Settlers

[Coyote]

Settlers are most certainly not held to a higher standard - they are largely exempt from law enforcement both in their aquisition of Palestinian land, in the kid-glove treatment they get when arrested - if, indeed, they get arrested. Palestinian children get stoned, the IDF is escorting them. There are no repercussions on the settler children and, perhaps more to the point - they don't get shot. If it was a Palestinian throwing stones at Israeli's - they would be shot. Is this the higher standard they are being held to?

There are a large number of assumptions and generalities in this post which beg clarification and factual support: that Jewish people are exempt from law enforcement; that Jewish people are illegally acquiring "Palestinian land"; that there even is such a thing as "Palestinian land"; that Jews aren't allowed to live on "Palestinian" land; that Palestinian children are being stoned in a generalized way; that there are no repercussions on Jewish children throwing stones; that Jewish children don't get shot and the reasons why they don't.

There is a stereotypical view that every Jewish resident in the West Bank is an unhinged, extremist Baruch Goldstein wannabe. Not every suburbanite living in Maalei Adumim or Ariel is like that. Not even every devoted Jew living near Hebron is like that. While it's true that some Jews look at them as modern-day pioneers in savage American Indian territory, I don't. But they are kinda brave and purely idealistic, as opposed to materialistic. Even if a Palestine should arise in the West Bank someday, Jews should be able to live in their ancestral homeland as Palestinian citizens, just like there are Israeli-Arab citizens in Haifa and Jaffa.

You should read the article I linked to. It says just that. However, the ones that are extremist are a potent minority.

 

[RoccoR]

rylah, et al,

We should be a little more objective than this.

Yes Coyote changed her tactics from open attacks on Israel to playing the polite cynical lawyer type. I guess with the new rules and being a mod have certain effect. But the strategy is still clear.

(COMMENT)

Neither the manner of presentation, or the voice in which the observations are articulated, --- actually alter the validity or soundness of the quality in content. Whether or not Coyote has a communication strategy is irrelevant. While "it is the responsibility of the receiver to clarify the communication through the artful use of questions. The transmitting communicator also accepts the responsibility for the result of a communication." (So says Kevin Hogan in Mastering the Art of Communication.)

If you are communicating an idea, then it becomes important knowing that "Understanding is an approximation of what the message means to the sender --- by the receiver. And this understanding always has an agenda (items under discussion). Otherwise it just becomes noise or meaningless; "anything that interferes or causes the deletion, distortion or generalization of the exact replication of information being transmitted from the mind of the transmitter to the mind of the receiver."

Now for the Jews living in JUDEA and SHOMRON the situation is simply that. Anyone can whine about how especially the Jews from Judea are the most dangerous and frightening...ironic isn't it?

(COMMENT)

The point of origin anywhere along the geo-spacial timeline is not a primal cause for the attributes to the image and character a culture acquires. When I was assigned in Germany the first time, I came to know a few LNI's (Local National Investigators) quite well. And I learned relatively quick, that the association of a German with WWII Germany is not actually a necessary or sufficient condition to be a NAZI.

The People of the Jewish Culture and the association we (or they) make with the regional areas of Judea and Samaria (Shomrin), do not establish a any kind of standard dangerous and frightening criteria. The idea that the Jews are somehow "the most dangerous and frightening" or projecting any other image is simply invalid.

What is just as true, is that the same concept equally applies to the image, character and projections of the Arab Palestinians.

Their goal is not driving anyone out but to CREATE decent life for themselves and dedicate it to spiritual growth through very hard physical and mental effort. And they were very self efficient then before the state, before the numerous mass evictions and now- building and improving their infrastructure and housing by hand. All this while being attacked from withing, from the Arab side of course daily and the special treatment from UNholy alliance.

(COMMENT)

We first have to examine what the two competing cultures profess as their goals and objectives; and then compare them to the actual deeds they exhibit.

Now lets counter it with the enemy accomplishments- UNRWA and...forget anything?

(COMMENT)

The UNRWA (UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees) is a totally compromised agency; heavily infiltrated by Jihadist and Fedayeen. It follows Hostile Arab Palestinian pressure to conform to the Policies of the Resistance. It is my considered opinion that the UNRWA provides material support to the all facets of the Jihadist, Fedayeen, terrorist, insurgent, and asymmetric forces.

To remind You the Jews in Judea and Shomron actually know how to live by the arabs...or more correctly by the rules of reality where the conflict ACTUALLY occurs- they know how to get the most 'mutual peace' with the enemy while many of us can sit thousands of miles away pretending we have a clue about what's the reality in Judea or any slightest understandings of this community.

(COMMENT)

I'm not sure this actually helps either side. This does not illuminate the the actual desire by each side to come to a the negotiating table; let alone a settlement mindset.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Shusha]

How about teaching hate? We always see the flood of pictures showing Palestinian kids dressed in suicide vest costumes or playing with guns...but it is not just there.

