The forgotten Rachels

[drdon326]

My Name Is Rachel Thaler is not the title of a play likely to be produced anytime soon in London. Thaler, aged 16, was blown up at a pizzeria in an Israeli shopping mall. She died after an 11-day struggle for life following the February 16, 2002 attack when a suicide bomber approached a crowd of teenagers and blew himself up.

She was a British citizen, born in London, where her grandparents still live. Yet I doubt that anyone at London's Royal Court Theatre, or most people in the British media, have heard of her. "Not a single British journalist has ever interviewed me or mentioned her death," her mother, Ginette, told me last week.

Thaler's parents donated her organs for transplant (helping to save the life of a young Russian man), and grieved quietly. After the accidental killing of Rachel Corrie, by contrast, her parents embarked on a major publicity campaign. They traveled to Ramallah to accept a plaque from Yasser Arafat on behalf of their daughter. They circulated her emails and diary entries to a world media eager to publicize them.

Among those who published extracts from them in 2003 was the influential British leftist daily The Guardian. This in turn inspired a new play, My Name Is Rachel Corrie, which opened this month at the Royal Court Theatre, one of London most prestigious venues. (The New York Times recently described it as "the most important theatre in Europe.")


http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1114322084559&apage=2


------------------------------------------------------------------

Too bad they didnt have these plays:

1. My Name is Rachel Levy (Israeli girl age 17, blown up in a grocery
store)
2. My Name is Rachel Thaler (Israeli girl aged 16, blown up in a pizzeria)
3. My Name is Rachel Levi (Israeli girl aged 19, murdered while waiting
for the bus)
4. My Name is Rachel Gavish (killed with her husband and son while at
home)
5. My Name is Rachel Charhi (blown up while sitting in a cafe)
6. My Name is Rachel Shabo (murdered with her three sons aged 5, 13 and 6 while sitting at home)


I guess they should have been flag-ripping tunnel-protecting hate-filled terrorist supporters then they would have had a play about them.

[MrModerate]

1. I think you've got the material for a play here . . .

So write one.

But don't think just because the Israeli-Palestine conflict is full of evil that it justifies the state-supported terrorism that seems to be Israel's primary weapon in the conflict.

I haven't seen the Rachel Corrie play but I suspect one message will be that a suicide bomber and a bulldozer driver who kill people both have blood on their hands.

[Coastie for Truth]

8. And Calscieu was as innocent as Pius IX.

Gimme a break ---

[MrModerate]

10. I know who Pius IX is, but who the heck is Calscieu? n/t

[Coastie for Truth]

11. I am not Romanian

My heritage is Russian. But I was trying to spell the last Prime Minister of Romania.

(I like Pastrami, and the Klezmer violins playing "Romanina, Romanina, Romania Shayna Shtatel Romania")

[MrModerate]

13. I'm guessing you mean Ceaucescu, the last Stalinist leader . . .

of Romania, deposed and executed in 1989.

So now I'm really confused. What does he have to do with Pius IX, or Israel and Palestine?

[Coastie for Truth]

14. That we all have blood on our hands -

even Ceaucescu and Pius IX.

[MrModerate]

15. Nicky C. waded in it. He needed hipboots . . .

And they blew him to bloody shreds in front of a firing squad.

Somehow I don't think the Rachels that the original poster alluded to, or Rachel Corrie, whom he/she excoriated, qualified.

[Chomskypirate]

19. hmmmm

1984 all over again huh?

[MrModerate]

25. Say what? n/t

[mhr]

2. And What About The Palestinians Killed By The Israeli Army

Or how about Rachel Corey killed trying to help the Palestinians?

I guess their lives don't count to you?

[ET Awful]

3. Of course they don't, otherwise he wouldn't be repeating the oft told

lie that Rachel Corrie was protecting tunnels of any kind, instead he would be telling the truth that she was protecting the home of a doctor not accused of any crime or terrorist activity of any kind whatsoever, and that the home was being bulldozed for no better reason than to give the IDF a clearer line of fire.

If anything Corrie's death is more heinous because her murder was carried out by those who claim to have the higher moral ground.

[mhr]

4. Yes - I Tire Quickly Of All The Claimed Moral High Ground

It is clear that both sides of that conflict have no moral high ground to stand on.

Just like we have no moral high ground to stand on for invading Iraq illegally.

