Nobel Laureate Shot by Israeli Soldier (rubber bullet)

[SNOWBALL]

"I never in all my years of activism witnessed anything so vicious as from the Israeli military", said Irish peace activist and Nobel Laureate Mairead Maguire in an interview with Amy Goodman on democracy now She was shot with a rubber bullet by a 20 year old Israeli soldier.

Maguire, and several hundred protestors from 20 different countries converged in the palestinian town of Bilin to protest the construction of yet another "security wall." The wall is being constructed inside of palestinian land. Instead of enforcing the green line, it actually expands the green line. Palestinian farmers have lost their land, and the palestinian economy has been further damaged.

Israel's behavior is fully consistent with it's overall policy of collective punishment. The IDF will demolish houses, set up road check-points, seize land, and perform other violent activities against the entire population as a way to punish them for the actions of terrorists.

Any form of collective punishment is illegal under international law. However, the only way to enforce this law is for the security council of the UN to vote on it. Israel will remain immune from the judgment of the security council, because any of the five permanent members can veto a security council resolution. There have been many resolutions by the security council criticizing Israel for violating human rights that would have passed, were it not for the automatic veto of the United States.

This is far from the first time the IDF has acted violently towards international peace activists. In 2002, an american peace activist, Rachel Corrie, was run down and killed by an Israeli Bulldozer. Rachel was trying to stop the bulldozer from destroying a family's home.

The reality is that Israel can get any with almost anything it wants to, because of the unconditional support it receives from the United States. In addition to receiving over 3 billion dollars per year in aid and loans from the US, Israel receives powerful diplomatic support that shields them from the international community.

Intellectually dishonest right wing zionists are quick to label the international community anti-semitic, despite the fact that many of the most vocal critics of Israel, such as Noam Chomsky, the Rabbi Michael Lerner, Howard Zinn, Ami Ayalon, and Norman Finkelstein, are jews themselves.

In my view, the united states should withdraw financial and military support from Israel until Israel agrees to stop it's policy of expanding it's borders and engaging in collective punishment.

[Dane S]

I don't have much to say about your post, but I'm wondering if someone could give me a summary of the political factors involved in Israel's creation back in the 50's or provide me with a good link. I don't understand very well what happened.

Here's the picture I have of it currently: There was a huge Zionism movement in Europe after WW2 and the holocaust, and the heart of this movement was the desire for a homeland in the Middle East. So the United Nations (or was it Britain, or NATO?) decided to give them a country in the middle of Palestine despite the fact that a million people or something in this ballpark lived there already.

Am I close? What motivated the UN/Britain/whoever? It seems obvious to me that they wouldn't have done it from the goodness of their hearts. Did they want a military foothold there because of the oil or what?

[Phil153]

I agree.

I challenge any Israel supporters to demonstrate which parts of this post aren't accurate depictions of the situation. Particularly Mason Malmuth.

[slickpoppa]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't have much to say about your post, but I'm wondering if someone could give me a summary of the political factors involved in Israel's creation back in the 50's or provide me with a good link. I don't understand very well what happened.

Here's the picture I have of it currently: There was a huge Zionism movement in Europe after WW2 and the holocaust, and the heart of this movement was the desire for a homeland in the Middle East. So the United Nations (or was it Britain, or NATO?) decided to give them a country in the middle of Palestine despite the fact that a million people or something in this ballpark lived there already.

Am I close? What motivated the UN/Britain/whoever? It seems obvious to me that they wouldn't have done it from the goodness of their hearts. Did they want a military foothold there because of the oil or what?

[/ QUOTE ]

Britain owned Palestine and then ceded control to the UN with an eye towards the creation of a Jewish state. There were many reasons for them giving up control, but I think the main ones were:
a) There was already a lot of violence between Jews and Arabs and the British didn't want to get caught in the middle
b) There was a lot resentment in the Middle East as a whole towards Britain because of imperialism, so the British generally wanted to leave the region
c) They felt bad for the Jews and wanted them tp create their own state
d) The British wanted to continue their noble tradition of forcibly and brutally colonizing foreign lands and exiting abruptly after having rendered the country completely disfunctional.

[SNOWBALL]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't have much to say about your post, but I'm wondering if someone could give me a summary of the political factors involved in Israel's creation back in the 50's or provide me with a good link. I don't understand very well what happened.

Here's the picture I have of it currently: There was a huge Zionism movement in Europe after WW2 and the holocaust, and the heart of this movement was the desire for a homeland in the Middle East. So the United Nations (or was it Britain, or NATO?) decided to give them a country in the middle of Palestine despite the fact that a million people or something in this ballpark lived there already.

Am I close? What motivated the UN/Britain/whoever? It seems obvious to me that they wouldn't have done it from the goodness of their hearts. Did they want a military foothold there because of the oil or what?

[/ QUOTE ]

In 1956, Britain used Israel to attack Egypt and regain control of the Suez canal. However, the US was extremely unhappy about that. It's hard to say why the US, USSR, Britain, France, and China supported the UN partition, because all those countries had differing political interests.

At the time though, there was a lot of hooplah about human rights and peace and stuff like that. The Universal declaration of human rights was written around that time, and signed by a lot of different countries. I think people around the world were shocked about the genocide against the jews, and wanted to do something to help them.

A cynical viewpoint would be that the zionist terrorist organizations had grown too powerful for britain to control, and so Britain was just taking what they thought was the winning side by supporting a UN partition. Explaining the suport from the other countries is maybe a bit harder, but probably not beyond the ability of good historical scholarship.

[iron81]

[ QUOTE ]
zionist terrorist organizations

[/ QUOTE ]
Examples please.

Edit: never mind, Link

[SNOWBALL]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree.

I challenge any Israel supporters to demonstrate which parts of this post aren't accurate depictions of the situation. Particularly Mason Malmuth.

[/ QUOTE ]

Mason already made his position clear when he argued that Israel has the "moral high ground" and therefore it doesn't matter very much if they behave badly, because they are within their rights. Conversely, the arabs want to destroy the jews and america, and therefore have no rights.

This is a pretty familiar manichean paradigm with dubious claims to truth. It can justify almost anything, and it has, throughout history.

[Fly]

[ QUOTE ]

n 2002, an american peace activist, Rachel Corrie, was run down and killed by an Israeli Bulldozer. Rachel was trying to stop the bulldozer from destroying a family's home.


[/ QUOTE ]

lol

[Phil153]

I should add that I fully support Israel's right to exist, and defend against terrorism, and I'm sure you do too. I would go to war to defend Israel if it came to that.

And Israel has had the moral high ground for a long time. They were and have been (40-60 years ago) ruthlessly attacked by Arabs, fighting a war for their very existence. But that "moral high ground" is two generations old.

Their recent actions tell a different story. In addition to the things mentioned above, they performed a massive cluster bombing of Lebanon's civilian areas in 2006 as the war was winding up - leaving over (I kid you not - see the link above) 100,000 unexploded bombs lying in Lebanon's civilian areas. These actions are nothing short of state sponsored terrorism (according to almost every definition) and I'm saddened that thoughtful men like Mason don't speak out against it.

[Fly]

[ QUOTE ]

I should add that I fully support Israel's right to exist, and defend against terrorism, and I'm sure you do too. I would go to war to defend Israel if it came to that.


[/ QUOTE ]

ahahahahahahahahaha