutral tone and leaving insults at the door. But more importantly please do not misrepresent what I have said (it appears you were referring to me).

...He also attribituted the cause of the war TO israel, which can only be stated as OPINION not as fact.

Ultimately, it is the US that has created this mess, and the US that has helped to perpetuate this mess.

I have repeatedly made statements of this nature, and have made observations of all parties involved.

...From the Wikepedia link (and again, I have problems using Wikepedia as a source,or any publicly editable source for that matter).

I am aware of disputes regarding Wikipedia. One can only try their best to provide sources as reliable and neutral as possible, and the largest consensus is that Wikipedia is one of these sources. As for editing, I view fellow PF members as ethical and trust that information is provided per academic guidelines.

 

[Informal Logic]

...You keep using that word. I don't think you have the slightest clue what it means. I know you posted the definition before, but the way you've used it throughout the thread implies you are just utterly ignoring the definition.

Arafat was a leader. Terrorism, by definition, is not an act comitted directly against a leader, it is against a group of people (civilians) or their property. Furthermore, the Israelis weren't trying to scare him, they were trying to keep him on a leash - to disrupt his terrorist activities without killing him. Yes, I think they would have been perfectly justified in killing him, but politically it wasn't worth the backlash.

Are you sure it is not you who ignores definitions? While this may be a more common definition, it is not the only definition. For the last time: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

NOTE:

The neutrality of this article is disputed.
Please see the relevant discussion on the talk page.

(For Kat, and the fact that Wikipedia indicates this, shows a sincere attempt at objectivity.)

Types [of definitions]
Nationalist
Religious
Left-wing
Right-wing
State
Islamist
Ethnic
Narcoterrorism
Domestic
Anarchist
Political
Eco-terrorism
Christian

Terrorism is a controversial term with multiple definitions. One definition means a violent action targetting civilians exclusively. Another definition is the use or threatened use of violence for the purpose of creating fear in order to achieve a political, religious, or ideological goal. Under the second definition, the targets of terrorist acts can be anyone, including civilians, government officials, military personnel, or people serving the interests of governments.

Through intimidation or by instilling fear, terrorism can be used as a form of blackmail to apply pressure on governments for goals the terrorists could not achieve by direct violence alone. Civilians are usually held to be "innocent" victims of terrorist violence if they are unarmed and not in uniform when it occurs. Intentional violence against civilians (noncombatants) is the type of action most widely condemned as "terrorism".

Guerrilla warfare is often confused with terrorism as a small force attempts to achieve large goals using organized acts of violence against a larger force. But in contrast to terrorism, these acts are against military targets, and civilian targets are minimized to increase public support. For this reason, it is generally considered to be a military strategy rather than terrorism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism#Who_is_a_terrorist.3F

According to one view, the difference in terminology is completely subjective: One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter. The opposing view is that the two terms are distinct, and that an individual can be a terrorist, a freedom fighter, or both simultaneously.

Controversial definitions
On the surface, the popular definition of 'terrorism' represents a shift from previous means of defining an enemy, that is, from territorial or cultural disputes over ideology or religion, to the open acts of violence against the public. Many people dispute this definition however as ideological and simplistic, arguing instead that 'terrorism' is simply another in a long lists of enemy terms — that underneath any current conflict lies the same materialistic and ethnocentric reasons of which most past wars were based. The use of the terms terrorism and terrorist are politically weighted, and are often used for a polarizing effect, where 'terrorism' becomes simply a relativist term for the violence committed by an enemy, from the point of view of the attacked. Because of the political nature of some struggles, 'terrorism' can become identified as simply any violence committed against established institutions.

State combatants
The violence, i.e., terrorism, committed by state combatants is also considered more acceptable than that of the 'terrorist,' who by definition refuses to follow the self-serving laws of war, and hence cannot share in the acceptance given to establishment violence. Thus the term is impossible to apply by its rational definition — states who engage in warfare often do so outside of the laws of war and often carry out violence against civilian populations, yet rarely receive the label of 'terrorist.' The common public distinction between state violence and terrorism is based on a perception that terrorism targets noncombatants as a consistent policy, and therefore more irrational than state violence, which is assumed to be more considerate of human life, or at least does not consistently pursue unarmed civilian targets with the same zeal.