[ET Awful]

5. Precisely. n/t

[drdon326]

6. Amazing.

Ignore the point of the tread then go off into some convoluted nonsense about moral equivalency.

thanks.

[MrModerate]

12. Your point that opposition to Israel's genocidal acts

is evil because innocent Israelis (and others) have been murdered by suicidal Palestinians IS the point of the thread.

However, I (and others) reject your reasoning and point out that there's enough evil to go around: claiming that one side is evil is something neither side has any further right to do. Too much murder on both sides. The blood spilled by Israelis and Palestinians over the last three quarters of a century is a miserable dishonor that both peoples will bear as long as they exist.

And the fact that America has abetted Israel's murderous policies is a dishonor the US will never live down.

[Colorado Blue]

51. I'm getting REAL TIRED of hearing the term "genocide"

applied to the Israelis.

Israel, population 6 million, is not trying to exterminate the hundreds of millions of Arabs who live on this planet.

OR the Palestinians, whose population is growing.

OR the Israeli Arabs, whose population is growing.

If you want to see a genocide, go to the Sudan. Or look back into history, at the Assyrians, the Armenians, or even the Maronite Christians during the Lebanese Civil War.

Not to mention the Holocaust.

[manic expression]

53. Does the term "ethnic cleansing" mean anything to you???

I'm getting REALLY tired of Israeli supporters claiming that stealing land, setting up "settlements", kicking Palestinians off their land and destroying their houses, livelihood and kin is NOT genocide. Israel is carrying out a campaign of theft and murder, all the while targeting a specific group of people.

[Violet_Crumble]

54. Ethnic cleansing and genocide are different terms...

Just a nitpick there, but while ethnic cleansing can occur without genocide happening, ethnic cleansing is always part of genocide...

I've noticed a pattern emerging with the outrage expressed when anyone suggests ethnic cleansing and/or genocide have been used by Israel. The higher the level of shrill outrage, the higher the likelihood the outraged person will have at some point had no qualms with accusing the Palestinians of genocide. Which kind of suggests to me that they don't have any sort of clue as to what the term actually means, but just slap the label on anyone or anything they disagree with as some sort of slur..

fwiw, my opinion is that Israel hasn't committed genocide against the Palestinian people, but expulsions of Palestinians during the late 1940's definately counts as ethnic cleansing...

Violet...

[manic expression]

56. Right, but they can be intertwined

as you pointed out.

You're spot on with that observation, the hypocrisy and absolute delusion of people who support Israel is mind-boggling.

Genocide? Perhaps not. Ethnic cleansing and criminal actions? There is no doubt. It has happened very recently, as Palestinians have been driven off their land in the last few years at least.

[Violet_Crumble]

61. I agree with you on that one...

There's absolutely no doubt that ethnic cleansing (or population transfer for those who try to make the indenfensible sound more palatable) and criminal actions have been carried out by Israel on the Palestinian population at various times in the past. And the cool party trick I can do when the inevitable cries of 'I get sooooo angry when people call it ethnic cleansing!' arise is I can run through it and spell out what's been done to the Palestinians, all without using the term 'ethnic cleansing'. My guess is they'd still complain and stuff, because their real issue is seeing anything see the light of day that casts Israel in even the slightest of negative lights...

Violet...

[Colorado Blue]

58. Please read:

Oh, this is ridiculous. What ethnic cleansing? If anything
it is the entire middle east outside of Israel, which has been rendered practically Judenrein since 1947.

What happened was in fact not a "cleansing" but a population transfer, which has made a LOT of people unhappy, including the hundreds of thousands of Sephardic Jews who lost their homes, their property, their jobs, their communities and who often wound up living in tent cities on the bare plain.

And I might add this: although hundreds of thousands of people fled during the Naqba, it is not the Israelis who have kept them locked in prison camps all these long decades. Why haven't the Arab states helped these people to get new lives? Instead, generations have been born in cages.

Reparations have been offered and refused. Statehood for the Palestinian people has been offered and refused.

And moreover, and most importantly, they have their LIVES. This most certainly wouldn't have been the case for the citizens of Israel, had the many wars against her succeeded. If you doubt me of this, do some reading of what has actually been said by the Israel's enemies, what is being taught and broadcast on TV.

