Settlers Assault 60 Year Old Palestinian Judge

[Hossfly]

Consider something: the attitudes of the early 20th century American and Europeans regarding the savages of the Middle East, Africa, and assorted other countries and how that might effect what they saw and reported? Everyone reports events through the lens of their own bias' and none of them reported and empty land.



It's really amusing to see how the pro Zionists ignore actual census figures from the time. It was not an empty land. I am not and have not claimed it was densely populated - but it WAS populated by both Arabs and a minority of Jews. I used a source that describes what it is and who is behind it. You did not.

Perhaps you might consider how many times the pro-palestinian sources are labeled "propaganda" or does that slip your mind?

You going to show us census records from the 1700's and 1800's? I didn't know the Bedouins had permanent residences which the census taker could visit. And really, Coyote, you should pay closer attention. I am sure the viewers are sharp enough to realize that it is mainly the pro Palestinians who are always screeching that some site or another is propaganda.

No, I haven't noticed that. Perhaps that is simply your selective interpretation. What I tend to notice is that the "pro-Zionists" don't often cite sources for their claims and they frequently object to proPalistinian's choice of sources. You'd best re-examine threads.

What it comes down to over and over is it was not an empty land and there are people there now who have been there for generations far longer than the so-called "settlers" who are relatively recent invaders outside of Israel's legal borders.

Of course there were many "indigenous" people in the area. They were mostly nomads with no roots. One season they would be in Jordan, next season in Palestine, then Syria, Egypt or Lebanon. They had no claim to anything. But when Israel started making the land liveable and prosperous, then...............Whoa, Nelly! Bar the door!

 

[Coyote]

You going to show us census records from the 1700's and 1800's? I didn't know the Bedouins had permanent residences which the census taker could visit. And really, Coyote, you should pay closer attention. I am sure the viewers are sharp enough to realize that it is mainly the pro Palestinians who are always screeching that some site or another is propaganda.

No, I haven't noticed that. Perhaps that is simply your selective interpretation. What I tend to notice is that the "pro-Zionists" don't often cite sources for their claims and they frequently object to proPalistinian's choice of sources. You'd best re-examine threads.

What it comes down to over and over is it was not an empty land and there are people there now who have been there for generations far longer than the so-called "settlers" who are relatively recent invaders outside of Israel's legal borders.

Of course there were many "indigenous" people in the area. They were mostly nomads with no roots. One season they would be in Jordan, next season in Palestine, then Syria, Egypt or Lebanon. They had no claim to anything. But when Israel started making the land liveable and prosperous, then...............Whoa, Nelly! Bar the door!

The Beduoins were one group and yes, they were nomadic. However there were also many established Arab villages in those areas. I'm not talking about what is Israel proper within it's originally established borders - I'm talking about the Occupied Territories and the settlers.

But all that raises yet another question, and it's very much why the settler movement reminds me of the American westward expansion and the primacy of the Divine Mandate that gave them moral authority to force out indiginous peoples. Simply because they lived largely in subsistance or small scale trade economies or were nomadic - they had no right to the territories over which they moved.

So why is it that one group (stationary) has greater rights over another group (nomadic over set routes)?

Why is it that some how rights to a land is governed by how much a group "improves it" over who has lived there?

Why is it that Arab villages, who lacked the huge monetary donations and resources that the Israeli's recieved over time to develop their country and agriculture - suddenly don't have the same rights to their land as "settlers" who come in and take it? Somehow if they don't "improve it" they have less rights? Why do they even HAVE to improve it?

What if you have a hundred acres of empty field and forest, you only tend a few acres to feed your family - then some guy comes in, develops fifty acres into an agricultural paradise and claims it is now his so bugger off. You refuse and he starts vandalizing your fruit trees, burning your trucks, terrorizing your children and, this is ok because he "improved the land" so he has a greater right to it?