Little kids throw mock grenades and pretend to shoot big guns; a boy crawls militant-style as gun-wielding adults cheer him on; a girl wearing a pink dress carries a rocket launcher twice her size.

Really? You don't see the difference in ideology between this:

AND THIS:

Do you not understand the difference in ideology between these two groups? Yes, children in Israel are aware from an early age that they will grow up and be required to participate in the military. Its part of their childhood. Its part of their adulthood. Its tragic and its horrible and its awful to have to grow up knowing that you will have to defend yourself from people who want to kill you because you are a Jew. Being militarized to the extent that military service is compulsory is certainly not how I would choose to raise my children, but I don't see that the Jewish people has a choice. There is a great deal of difference between growing up with the understanding that you will have to defend your right to exist vs. growing up with the understanding that you have a duty to kill people because they are Jews.

The first group of pictures, btw, are NOT of Israel, but illustrative of other nations which ALSO give tours of military facilities and weapons displays to children.

Its the difference between the ideology held by the settlers in the very long article you supplied:

As a Jewish person, I have a deep connection with the land and I want to live in the place of my forefathers.

AND:

Kill all the Jews.

​

 

[Dogmaphobe]

How about teaching hate? We always see the flood of pictures showing Palestinian kids dressed in suicide vest costumes or playing with guns...but it is not just there.

Little kids throw mock grenades and pretend to shoot big guns; a boy crawls militant-style as gun-wielding adults cheer him on; a girl wearing a pink dress carries a rocket launcher twice her size.

Really? You don't see the difference in ideology between this:

AND THIS:

View attachment 64030

Do you not understand the difference in ideology between these two groups? Yes, children in Israel are aware from an early age that they will grow up and be required to participate in the military. Its part of their childhood. Its part of their adulthood. Its tragic and its horrible and its awful to have to grow up knowing that you will have to defend yourself from people who want to kill you because you are a Jew. Being militarized to the extent that military service is compulsory is certainly not how I would choose to raise my children, but I don't see that the Jewish people has a choice. There is a great deal of difference between growing up with the understanding that you will have to defend your right to exist vs. growing up with the understanding that you have a duty to kill people because they are Jews.

The first group of pictures, btw, are NOT of Israel, but illustrative of other nations which ALSO give tours of military facilities and weapons displays to children.

Its the difference between the ideology held by the settlers in the very long article you supplied:

As a Jewish person, I have a deep connection with the land and I want to live in the place of my forefathers.

AND:

Kill all the Jews.

​

The supporters of Palestinian terrorism draw these false equivalences equivalence between self-defense and intentional murder because they wish to defend and justify the intentional murder.

There is no inherent right to life where Jews are concerned.

 

[Shusha]

In the lengthy article I linked to earlier "meet the settlers" - it talked about illegally aquiring the land and about how these settlements refused protective fencing because it would limit their growth (ie - the illegal aquisition of land). It gave specific examples where they took land illegally. I'm not saying all land was taken illegally, I'm saying some certainly is by these settlements. I don't know if you bothered to read it, it was very good and fairly unbiased - talking with settlers who represented a variety of backgrounds, from those who lived in the settlements because it was far more affordable to those who were uber religious and who honestly felt they were right in what they were doing and those who were secular. I learned a lot - they aren't a uniform group.

I skimmed it. It is VERY long. But I think I found the chapter you are talking about. And I agree that it as fairly unbiased, although you are bringing your biases into it here.

In the section I read (mainly chapter three, I think, Battle for the Hilltops and some of a later chapter (five?) the only thing I had a problem with was the community which had set up vineyards on land privately owned by another individual. That is wrong. And, of course, the state of Israel is acting accordingly.

The rest of the claims to "illegally" acquiring land depend on interpretation. Specifically, it depends on the concept that there is such a thing as sovereign Palestinian land. And secondly, it depends on the discriminatory and racist policy that this sovereign land must be Judenrien -- that Jewish people must not be permitted to purchase land or live on that territory. Further, it says that the fact of Jewish people living on that land somehow prevents or interrupts the sovereignty of Palestinians.

These concepts, especially the last, are as morally corrupt as the suggestion that all Arabs must be ethnically cleansed from Israel. Its the SAME. Its the concept of keeping Palestinian land "clean" of Jews. Since you argue so vehemently against the one, you should argue vehemently against the other.

 

[Shusha]

Jewish children DON'T get shot for throwing stones - even at the IDF. If you can find me even a single example I'd be interested. I can find many examples where Palestinian stone throwers get shot.

Sure. But Palestinian children don't routinely get shot for throwing stones either. It does happen, though. Let's examine why Palestinian children get shot and Jewish children do not. What are the circumstances around the stone throwing in each case and the possible choices LEO's have to make and the potential outcomes.