Meanwhile, the security fence is being built far to the west of where the hardliners would like it to be, out of respect for the existing Arab populations. They are not trying to KILL the Arabs, they are trying to accomodate them while protecting Israel, and figure out the best way for the two peoples to live in the same small area.

If "ethnic cleansing" was in play, there wouldn't BE any Palestinians. Instead, the Arab population of the area has grown. The population of Israeli Arabs, full citizens, has grown and is growing. Instead of ethnic cleansing, we have the exact OPPOSITE.

The Jewish population of the ENTIRE PLANET, on the other hand, is two million LESS than before WWII.

The Palestinians, for all their problems, are among the most literate and best-educated of any group in the entire region. With peace and reasonable leadership there is no reason why they shouldn't enjoy a bright future.

If there are troubles here you MIGHT want to take a look at Palestinian leadership, especially Arafat, and at the terrorists which have infiltrated the population. Vladimir Putin said just the other day that Arafat was a revolutionary, NOT interested in making a state. With Abbas, the people of Palestine and the people of Israel have a chance to live in peace.

What is HIDEOUS is this blathering about a connection between the I/P situation and Hitler, or trying to make a connection with the disenfranchisement of the Native Americans. It reflects great ignorance of the situation at the very least.

Colorado Blue

[manic expression]

64. please think:

What ethnic cleansing? THE STATE OF ISRAEL WAS BORN OF ETHNIC CLEANSING. Israel has been taking land from Palestinians and other countries since its inception. This has been going on since the beginning and is continuing with settlements being set up and Palestinians being thrown off their rightful land.

"Population transfer"? Care to take off that blindfold? You are just giving the same heinous thing a different name. There are endless examples of when there were nice terms given to similar disgusting actions (re education camps, reservations, showers). What is really happening is the completely unjustified taking of land and wrongful subjugation of those who are there. Lives have been ended and ruined, an entire people have been oppressed by Israel, which voraciously and greedily commits wrongs. Call it whatever you want, it does nothing to change the reality.

These "reparations" you speak of were unfair offers, and only the most idiotic would actually take them. Those offers were nothing more than empty gestures.

The "security" fence (you cannot possibly call it that with a straight face) is purposefully taking land from Palestine, and nothing more. How can you even think of calling it "accommodating" Arabs????? How in the world have they been the least bit accommodative to anyone non-Israeli????? The wall is there to take land from Palestine and oppose ludicrous measures on its people for no reason. You are now crossing into dangerous waters when you cite "protection" as a justification. First of all, it does little to protect Israel because bombings have continued. Second of all, this is the same argument countless people have used to try to justify draconian measures, like the one we are talking about. That "small area" is overwhelmingly being controlled by Israel and its "settlers" (aka thieves). Furthermore, it does not belong to Israel at all. Lastly, Israel has done nothing but murder, bully and oppress the people there (except for the settlers).

It seems you do not know the meaning of the term "ethnic cleansing". This does not necessarily mean extermination, it means the forced removal of a certain group of people. A population could grow exponentially and be the victim of ethnic cleansing.

Arab Israeli citizenship is rising only because some have persisted the attempts of removal from Israel and gotten that which has been denied so long to them. Israel has been nothing but hostile to anyone not "welcome".

Why are you using WWII in this discussion? The fact that Jews were the victims of brutal extermination before and during WWII does NOTHING to justify what is going on now.

The Palestinians are being oppressed by Israel, and that is the main reason why they cannot enjoy a "bright future".

Terrorism is a direct reaction to the terrorism done by Israel. If there was no aggressive behavior towards Palestine or the Middle East region from Israel, terrorism would not be a problem, you could bet your house on that. Until Israel gives respect to the people of the occupied regions, it will receive none from others (except maybe Bush).

So now you're taking the word of Vladimir Putin??? That is ridiculous. He is on the threshold of a dictatorship.

I find it laughable that you criticize me for "blathering about a connection" between the I/P conflict and WWII, while you do that very thing in your own post.

[simcha_6]

69. Isn't it ironic?

You say Israel was born from "ethnic cleansing," which you say is synonymous to population transfers. Uprooting people from their homes, forcing them to leave, etc.

Now, it looks like a Palestinian State will be born the same way, all Jews being forced to leave. In the book "War Without End," a pro-Arafat old Jewish man living in the West Bank a few years back talks about how he looks forward to becoming a citizen of the new Palestinian state led by Arafat, living in his community a few km from his friends in the nearby Arab village.