 

[Hossfly]

No, I haven't noticed that. Perhaps that is simply your selective interpretation. What I tend to notice is that the "pro-Zionists" don't often cite sources for their claims and they frequently object to proPalistinian's choice of sources. You'd best re-examine threads.

What it comes down to over and over is it was not an empty land and there are people there now who have been there for generations far longer than the so-called "settlers" who are relatively recent invaders outside of Israel's legal borders.

Of course there were many "indigenous" people in the area. They were mostly nomads with no roots. One season they would be in Jordan, next season in Palestine, then Syria, Egypt or Lebanon. They had no claim to anything. But when Israel started making the land liveable and prosperous, then...............Whoa, Nelly! Bar the door!

The Beduoins were one group and yes, they were nomadic. However there were also many established Arab villages in those areas. I'm not talking about what is Israel proper within it's originally established borders - I'm talking about the Occupied Territories and the settlers.

But all that raises yet another question, and it's very much why the settler movement reminds me of the American westward expansion and the primacy of the Divine Mandate that gave them moral authority to force out indiginous peoples. Simply because they lived largely in subsistance or small scale trade economies or were nomadic - they had no right to the territories over which they moved.

So why is it that one group (stationary) has greater rights over another group (nomadic over set routes)?

Why is it that some how rights to a land is governed by how much a group "improves it" over who has lived there?

Why is it that Arab villages, who lacked the huge monetary donations and resources that the Israeli's recieved over time to develop their country and agriculture - suddenly don't have the same rights to their land as "settlers" who come in and take it? Somehow if they don't "improve it" they have less rights? Why do they even HAVE to improve it?

What if you have a hundred acres of empty field and forest, you only tend a few acres to feed your family - then some guy comes in, develops fifty acres into an agricultural paradise and claims it is now his so bugger off. You refuse and he starts vandalizing your fruit trees, burning your trucks, terrorizing your children and, this is ok because he "improved the land" so he has a greater right to it?

I base my reason on the fact that a Greater Power gave the land to the Tribes of Israel and I believe in that with implicit confidence and no argument on earth will persuade me to change my mind.

 

[Coyote]

Of course there were many "indigenous" people in the area. They were mostly nomads with no roots. One season they would be in Jordan, next season in Palestine, then Syria, Egypt or Lebanon. They had no claim to anything. But when Israel started making the land liveable and prosperous, then...............Whoa, Nelly! Bar the door!

The Beduoins were one group and yes, they were nomadic. However there were also many established Arab villages in those areas. I'm not talking about what is Israel proper within it's originally established borders - I'm talking about the Occupied Territories and the settlers.

But all that raises yet another question, and it's very much why the settler movement reminds me of the American westward expansion and the primacy of the Divine Mandate that gave them moral authority to force out indiginous peoples. Simply because they lived largely in subsistance or small scale trade economies or were nomadic - they had no right to the territories over which they moved.

So why is it that one group (stationary) has greater rights over another group (nomadic over set routes)?

Why is it that some how rights to a land is governed by how much a group "improves it" over who has lived there?

Why is it that Arab villages, who lacked the huge monetary donations and resources that the Israeli's recieved over time to develop their country and agriculture - suddenly don't have the same rights to their land as "settlers" who come in and take it? Somehow if they don't "improve it" they have less rights? Why do they even HAVE to improve it?

What if you have a hundred acres of empty field and forest, you only tend a few acres to feed your family - then some guy comes in, develops fifty acres into an agricultural paradise and claims it is now his so bugger off. You refuse and he starts vandalizing your fruit trees, burning your trucks, terrorizing your children and, this is ok because he "improved the land" so he has a greater right to it?

I base my reason on the fact that a Greater Power gave the land to the Tribes of Israel and I believe in that with implicit confidence and no argument on earth will persuade me to change my mind.

Ah, then we must part ways here and agree to disagree for I can not believe in any Greater Power that would render homeless some of it's children for the benefit of some of it's others.