To my knowledge, Palestinian children get shot while throwing stones under two circumstances: entering the buffer zone with Gaza and as participants in riots with others.

How is this different from the conditions under which a Jewish child might be shot? Do you think, those conditions affect the decision making processes of the LEO's and therefore the outcome?

 

[Shusha]

The supporters of Palestinian terrorism draw these false equivalences equivalence between self-defense and intentional murder because they wish to defend and justify the intentional murder.

There is no inherent right to life where Jews are concerned.

Yes, one of the arguments for stabbing attacks is that all Jews are valid targets since they all have, or will, serve in the military.

 

[Coyote]

How about teaching hate? We always see the flood of pictures showing Palestinian kids dressed in suicide vest costumes or playing with guns...but it is not just there.

Little kids throw mock grenades and pretend to shoot big guns; a boy crawls militant-style as gun-wielding adults cheer him on; a girl wearing a pink dress carries a rocket launcher twice her size.

Really? You don't see the difference in ideology between this:

AND THIS:

View attachment 64030

What I see are a lot of pictures, and not a lot of context of where they are from but the Palestinian ones are frequently posted.

What I also see if that when it comes to the settlers, you are eager for people to see them as not one monolithic group, but varied and diverse. You don't seem willing to see that in the Palestinians - you lump them all in as part of a "hateful ideology". You give latitude for the Jews, but not the Palestinians. Why?

Do you not understand the difference in ideology between these two groups? Yes, children in Israel are aware from an early age that they will grow up and be required to participate in the military. Its part of their childhood. Its part of their adulthood. Its tragic and its horrible and its awful to have to grow up knowing that you will have to defend yourself from people who want to kill you because you are a Jew. Being militarized to the extent that military service is compulsory is certainly not how I would choose to raise my children, but I don't see that the Jewish people has a choice. There is a great deal of difference between growing up with the understanding that you will have to defend your right to exist vs. growing up with the understanding that you have a duty to kill people because they are Jews.

First of all - my comments were not directed at all Israeli's but at the settlers. Everything you say above could also apply to the Palestinians. They too grow up militarized, surrounded by people who hate them and want to remove them from their land. They see family members shot, killed, taken into custody - and when Jews do the same things (rock throwing) - nothing happens.

There is a great deal of difference between growing up with the understanding that you will have to defend your right to exist vs. growing up with the understanding that you have a duty to kill people because they are Jews.

Except that is a faux and very one-sided rational.

How do you know they grow up "understanding that you will have to defend your right to exist"

How do you know the Palestinians grow up with the "understanding that you have a duty to kill people because they are Jews"

Has it occurred to you that there are Israeli's, particularly among the settlers that really hate the Palestinians - consider them less than human and killing them is a duty?

Has it occurred to you that maybe there are Palestinians also grow up with an understanding that they too have to defend their right to exist?

The first group of pictures, btw, are NOT of Israel, but illustrative of other nations which ALSO give tours of military facilities and weapons displays to children.

The Palestinians have no military facilities to give children a tour of. They have no army. What they have is what their children dress up as...just like the Israeli children.

Its the difference between the ideology held by the settlers in the very long article you supplied:

As a Jewish person, I have a deep connection with the land and I want to live in the place of my forefathers.

AND:

Kill all the Jews.

​

Except, categorize the Palestinians into one bumper sticker slogan. You want me to see beyond that kind of identification when it comes to the settlers and indeed the Israeli's, and I do - but you can't seem to do that for the Palestinians. Perhaps they too have a deep connection with the land - it is, in many cases the place of their forefathers too, they have been there for generations and farmed the same land. And all you can say is they are nothing more than a group with the label "kill all Jews".

 

[Coyote]

Jewish children DON'T get shot for throwing stones - even at the IDF. If you can find me even a single example I'd be interested. I can find many examples where Palestinian stone throwers get shot.

Sure. But Palestinian children don't routinely get shot for throwing stones either. It does happen, though. Let's examine why Palestinian children get shot and Jewish children do not. What are the circumstances around the stone throwing in each case and the possible choices LEO's have to make and the potential outcomes.

To my knowledge, Palestinian children get shot while throwing stones under two circumstances: entering the buffer zone with Gaza and as participants in riots with others.

How is this different from the conditions under which a Jewish child might be shot? Do you think, those conditions affect the decision making processes of the LEO's and therefore the outcome?

I don't see how these examples...
16-year-old Palestinian shot dead during clashes in Hebron's al-Arrub camp
West Bank - Israeli Troops Kill Stone-Throwing Palestinian Youth 16
Palestinian teenager 'shot in back by senior Israeli soldier while fleeing'

differ from these....
The moment two Palestinians stopped an Israeli woman getting hit by rocks
Police, IDF say settlers must quit Palestinian home in Hebron

In the Palestinian stone throwing articles - there didn't seem to be a riot unless you consider more than one participant a riot, in which case it would be the same as the settler examples. It doesn't seem that they are in the buffer zone either. They are throwing stones at the military but then, so are the settlers.