Of course, that won't happen. Even if a Jew wants to live in an apartment in Nablus, get Palestinian citizenship, be a productive Jewish Palestinian, that's quite unlikely. According to you, that's ethnic cleansing of Jews from the territories. I, however, call it the same thing I call the exile/transfer of some Arabs from Israel. A regrettable occurrence made necessary by the circumstances.

By the way, isn't it interesting that "Israeli Arabs" are perfectly normal, but the chances of their being a Jewish Palestinian are just about nil?

[manic expression]

75. No, it is disgusting though

Putting words in my mouth does nothing to help your argument. I said the term "population transfer" is a meaningless word to make ethnic cleansing seem nice and fuzzy.

The Jews SHOULD be forced to leave, because they have no right to be there. Since they stole land, they should give it back, this is justice.

That old Jewish man deserves his dream. Sadly, it is unlikely due to irresponsible actions by Israel. Before Zionism, Jews and Muslims lived in relative harmony. Now, Palestinians are obviously suspicious of Jews because of the horrible treatment they have received from them. They do not want Jewish citizens because Israel is stealing their land. This is the fault of Israel.

This rejection of Jews on the part of Palestine is a reaction to the brutal treatment they have received from the same group of people for so long. This is more than understandable.

Isn't it interesting that "Israeli Arabs" are treated like crap and are second-class citizens?

[simcha_6]

87. Not really more than minorities in the states, I think

Please provide documentation for accusations like that. And sorry if I put words in your mouth. That's just how I interpreted your words.

Here's an interesting question for you. What would Israel have to do in order to get you to stop attacking them? In the play "Precious Stones," the same question is asked. If Israel were to pull back to pre-1967 borders, not respond to attacks, give up East Jerusalem and all the holy sites that go with it, would you stop attacking them? My guess would be no, because there's still the issue of the 1948 refugees. Am I wrong? Because, if you still attack them after they do all that, there is little reason for the Israeli government to make any concessions for the sake of world opinion. It wouldn't have any effect.

Also, in response to your "Effects of Zionism" accusation, I have another question. What could have been done to prevent it? Jews went down to the Middle East and bought land, including lots of worthless swamps, from Arab land owners living in Beirut. Should the British have forbidden Arabs selling their land to Jews? Why shouldn't Jews have been allowed to have a country out of a sliver of the Palestinian mandate? Obviously, the rest of the world was incapable of protecting Jews, so doesn't that make is excusable for the Jews to have a state so long as they respect the rights of minorities in the same territory. (Which they seemed to be willing to do, until the Arab armies invaded and used Arab villages as army bases, which is why they were attacked?)

[manic expression]

91. That is not a good thing

Actually, it is bad to say that their treatment is as bad as minorities in the US.

If Israel pulled back to its pre-1967 borders, and truly took a defensive position (not invading towns and inciting hatred to steal land), I would give them a lot of credit. I would applaud these actions, but it is true that healing would need to occur with respect to refugees. I would still push for this, but that would be a tremendous improvement and I would note that enthusiastically, and I am sure the rest of the world would do the same. It would have an effect, believe me.

The problem with Zionism started when animosity began. Violence with Jewish militants broke out well before al-Nakba.

Countries place immigration quotas to control the flow of aliens (not a negative term), so why could Palestine not do the same? Jews should have lived in a country inclusive to all, partition leads to nothing but trouble (just ask India/Pakistan).

I do not think Israel has respected the rights of Palestinians at all. This is actually quite clear. Zionists should have not engaged in theft, violence and belligerence, they (the Israelis) should have restrained themselves from making such a horrible situation as we see now. Since we cannot turn back the clock, Israel should go back to its pre-1967 borders and practice respectfulness of the region in which it lives, as well as treating the people of Palestine with decency.

[simcha_6]

67. If it were ethnic cleansing they'd do it to everyone

Not just the Palestinians living nextdoor to the bomb factories in Nablus. Not the people whos houses were mined, preventing Israeli troops to escape from Jenin. They'd attack Israeli Arabs if it were ethnic cleansing. Yet they don't.

It's a war. That's all there is to it. It stinks, but that's the way war is.