 

[Hossfly]

The Beduoins were one group and yes, they were nomadic. However there were also many established Arab villages in those areas. I'm not talking about what is Israel proper within it's originally established borders - I'm talking about the Occupied Territories and the settlers.

But all that raises yet another question, and it's very much why the settler movement reminds me of the American westward expansion and the primacy of the Divine Mandate that gave them moral authority to force out indiginous peoples. Simply because they lived largely in subsistance or small scale trade economies or were nomadic - they had no right to the territories over which they moved.

So why is it that one group (stationary) has greater rights over another group (nomadic over set routes)?

Why is it that some how rights to a land is governed by how much a group "improves it" over who has lived there?

Why is it that Arab villages, who lacked the huge monetary donations and resources that the Israeli's recieved over time to develop their country and agriculture - suddenly don't have the same rights to their land as "settlers" who come in and take it? Somehow if they don't "improve it" they have less rights? Why do they even HAVE to improve it?

What if you have a hundred acres of empty field and forest, you only tend a few acres to feed your family - then some guy comes in, develops fifty acres into an agricultural paradise and claims it is now his so bugger off. You refuse and he starts vandalizing your fruit trees, burning your trucks, terrorizing your children and, this is ok because he "improved the land" so he has a greater right to it?

I base my reason on the fact that a Greater Power gave the land to the Tribes of Israel and I believe in that with implicit confidence and no argument on earth will persuade me to change my mind.

Ah, then we must part ways here and agree to disagree for I can not believe in any Greater Power that would render homeless some of it's children for the benefit of some of it's others.

I tend to somewhat agree but then, Joshua was given explicit orders of what to do and how to conduct his campaign and those orders were pretty hairy.He let up somewhat and the results are being felt to this day. That is what the tension in the ME is all about.

 

[Lipush]

The settlers are the Arabs.

I'm afraid in this case you don't get the prize.

The "Arabs" preceded the Jewish "settlers'.

Try to keep up

There were ALWAYS Jews in Israel, in times where Arab clans used to rob and kill and assault eachother, far away from our homeland.

Try to keep up

 

[Lipush]

What sort of source is "palestinefacts.org"? It sounds like propaganda more than facts and gives absolutely no information as to who they are.

Other than that....you seem to buy into the "pro-Israeli" side puts forth that it was an empty land when the Zionists came.

It wasn't.

There were indiginous people and they were not just Jews.

There were Arab immigrants and Jewish immigrants.

The settlers represent the latest wave of immigrants invading occupied territory that does not belong (under international law) to them.

The Arabs got their countries.... Now the Jews have theirs...You're welcome again.

You're very welcoming, it's a pity you aren't as welcoming or receptive to facts.

The Jews have a country.

It's called Israel. No one is arguing their right to a country.

Countries are not determined by vague ethnic groups like "Arabs". Otherwise, we would only need one European country. One African country. You get it right?

So, we agree that the Jews have their country. Now lets move to the illegally held occupied territory and the question of "settlers" invading it.

That belongs to the Palestinians.

You're seriously saying that.

99% of the Arabs don't accept Israel's right to exist.

 

[Lipush]

Why is it, the pro-Israeli crowd doesn't want to discuss the violent attack on a 60 year old man working on his farm?

With the same ones who see releasing killer of 7 girls "freedom fighter" and the ones saying rocks on 3 year olds is "acceptable retalitation" and the ones who say Israeli people should be "legitimate targets" since they are not at all civilians?

With you are you calling to discuss this issue?

Which btw, is not at all acceptable.

 

[Lipush]

i did

where?

I always condemn violent acts by Jewish extremists. Just because I don't express that in every thread, doesn't mean I don't condemn it.

Haters are to busy listening to themselves they don't listen to others.