History does not always bear this out, however, and language reflects this: few would question that deliberate attacks on civilian refugee columns and camps is an attempt to induce terror in the enemy population and is therefore a terrorist act. As such the most accurate definition of "terrorism" must be based in its abstract nature as a term for characterising the violence of an enemy as conforming to an immoral code of conduct.

And if I recall correctly, in a previous thread you were also provided a Wikipedia quote by Naomi Chomsky illustrating that many view the US as using terrorist tactics as well.

 

[Informal Logic]

That is your personal opinion, which I disagree with. Have you actually compared the amount of links and their targets or are you basing your comment on your 'gut-feeling'?

Since Bilal indicates his location is Palestine, and you indicate your's as Israel, I used you both as an example of predisposition. With reference to providing quotes and links for reliable sources, I was not referring to you. You have provided links as well, and many are from Wikipedia, so Kat would have more of an issue with reliability than I would. Likewise, welcome to PF.

This is a long thread with lengthy posts, but if anyone cares to they will see that Bilal provides quotes and links--often several--and more often than just responding with opinion, and when he does not source directly, his use of specifics such as dates, etc. indicates he is basing his response on more than just opinion. This is what I have observed, and all that I've meant to say with regard to objectivity.

 

[Yonoz]

No, it's not. Here you go, a quote from Wikipedia (or perhaps Wikipedia writers are lying?):

"Outcome of the war
[edit]
Casualties
Estimations are that about 17,825 Arabs were killed during the war. There are different estimations about the portions of civilians killed. A Beirut newspaper An Nahar estimated that

17,825 killed during the invasion
Outside Beirut
Military personnel: 9,797 (PLO, Syria, etc.)
Civilians: 2,513
Beirut area: 5,515 (mil. + civ.)
[1] (http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat3.htm#Lebanon)"

Here's the link if you're interested in verifying the information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1982_Invasion_of_Lebanon#Outcome_of_the_war

Let me quote Bilal one more time:

1982: He invaded Lebanon and murdered 20000 civilians

Can you tell the difference between Bilal's comment and what is written in the article?
Let us analyse this further: he is claiming the deaths of nearly 20000 people during the Israeli invasion as murder. This was during a war - do you believe all casualties in war are victims of murder? If so you have a very broad definition of murder that doesn't do justice to victims of real murder.
Bilal also claims deaths of 20000 civilians. Have a look at your post - it clearly says "Military personnel: 9,797 (PLO, Syria, etc.)" inside Beirut.
Last, Bilal claims all these deaths can be attributed to Sharon. The invasion was during the civil war in Lebanon, in which many factions fought each other. As I commented earlier, the Sabra and Shatila massacre, the largest massacre attributed to Israel, was actually performed by Christian Arab militias. You see, not all Lebanese deaths during the invasion are at the hands of Israelis, and definitely not Sharon.
So you can see how a comment such as this:

1982: He invaded Lebanon and murdered 20000 civilians

is an ugly manipulation of facts at best, and an outright lie at worst?

 

[Yonoz]

Do you know, Yonoz, for *poor* people, who have nothing much, houses and orchards ARE their lives!

You know, for both poor and rich people who may have nothing much or everything they could ask for, the lives of their children ARE their lives. Can you tell me how many ruined houses and destroyed orchards justify the bombing of a school bus packed with students?
I agree the destruction of houses and orchards is the wrong way to go, but I cannot ever understand those who justify the murder of innocent children with ill-treatment, no matter how much property they lost.

 

[Yonoz]

Also, I want to welcome Yonoz to this thread and to this forum.

Thankyou.

I'm finding the difference in the tone used with Bilal and that used with Yonoz to be another great indicator of the bigotry so many of the active posters in the Political forum have.

Well, you pointed out that we must distinguish between fact and opinion. It is your opinion that people who disagree with Yonoz are bigoted; it is my opinion that people who take that viewpoint are bigoted. Who of us is more correct? Is this question worth pursuing, do you think?

kat and alexandra: please do not allow this to deteriorate into a personal matter. I understand it is hard to form a balanced view far away from the actual conflict due to the nature of modern media and popular trends. My aim is not to make friends and this is not a popularity contest. I am content with merely being allowed to explain my point of view, no matter how hard some find it to accept.

 

[Yonoz]

If Arab hate the Palestinian, so why the decided to fight with them for decades?

Because Arab nations use Palestinians as a tool to weaken Israel. Can you get any figures on the amount of humanitarian aid given to the Palestinians by Arab countries? That is, aid other than training, weapons and munitions.