 

[Coyote]

In the lengthy article I linked to earlier "meet the settlers" - it talked about illegally aquiring the land and about how these settlements refused protective fencing because it would limit their growth (ie - the illegal aquisition of land). It gave specific examples where they took land illegally. I'm not saying all land was taken illegally, I'm saying some certainly is by these settlements. I don't know if you bothered to read it, it was very good and fairly unbiased - talking with settlers who represented a variety of backgrounds, from those who lived in the settlements because it was far more affordable to those who were uber religious and who honestly felt they were right in what they were doing and those who were secular. I learned a lot - they aren't a uniform group.

I skimmed it. It is VERY long. But I think I found the chapter you are talking about. And I agree that it as fairly unbiased, although you are bringing your biases into it here.

In the section I read (mainly chapter three, I think, Battle for the Hilltops and some of a later chapter (five?) the only thing I had a problem with was the community which had set up vineyards on land privately owned by another individual. That is wrong. And, of course, the state of Israel is acting accordingly.

The rest of the claims to "illegally" acquiring land depend on interpretation. Specifically, it depends on the concept that there is such a thing as sovereign Palestinian land. And secondly, it depends on the discriminatory and racist policy that this sovereign land must be Judenrien -- that Jewish people must not be permitted to purchase land or live on that territory. Further, it says that the fact of Jewish people living on that land somehow prevents or interrupts the sovereignty of Palestinians.

These concepts, especially the last, are as morally corrupt as the suggestion that all Arabs must be ethnically cleansed from Israel. Its the SAME. Its the concept of keeping Palestinian land "clean" of Jews. Since you argue so vehemently against the one, you should argue vehemently against the other.

Thank you for reading it. I found it very interesting and very informative. The thing about the vineyards is that it is just one example. It's hardly the only one, as is the refusal to accept any borders for the settlement and their subtle annexation of Palestinian farmland. I'm not a lawyer (you sound like you might be?). There is also no indication in that article that the Palestinians are acting on a policy of "judenrien" which is a very emotionally charged term - and I sometimes think is thrown in to avoid addressing what might very well be land theft. When it comes to "discrimminatory and racist policy" - isn't that what is occurring with allowing settlers to expand illegally like that and not doing anything about it?

 

[Phoenall]

How many Settlers do you know ? Because I've met more than a few. They are as noble as noble gets. They feel an extremely strong sense of ethnic and cultural pride and simply will not be intimidated. I give them a lot of credit for sticking up for themselves.

Its the Arab Muslims that are the intolerant extremists. Let me ask you this. How many Jews are in Gaza or the Arab areas of the disputed territories ? VS how many Arabs Israel and Israeli areas ?

Its a no brainer as to who's being intolerant.

As for violence thats also a no brainer. Lets look at this latest wave of violence. 28 Arab Muslims out of a mob of hundreds were shot while attacking Israeli's today. TODAY alone.

And they are children. The Arab Muslims have taken to sending their own children forward with knives and rocks. I can't think of anything less noble.

No I'll take my settler friends over a raving hoard anyday.

How many Palestinians do you know?

How is stoning kids on the way to school as "noble as noble gets"?

How many do you know in reality

Probably more than you.

Ask that of the Palestinians who did it for many years before the tit for tat responses became headline news. Strange that wasn't it while the Palestinians were stoning children going to school it was not a topic of interest, as soon as Jews started to reply with stones of their own it became a war crime.

How do you know the Palestinians were stoning children going to school - you have a source for that?

By the way did you know that the IRA stoned children on their way to school and then whinged when the stones came back ten fold.

And? I'm no fan of the IRA.

Arabs Allegedly Throw Rocks at 20-Month-Old Israeli Baby’s Face

And? That article is about a stone throwing incident directed at a car.
It doesn't show Palestinians were stoning Israeli children before the Israeli settlers were stoning Palestinian children in tit for tat.

Nice try though.

Are you saying that it never happened, or are you trying to deflect




Murders of Koby Mandell and Yosef Ishran - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



The bodies of two boys were discovered the next morning in a cave near the West Bank settlement where they lived. USA Today reported that, according to the police, both boys had "been bound, stabbed and beaten to death with rocks".



This was in 2001 and shows that the Palestinians were stoning Israeli children before the settlers even arrived in the west babnk

 

[Phoenall]

It's not justification - what I'm pointing out is how the emphasis is always on the Arab violence, yet there was considerable Jewish gang activity as well. The thing that changes is that once you have a state, then you no longer need gangs and thugs to accomplish your goals - you have a state military, and the power of a state and what you do is legal. It's easy then, isn't it - to control the narrative and paint your own terrorists as heros and the other side's terrorists as terrorists? Aren't they all? Yet they acted the same - targeting and murdering civilians. It's so important for one side to paint itself as peaceful but it wasn't. Not at all. At least the Palestinians aren't pretending to be anything but what they are.