 

[Lipush]

Was Jordan "Palestine" in 1967 or was Israel "Palestine"? Were the Arabs at war with "Palestine"? or Israel? Were the Arabs at war with Jordan? or "Palestine"? Did the Jews occupy "Palestine" in 1967? Or did Jordan occupy "Palestine”? Are Jordanians “Palestinian”? Or Jordanian? And what’s the difference anyway?

The "occupation" is not a debatable issue.

Niether is Palestinian terrorism.

 

[Lipush]

So back to OP. It seems that most feel it's just fine to beat an old man senseless, as long as our a settler and he's a Pali.

You are attempting to create something more out of a simple assault. It is not right of course, but it is not a remarkable issue.

Was Adelle a simple assault? After all, it was just youths throwing stones that caused a truck to swerve. Yet, it provoked much outrage and multiple threads. Perhaps an old man, beaten because of his ethnic identify, is not worth the same outrage.

So why Loinboy, Tinmore, Sherri and the rest didn't post the same "outrage" concerning Adelle, like with this Palestinian?

It seems to me this argument is redundent, because just like the pro Palestinians see attacking a 3 year old "nothing major", you cannot come complaining when the other side of the coin happens when a Palestinian is attacked.

None of those are acceptable.

Enders are not at fault, niehter are the children.

But before the Pro-Palestinians come complaining, they need to look at their own indifference, first

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

The Beduoins were one group and yes, they were nomadic. However there were also many established Arab villages in those areas. I'm not talking about what is Israel proper within it's originally established borders - I'm talking about the Occupied Territories and the settlers.

But all that raises yet another question, and it's very much why the settler movement reminds me of the American westward expansion and the primacy of the Divine Mandate that gave them moral authority to force out indiginous peoples. Simply because they lived largely in subsistance or small scale trade economies or were nomadic - they had no right to the territories over which they moved.

So why is it that one group (stationary) has greater rights over another group (nomadic over set routes)?

Why is it that some how rights to a land is governed by how much a group "improves it" over who has lived there?

Why is it that Arab villages, who lacked the huge monetary donations and resources that the Israeli's recieved over time to develop their country and agriculture - suddenly don't have the same rights to their land as "settlers" who come in and take it? Somehow if they don't "improve it" they have less rights? Why do they even HAVE to improve it?

What if you have a hundred acres of empty field and forest, you only tend a few acres to feed your family - then some guy comes in, develops fifty acres into an agricultural paradise and claims it is now his so bugger off. You refuse and he starts vandalizing your fruit trees, burning your trucks, terrorizing your children and, this is ok because he "improved the land" so he has a greater right to it?

I base my reason on the fact that a Greater Power gave the land to the Tribes of Israel and I believe in that with implicit confidence and no argument on earth will persuade me to change my mind.

Ah, then we must part ways here and agree to disagree for I can not believe in any Greater Power that would render homeless some of it's children for the benefit of some of it's others.

That is the inherent flaw within Zionism, it accepts some people are children of a lesser God. To me, that is a rejection of God and Idolatry!

 

[Lipush]

That is the inherent flaw within Zionism, it accepts some people are children of a lesser God. "

You see what I mean Cayote?

Should this woman be taken seriously?

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

I base my reason on the fact that a Greater Power gave the land to the Tribes of Israel and I believe in that with implicit confidence and no argument on earth will persuade me to change my mind.

Ah, then we must part ways here and agree to disagree for I can not believe in any Greater Power that would render homeless some of it's children for the benefit of some of it's others.

I tend to somewhat agree but then, Joshua was given explicit orders of what to do and how to conduct his campaign and those orders were pretty hairy.He let up somewhat and the results are being felt to this day. That is what the tension in the ME is all about.

For those of us who believe it is Jesus who shows us who God is, we know there is no way God ever ordered ethnic cleansing by anyone of anyone.

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

That is the inherent flaw within Zionism, it accepts some people are children of a lesser God. "

You see what I mean Cayote?

Should this woman be taken seriously?