I visited many Arab countries, I agree that security men scare from me because they think that Palestinian are danger on their dictators, while normal Arab people cry when they hear the word ‘’Palestine’’.

Why would they think Palestinians are dangerous? Didn't you "fight with them"?

(General Antoine Lahad: Leader of South Lebanon Army. he is agent of Israel, he working in nightclub in Tel Aviv now. )

I see, if someone allies with the Palestinians they are sympathetic, whereas if someone allies with Israel he is an "agent".

You have shown so many examples of Palestinian supporters. Can you give any examples of Arab figures whome you do not consider "agents" that have raised serious objection to deaths of Israeli civilians?

 

[Yonoz]

Since Bilal indicates his location is Palestine, and you indicate your's as Israel, I used you both as an example of predisposition. With reference to providing quotes and links for reliable sources, I was not referring to you. You have provided links as well, and many are from Wikipedia, so Kat would have more of an issue with reliability than I would.

I apologize then. Please make it clearer in the future when making making that sort of comment. I am rather defensive when posting here due to the serious accusations raised in the thread.

Likewise, welcome to PF.

Thankyou.

This is a long thread with lengthy posts, but if anyone cares to they will see that Bilal provides quotes and links--often several--and more often than just responding with opinion, and when he does not source directly, his use of specifics such as dates, etc. indicates he is basing his response on more than just opinion. This is what I have observed, and all that I've meant to say with regard to objectivity.

While on the surface it may seem thorough and well based, IMO his quotation of sources is selective and misleading. That is my own personal opinion and I do not think this subject is debatable, so I hope I haven't just shifted the topic.

 

[klusener]

Well, wikipedia's reliability is to be doubted at best, as I am sure Kat will attest to.. :) But that's not the only source though, they get those numbers from a newspaper from the 1980s, so again can it be trusted or who knows when that newspaper edition was published and again they say it's an estimation. These numbers are not set in stone, because the sites that I provided put the civilian deaths at more than 20000. It's so hard finding a reliable source with these things, I guess only God knows when it comes right down to it.

 

[Yonoz]

Well, wikipedia's reliability is to be doubted at best, as I am sure Kat will attest to.. :) But that's not the only source though, they get those numbers from a newspaper from the 1980s, so again can it be trusted or who knows when that newspaper edition was published and again they say it's an estimation. These numbers are not set in stone, because the sites that I provided put the civilian deaths at more than 20000. It's so hard finding a reliable source with these things, I guess only God knows when it comes right down to it.

It is also a matter of definition - because of the complexity of the participating forces and their alliances no one can say what can be attributed to the Israeli invasion and what is the result of the earlier stages of the civil war.
There were many accounts of young children participating in the fighting - among Israeli troops they were known as the "RPG boys" - because they often were young teenagers who were armed with an RPG launcher and few bombs. Since they were not trained, a lot of them were injured from the actual firing of the RPG which produces strong flames and a powerful recoil. Surely those should be counted as civilian casualties, but does it do justice to someone who had faced one of these boys to say "you killed another civilian?"

 

[alexandra]

I agree the destruction of houses and orchards is the wrong way to go, but I cannot ever understand those who justify the murder of innocent children with ill-treatment, no matter how much property they lost.

Yonoz, I am glad we agree about the issue of the destruction of houses and orchards. I want to emphatically say, though, that I would never justify or support any sort of killing/torture/maiming of innocent children/civilians (no matter what their nationality) under any circumstances.

In this topic we are talking about a cycle of violence based on historical events, and the task of our analysis (as I see it) is to clarify exactly what has led to this situation, and what the key factors are that are contributing to its continuation right now. I think a proper understanding of the historical roots and key factors leading to a situation are essential if appropriate solutions are to be found. The questions are: "How did this situation arise?" and "What are the key factors leading to its continuation?" (and not all of these factors would be immediately obvious; they would be hidden under mountains of confusing propaganda). It is only once these matters are sorted out that a viable and appropriate solution can even begin to be formulated.

 

[alexandra]

Thankyou.

kat and alexandra: please do not allow this to deteriorate into a personal matter. I understand it is hard to form a balanced view far away from the actual conflict due to the nature of modern media and popular trends. My aim is not to make friends and this is not a popularity contest. I am content with merely being allowed to explain my point of view, no matter how hard some find it to accept.

Quite correct, Yonoz. My apologies for reacting.