I'm feeling extremely cynical right now, so I'm going to ask this - has ANY state been won without any terrorism? That's not a justification - it's me wondering it it is ever possible to attain something peacefully? Mahatma Ghandi is one of my heros, but India's independence was hardly peaceful.

I'm not sure how much you know about Ghandi, but he was an asshole. Everyone who worked with him universally reported this. The man was a nightmare to work with.

His entire peacenik approach was staged.

He'd jump up and down and yell and scream at his staff. There's even reliable reports of him striking staff members.

You really might pick a different hero

Ghandi ranks right up there with MLK

Oh and neither were settlers ;--)

I would put him in the same league as Hitler, Mandella and arafat

To put any of those people in the same league as Hitler is beyond ignorant.

And yet your hero's put Hitler next to mo'mad and see him as a saint

No, they don't put him next to Mohammed or see him as a saint. (predictable picture of mufti and hitler coming 4...3....2....)

Second most popular book in muslim nations is Mein Kampf, the most popular is the koran.

 

[Coyote]

I'm not sure how much you know about Ghandi, but he was an asshole. Everyone who worked with him universally reported this. The man was a nightmare to work with.

His entire peacenik approach was staged.

He'd jump up and down and yell and scream at his staff. There's even reliable reports of him striking staff members.

You really might pick a different hero

Ghandi ranks right up there with MLK

Oh and neither were settlers ;--)

I would put him in the same league as Hitler, Mandella and arafat

To put any of those people in the same league as Hitler is beyond ignorant.

And yet your hero's put Hitler next to mo'mad and see him as a saint

No, they don't put him next to Mohammed or see him as a saint. (predictable picture of mufti and hitler coming 4...3....2....)

Second most popular book in muslim nations is Mein Kampf, the most popular is the koran.

Source? I hear that thrown about a lot but never a reputable source.

 

[Coyote]

How many Palestinians do you know?

How is stoning kids on the way to school as "noble as noble gets"?

How many do you know in reality

Probably more than you.

Ask that of the Palestinians who did it for many years before the tit for tat responses became headline news. Strange that wasn't it while the Palestinians were stoning children going to school it was not a topic of interest, as soon as Jews started to reply with stones of their own it became a war crime.

How do you know the Palestinians were stoning children going to school - you have a source for that?

By the way did you know that the IRA stoned children on their way to school and then whinged when the stones came back ten fold.

And? I'm no fan of the IRA.

Arabs Allegedly Throw Rocks at 20-Month-Old Israeli Baby’s Face

And? That article is about a stone throwing incident directed at a car.
It doesn't show Palestinians were stoning Israeli children before the Israeli settlers were stoning Palestinian children in tit for tat.

Nice try though.

Are you saying that it never happened, or are you trying to deflect




Murders of Koby Mandell and Yosef Ishran - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



The bodies of two boys were discovered the next morning in a cave near the West Bank settlement where they lived. USA Today reported that, according to the police, both boys had "been bound, stabbed and beaten to death with rocks".



This was in 2001 and shows that the Palestinians were stoning Israeli children before the settlers even arrived in the west babnk

I never said it never happens - what I'm saying is you claimed the settler kids are only responding tit for tat trying to justify the violence. What proof do you have? Are Palestinians stoning settler kids on the way to school?

Also, your article doesn't match your claim - the bodies, and it was an atrocious crime - were found near the West Bank settlement where they lived. That means the settlers were already there don't you think?

 

[Shusha]

You don't seem willing to see that in the Palestinians - you lump them all in as part of a "hateful ideology". You give latitude for the Jews, but not the Palestinians. Why?

Not so. I am pointing out certain fundamental ideologies which are held broadly and widely by the Jewish people and by the Palestinian peoples. Those fundamental belief systems color their perception of events, their interpretation of events and their moral compass.

The specific ideology I brought up in the previous post is the question about what each group teaches their children around the purpose of violence -- the ideology behind why one would commit violence against another group.

The Jewish people have a deep (and entirely understandable) need for safety and security. Their expression of beliefs is often framed in terms of protection, defense, living in safety and peace. This is the Jewish people's expression of their own beliefs around violence and its purpose: It is necessary in order to protect ourselves.

There is no widespread, expressed ideology that Arabs or Muslims or Palestinians must be killed. There is no widespread, expressed ideology that Jewish individuals must sacrifice their own lives in order to kill an Arab, or a Muslim, or a Palestinian. And there is no widespread, expressed ideology that Jewish people will be rewarded in heaven for killing an Arab or a Muslim or a Palestinians. And there is no widespread, expressed ideology that those who murder Arabs, Muslims or Palestinians should be praised, celebrated and made into heroes. (Baruch Goldstein and his two dozen annual supporters being an exception which proves the rule).