But Zionism treats Jews and nonJews differently, one group with superior rights to the other. Are you really in denial of that being true? Look at the story in the OP, how Jewish settlers are allowed to attack Palestinians. Often, in these attacks soldiers stand there and watch them happen and sometimes they even participate in the attacks against Palestinians. It was not that long ago I posted an article by Rabbis For Human Rights and a Rabbi was present in an attack by the IDF on a Palestinian village. This was a village that suffers regular attacks from both settlers and the IDF. What shocked him was how the soldiers had absolutely no concern for the injured, even their fellow soldiers. He was trying to go to the aid of those hurt and they would not let off the attacks even to allow him or others to get to those hurt. But that illustrates what Occupation does to the occupiers and oppressors, it takes the humanity out of them, a little more lost with each atrocity one participates in.

Below are Photos and the link to that Rabbis For Human Rights article.

Photos

"The Idf soldiers collaborating with settlers that attacks the Palestinians at Kusra"

Six Palestinian cars torched in price tag attack

http://rhr.org.il/eng/2013/02/a-few...l-and-the-territories-rabbi-yehiel-grenimann/

After a second round of tear gas

After a second round of tear gas we spotted someone, wearing a red sweater or shirt, lying on the ground near the soldiers. Zakaria called out that there was someone wounded, but to no avail. The shooting and stone-throwing continued. We tried approaching slowly in the car, calling out that someone was wounded.We successfully got the young men near us to stop throwing rocks, but the army opened fire again almost hitting us. We closed the windows and retreated again. Phonecalls to a local DCO officer made it possible to get a Palestinian ambulance in to help the wounded man – still lying on the ground, and another who had also been injured. I was told he was a diabetic who also suffered from asthma. He had been lying on the ground not moving much for a long time and we were seriously concerned for his life.

The young man was being given oxygen and sitting up as we left. He was very red in the face, but he was alive!

Apparently a couple of soldiers were also injured, but that must have happened after we left. (Throughout the entire event I saw no attempt by my fellow Israelis to take care of the injured of either side!)

 

[Lipush]

"But Zionism treats Jews and nonJews differently, one group with superior rights to the other. Are you really in denial of that being true?"

Uhhh. I'm thinking- Yeah!

 

[Lipush]

"Look at the story in the OP"

What's op?!

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

Hatred of Jews.

So you think it's ok to severely beat an old man because he's Palestinian? Does that mean your issue is "Hatred of Palestinians"?

Sherri's on a mission...It doesn't have anything to do with this thread specially. Get it genus? This man is a means to an end for Sherri. She could give a shit about him as an individual. Kinda like Obama uses the parents of dead children to further his agenda

I oppose the Occupation and its human rights abuses in Palestine and Apartheid in Palestine, like Gandhi opposed the British Colonialism in India, like Mandela opposed Apartheid, like MLK opposed Segregation in the US South.

This is a cause worth taking a stand for, it is the moral cause of our generation!

Is everyone here aware the numbers of supporters of Samer Issawi today all over the world are now in the hundreds of thosands?

And the numbers grow larger every day that passes!

Sherri

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

"Look at the story in the OP"

What's op?!

Opening Post

 

[Hossfly]

So you think it's ok to severely beat an old man because he's Palestinian? Does that mean your issue is "Hatred of Palestinians"?

Sherri's on a mission...It doesn't have anything to do with this thread specially. Get it genus? This man is a means to an end for Sherri. She could give a shit about him as an individual. Kinda like Obama uses the parents of dead children to further his agenda

I oppose the Occupation and its human rights abuses in Palestine and Apartheid in Palestine, like Gandhi opposed the British Colonialism in India, like Mandela opposed Apartheid, like MLK opposed Segregation in the US South.

This is a cause worth taking a stand for, it is the moral cause of our generation!

Is everyone here aware the numbers of supporters of Samer Issawi today all over the world are now in the hundreds of thosands?

And the numbers grow larger every day that passes!

Sherri

All those people going to Samer's funeral?