 

[stoned]

I agree the destruction of houses and orchards is the wrong way to go, but I cannot ever understand those who justify the murder of innocent children with ill-treatment, no matter how much property they lost.

common, don't be childish ! we were talking about your army killing civilians AND destroying property !

 

[Yonoz]

Yonoz, I am glad we agree about the issue of the destruction of houses and orchards. I want to emphatically say, though, that I would never justify or support any sort of killing/torture/maiming of innocent children/civilians (no matter what their nationality) under any circumstances.

I understand then that you too see the assymetry between the violence against Palestinians and violence against Israelis.

In this topic we are talking about a cycle of violence based on historical events, and the task of our analysis (as I see it) is to clarify exactly what has led to this situation, and what the key factors are that are contributing to its continuation right now.

I would rather focus on what should be done to end this cycle but unfortunately the debate keeps returning to the justification of violence rather than how to end it.

I think a proper understanding of the historical roots and key factors leading to a situation are essential if appropriate solutions are to be found.

To a certain extent. I, as well as a considerable portion of Israeli society, completely agree modern Palestinians are victims. However, that is just one side of the coin. It seems to me that the Palestinian society is not willing to look at its faults and role in creating this situation, or even see the matter from an Israeli perspective. Furthermore, they still widely support violence as a legitimate means of struggle.
I understand how it seems to a westerner watching their evening news and reading their morning papers - a modern country with highways and a regular army fighting a struggling nation that no one ever cared about. I also understand the Palestinian view - refugees displaced by a nation of mixed cultures and skin tones, backed by a strong international lobby with massive funds. However, I do not understand the use of violence against civilians and I further do not understand why it is still accepted, sometimes encouraged, by both Palestinians and westerners.
There are plenty of Israeli groups and individuals sympathetic to the Palestinians, even to the point of violent confrontation against the security forces. We lost a prime-minister to the struggle against our own extremists. In contrast, there have been no public challenges to the acceptance and use of violence in the Palestinian struggle.
Understandably, there is much sympathy to the victims of violence on the Palestinian side, even to the point of acceptance of the use of violence. However, it seems to be disregarded that Israelis elect their leadership, and that the use of violence against Israel (and Israel's efficient prevention of that violence by use of force) affects public opinion in Israel in a very negative manner - so, it is not only an unacceptable means, it is also detrimental to their cause (assuming their aim is a peaceful coexistence of two states).

The questions are: "How did this situation arise?" and "What are the key factors leading to its continuation?" (and not all of these factors would be immediately obvious; they would be hidden under mountains of confusing propaganda). It is only once these matters are sorted out that a viable and appropriate solution can even begin to be formulated.

I think there can never be total agreement between the opposing sides as to the history of violence in the region. Of course, agreements of any kind between the two sides are important to the cause of ending the conflict. Nevertheless, IMO we should focus on what can be done (or what should not be done) here and now to end the cycle of violence. I am quite willing to discuss historical events but I do not think that it would sum up to anything crucial or substantialy constructive.
I think the use of the word "propaganda" is rather liberal. Naturally events that occurred during times of conflict, especially early ones, will have completely different descriptions on both sides. The causes for these events will disagreed upon even more. For example, what sort of serious, factuated response can I give to Bilal's claim that the native inhabitants of Palestine did not plant trees and conquer the desert because they "knew" it would be "harmful to the environment", which IMHO is a total load of crap? And this is not even a comment about the many alleged "massacres" and "murders" - some of those are even harder to disprove as any source presenting the Israeli account of things will be discarded as biased. Is there any conflict in modern history whose most intricate details are agreed upon by both sides? I see this re-writing of history as just another chapter in this conflict. It is only after the dust settles over this troubled land that both sides will be able to come to the most basic agreement on historical facts - and that will be in a while. Until then these types of debates will only end in deadlock, and are therefor of little value to those who truly want to bring about peaceful times.

 

[Yonoz]

common, don't be childish ! we were talking about your army killing civilians AND destroying property !

Would that justify blowing up schoolkids?

 

[stoned]

Would that justify blowing up schoolkids?

I can ask you exactly the same question. Is your army justified in killing school children ?

 

[Yonoz]

I can ask you exactly the same question. Is your army justified in killing school children ?

What event are you referring to?

 

[stoned]

http://palestinetimes.net/issue161/news.html

 

[Yonoz]

http://palestinetimes.net/issue161/news.html

There are several incidents mentioned on that page, which one are you referring to?