The Palestinian people, on the other hand, tend to frame their ideology about the use of violence as justification for getting what you want (typically "getting our land back"). Their belief system permits and encourages violence -- even against innocents -- in order to obtain a goal. Its a significant distinction. The ideology is framed as justification for killing Jews: Jews are inherently evil, or Jews are enemies and one is required to kill enemies and rewarded for killing enemies.

This is evidenced in children's cartoons which actively teach children -- preschoolers -- that killing Jews is the right and honorable thing to do; in cartoons for older children which celebrate taking a knife and killing Jews so that you can walk through the flower fields of heaven; in sermons by prominent religious leaders calling for the genocide of Jews; in political leaders encouraging incitement and justifying it; in passing out candy to "honor" martyrs; in adorning Xmas trees with the images of suicide bombers; in putting up academic displays to celebrate suicide bombings; in hiring women to harass Jews and in having young men pelt Jews with rocks on the Temple Mount. I could go on....

There is a significant difference in the ideology of violence in these two groups.

The Palestinians have no military facilities to give children a tour of. They have no army.

Not so. They have military style summer camps which attract thousands of children.

​

 

[Shusha]

Thank you for reading it. I found it very interesting and very informative. The thing about the vineyards is that it is just one example. It's hardly the only one, as is the refusal to accept any borders for the settlement and their subtle annexation of Palestinian farmland. I'm not a lawyer (you sound like you might be?). There is also no indication in that article that the Palestinians are acting on a policy of "judenrien" which is a very emotionally charged term - and I sometimes think is thrown in to avoid addressing what might very well be land theft. When it comes to "discrimminatory and racist policy" - isn't that what is occurring with allowing settlers to expand illegally like that and not doing anything about it?

The racist and discriminatory policy is the concept that Jewish people are not allowed to live in territory which may or may not eventually become part of a sovereign nation of Palestine.

Why can't there be Jewish towns in Palestine? There are Arab Palestinian towns in Israel. Are the Palestinians in those towns "stealing" Jewish land? Should those Palestinians be prevented from expanding their "settlements". Should Palestinians be prevented from building homes in Israel?

And yes, I do intentionally use the word "Judenrien" to illuminate what it is.

 

[Shusha]

I don't see how these examples...
16-year-old Palestinian shot dead during clashes in Hebron's al-Arrub camp
West Bank - Israeli Troops Kill Stone-Throwing Palestinian Youth 16
Palestinian teenager 'shot in back by senior Israeli soldier while fleeing'

differ from these....
The moment two Palestinians stopped an Israeli woman getting hit by rocks
Police, IDF say settlers must quit Palestinian home in Hebron

In the Palestinian stone throwing articles - there didn't seem to be a riot unless you consider more than one participant a riot, in which case it would be the same as the settler examples. It doesn't seem that they are in the buffer zone either. They are throwing stones at the military but then, so are the settlers.

You know. I had prepared a very long, and detailed response to this. But as I reached the end I don't think any of the details matter. The bottom line is that Israeli soldiers and LEO's very probably try to protect Jewish offenders from live fire as much as possible. I think the reasons are many and varied. I think it would be very difficult for any LEO or solider in that position to NOT have some bias toward their own vs. the "other".

Having said that, I also believe it is readily apparent that the reality (as well as the perception) is that the Palestinians attacks are inherently more dangerous. And that the Israeli LEO's and soldiers are reacting to that reality.

 

[Coyote]

Thank you for reading it. I found it very interesting and very informative. The thing about the vineyards is that it is just one example. It's hardly the only one, as is the refusal to accept any borders for the settlement and their subtle annexation of Palestinian farmland. I'm not a lawyer (you sound like you might be?). There is also no indication in that article that the Palestinians are acting on a policy of "judenrien" which is a very emotionally charged term - and I sometimes think is thrown in to avoid addressing what might very well be land theft. When it comes to "discrimminatory and racist policy" - isn't that what is occurring with allowing settlers to expand illegally like that and not doing anything about it?

The racist and discriminatory policy is the concept that Jewish people are not allowed to live in territory which may or may not eventually become part of a sovereign nation of Palestine.

Why can't there be Jewish towns in Palestine? There are Arab Palestinian towns in Israel. Are the Palestinians in those towns "stealing" Jewish land? Should those Palestinians be prevented from expanding their "settlements". Should Palestinians be prevented from building homes in Israel?

And yes, I do intentionally use the word "Judenrien" to illuminate what it is.

Why can't there be Jewish towns in Palestine?

I think the reason is complex and is not simply that they are Jews. The Palestinians (whether right or wrong) see the settlers as stealing land that would become part of their state and this has been going on for some time. The constant expansion of and creating of new settlements (or legalizing illegal ones) creates a flashpoint. I think the settlements are also permanent symbols of occupation and the fact that little is done to check settler violence towards Palestinians doesn't help. As to why can't there...there should be. There should be Jews and Palestinians living together. Not Jewish only and Palestinian only enclaves. But here again - the Palestinians have no Nelson Mandella to work through a reconciliation and neither do the Israeli's.

The Arab Palestinian towns in Israel are long standing, predating Israel's independence aren't they? From what I've read very very few permits have been granted for new Arab villages or even to allow for expansion of existing ones (compared to Jewish villages) and that is a real point of contention because of overcrowding, lack of enough infrastructure etc. Israel also allows for villages to be Jewish only - Arab citizens are barred from living there. Another difference is that Arab-Israeli's are Israeli citizens living in Israel. Settles are Israeli citizens living in Occupied Territory in an unresolved conflict.

If you use "Judenrien" then is it appropriate to use "Apartheid" in describing the inequities that Arab citizens face in housing, rights, etc in Israel's tiered system of citizenship?

 

[Coyote]

You don't seem willing to see that in the Palestinians - you lump them all in as part of a "hateful ideology". You give latitude for the Jews, but not the Palestinians. Why?

Not so. I am pointing out certain fundamental ideologies which are held broadly and widely by the Jewish people and by the Palestinian peoples. Those fundamental belief systems color their perception of events, their interpretation of events and their moral compass.


The specific ideology I brought up in the previous post is the question about what each group teaches their children around the purpose of violence -- the ideology behind why one would commit violence against another group.

You seem to coelesce the entire Palestinian ideology into "kill Jews" as if that were all they teach their children. Yet - their children grow up living under military rule, witihout many of the rights their Jewish counterparts enjoy in the justice system. They see friends and family members arrested, held in detention without charge and shot for throwing stones. They see no way out from the conflict and with Netanyahu in office and growth of settlements, a greatly diminished prospect of ever having a state and stability. I listen to NPR a lot for news, it doesn't focus on the sensational and tends to do indepth coverage of events around the world. Many times when the cover events in Israel they interview Israeli's, Palestinians, Arab Israeli's, settlers...and mange to cover a wide variety of every day views not just the loudest and most extreme. What I get from that is the voices and concerns of ordinary people. Palestinians sick of the conflict, lack of jobs and economic opportunity, fears for their children safety and education, fears that there is no future for them. Settlers, fears of unpredictable attacks, of their children's safety, a feeling that they have as much right to be there as the Palestinians, and a very real fear that the settlements could be dismantled and they'd lose their homes and everything they've worked for. It's not a simple black and white ideology.

The Jewish people have a deep (and entirely understandable) need for safety and security. Their expression of beliefs is often framed in terms of protection, defense, living in safety and peace. This is the Jewish people's expression of their own beliefs around violence and its purpose: It is necessary in order to protect ourselves.

Believe it or not, I can understand that and I think that drives many of Israel's actions - "never again". I'm not Jewish, obviously. My upbringing was more or less Christian but pretty secular. My mother was Unitarian and my family includes Morman, Russian Orthodox, Jewish, Episcopal, and Athiest amongst it's members. Of the three Abrahamic faiths, Judaism is the one that I find to be the most kind and the one I am most attracted to although most of the Jews I know are more secular. But the Jewish value for life, for their children and for peace I greatly respect and wish it were more widespread.

There is no widespread, expressed ideology that Arabs or Muslims or Palestinians must be killed. There is no widespread, expressed ideology that Jewish individuals must sacrifice their own lives in order to kill an Arab, or a Muslim, or a Palestinian. And there is no widespread, expressed ideology that Jewish people will be rewarded in heaven for killing an Arab or a Muslim or a Palestinians. And there is no widespread, expressed ideology that those who murder Arabs, Muslims or Palestinians should be praised, celebrated and made into heroes. (Baruch Goldstein and his two dozen annual supporters being an exception which proves the rule).

Aren't there some assumptions here though? "widespread, expressed ideology that those who murder Arabs, Muslims or Palestinians should be praised, celebrated and made into heroes"? Is that really a widespread ideology among Palestinians? Or is it more that those who murder the people they see as an occupying enemy are praised, celebrated and made into heros? During Israel's founding, members of Irgun and other Jewish militias were similarly praised, celebrated and made into heroes even though their targets included civilian markets, bus', etc. What I don't understand is that this is held against the Palestinians but not the Jews when they did it? Maybe it's not that simple - anti-semitism is rife among the Arab world - but how can you disentangle that from the fact that the Jews are occuping Palestinian territory and people (and whether that perception is right or wrong it is what they believe).

The Palestinian people, on the other hand, tend to frame their ideology about the use of violence as justification for getting what you want (typically "getting our land back"). Their belief system permits and encourages violence -- even against innocents -- in order to obtain a goal. Its a significant distinction. The ideology is framed as justification for killing Jews: Jews are inherently evil, or Jews are enemies and one is required to kill enemies and rewarded for killing enemies.

Ok...I can see that. But is that belief totally wrong? Not the inherently evil part, but the part about them being enemies? Is it different than what the Jewish fighters were doing in the 1940's?

I do have a real problem with encouraging violence against innocents, I oppose terrorism against civilians across the board. There is no excuse for murdering a family in their sleep (cowardice) - for bombing a bus full of children - none. And when those things occur, and they are celebrated, I can't comprehend it.

This is evidenced in children's cartoons which actively teach children -- preschoolers -- that killing Jews is the right and honorable thing to do; in cartoons for older children which celebrate taking a knife and killing Jews so that you can walk through the flower fields of heaven; in sermons by prominent religious leaders calling for the genocide of Jews; in political leaders encouraging incitement and justifying it; in passing out candy to "honor" martyrs; in adorning Xmas trees with the images of suicide bombers; in putting up academic displays to celebrate suicide bombings; in hiring women to harass Jews and in having young men pelt Jews with rocks on the Temple Mount. I could go on....

How much of that is real and how much propoganda? The reason I wonder is that there is a long running narrative that the Palestinian schoolbooks teach hatred of Jews. But then a recent study totally contradicted that.

Israeli and Palestinian textbooks erase the other side, report finds

So how do you know what the truth is?

And what is the difference between the radical preaching of the settler's Rabbi's, of them harrassing Palestinians and pelting them with stones?

There is a significant difference in the ideology of violence in these two groups.

Maybe but maybe not as much as you think when you take circumstances into account.

 

[Shusha]

You seem to coelesce the entire Palestinian ideology into "kill Jews" as if that were all they teach their children.

Not true. I very consciously stated that I was speaking specifically about one aspect of ideology -- that of each group's understanding of the purpose of violence. (Though I have more thoughts and comments on other ideologies).

They see no way out from the conflict and with Netanyahu in office and growth of settlements, a greatly diminished prospect of ever having a state and stability.

This may be true. But one of the reasons why they can't see their way out of the conflict is because they can't see the conflict except through their own lens of violence. They can't see the possibility of living side by side with the Jewish people on land that is under their Palestinian sovereignty. And, as you have pointed out repeatedly, and entirely correctly, they don't have a leader who can bend them away from that tone of violence.

It's not a simple black and white ideology.

We agree.

During Israel's founding, members of Irgun and other Jewish militias were similarly praised, celebrated and made into heroes even though their targets included civilian markets, bus', etc. What I don't understand is that this is held against the Palestinians but not the Jews when they did it?

Its mostly held to Palestinians because they don't seem to be able to move beyond it. Witness Gaza. There have been hundreds and hundreds of terrorist attacks on Israel just in the past six months. And its somehow spilling out into attacking Jews worldwide.

Yet how many terrorist attacks have Jews committed in the past six months? And don't give me cases which are actually self-defense turned on its head. How many actual attacks have Jews committed against innocent Palestinians with no provocation? (None). How many have occurred since 1948? You can count them on one hand and name them individually. I'm not saying they don't exist. They are so rare that you can count them on one hand and name them individually. Baruch Goldstein. The exception which proves the rule.

Maybe it's not that simple - anti-semitism is rife among the Arab world

Ya think?

but how can you disentangle that from the fact that the Jews are occuping Palestinian territory and people (and whether that perception is right or wrong it is what they believe).

Not arguing that this is what they believe. They clearly do. My comments are related to the belief that violence against innocents is justified as a "solution" or response to that occupation. (And of course, there is opposing ideology as to who is occupying whom.)

Ok...I can see that. But is that belief totally wrong? Not the inherently evil part, but the part about them being enemies? Is it different than what the Jewish fighters were doing in the 1940's?

Yes. That ideology is entirely and completely wrong. Certainly the part about Jews being inherently evil. But also Jews being enemies who "deserve" to be slaughtered. The Jewish people pose no inherent threat to the Palestinian people. It is a conflict of sovereignty over territory. Despite all the clanging of gongs about "slow genocide" there is no threat to the Palestinian people beyond response to attacks and eventual division of territory. Land for peace has been offered again and again and again. Witness Gaza.

How much of that is real and how much propoganda?

Its all real. As in it all exists.

The reason I wonder is that there is a long running narrative that the Palestinian schoolbooks teach hatred of Jews. But then a recent study totally contradicted that.

Well, looking at the article it does not totally contradict "that". It might be an interesting topic for a new thread.

And what is the difference between the radical preaching of the settler's Rabbi's, of them harrassing Palestinians and pelting them with stones?

I don't know. You will have to present me with a radical Rabbi's teaching. Another thread?