[manic expression]

68. Yeah, right...

a very small number of Palestinians in Israel nullify an entire campaign of terror and hatred. Even then, those Palestinians are being pressured to leave the country heavily by Israel. They are second class citizens.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,376990,00.html

So by your logic: since there are Native Americans still alive, no ethnic cleansing ever took place in America...:eyes:

You're assertions of Palestinians who are kicked off their land are in cahoots with terrorism is so clearly mistaken.

It's not a war, it's criminal and it's wrong.

[simcha_6]

71. The fact that there are Native Americans in America...

wasn't for lack of trying. On the other hand, many Arabs were allowed to stay in Israel, and while there is racism (same as there is in the U.S. against African-Americans) the people do by law have equal rights and most of them are pro-Israel, which is why the separation fence has cut down on terror. The only people who want to commit terror are Palestinians, not Israeli Arabs. Now, anyway, Arabs are around 20% of the population in Israel, have several members of their communities in Knesset (though not a proportional amount), and some of the Arabs support Likud. (Unless you don't count Druze, two Arabs are mK's in the Likud party.)

Yeah, transfers are wrong, but it's still war. I don't see how you can deny that.

[manic expression]

76. Sorry

what you say is incorrect.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,867326,00.html
http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/worldwide/story/0,,494859,00.html

By law they have equal rights, but they have been pressured into leaving and are treated worse than other Israelis. They account for 10% of the population. Their representation is minimal.

Even IF it is a war, this does not make anything justified.

By the way, the fact that there are Palestinians in Israel is not for lack of trying as well.

[Colorado Blue]

77. Wrong again. There are over 1,000,000 Israeli Arabs, out

of a population of 6,000,000 plus a few.

They are full citizens.

I fail to see how the links you provide dispute this. Naturally people with terrorist links wouldn't be welcome in office. And it is only natural that there would be concern about the conflict - why wouldn't there be?

And if, indeed, there is fear and suspicion and inequality - which can occur anywhere, anytime, that different groups come into contact with each other - might it not have SOMETHING to do with this war? Which doesn't seem to want to end?

By the way, the Sephardim are going to sue for reparations also. They have no hope of recovering anything, of course, but they want to set the record straight on this ridiculous idea of a one-sided conflict, with only one injured party.

Also, it is naive to suppose that the injuries done in the past have nothing to do with the conflict of today. People have long memories on the Jewish side too, of the riots of the '30's, of the land they were promised reduced to a little strip along the coast because of the Arab riots, of having no place for the tattered remnants of a great culture because the door was slammed shut in their face.

I'd say, the Arabs are hardly the only injured party here.

But most importantly - we need to pull together to heal this land. Constantly pointing fingers, demonizing one party or the other, is only prolonging the agony.

[manic expression]

85. Nope

http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/worldwide/story/0,,494859,00.html

Try reading the link.

"Arab Israelis, who account for around 10% of Israel's overall population of 6m inhabitants..."

They are full citizens, with little representation and horrible treatment. What a great deal.

Being "welcome" in office is the choice of the people, you know, democracy and all that jazz. Those terrorist "links" are merely accusations by Israel. It is a deplorable effort to lower the power of Arab Israelis.

Oppressing a people is not necessary, nor is it justified by any war, EVER. The same argument of so many despots.

Those riots of the '30's were due to Zionism. Zionist settlers began to move into the area and take land for themselves from 1897 all the way to the present. Jewish militants and thievery are bound to stir up some resentment.

The Arabs are THE injured party, and Israel is the perpetrator. Denying justice will only perpetuate the agony. Justice is essential, and that is all I ask for.

[simcha_6]

88. That is the most assininee argument I've ever heard

One side's been injured only? You're worse than Paul Gigot.

From 1897-1947 they bought land. Jews did not steal it.

As to terror links, if a member of govenment is accused of supporting terror, they should be investigated. What did the high court say in this case, anyway. They sided with the Arab mK's, didn't they?

I still doubt Israeli-Arabs are much worse off than minorities in the U.S. There's a lot of room for improvment, but it's not as bad as its made out. Try a survey in the '90's or after the Intifada is over, and I expect the results will be much better. These aren't good times.

[manic expression]

90. really...

the most asinine argument is the one you are presenting.

Yeah, the Zionists bought their land just like the US "bought" land from Mexico. :eyes:

Yes, the Arabs were allowed to run after much wrangling. However, it is an obvious indicator of the level of animosity towards Arab representation.

Israeli-Arabs are treated much like the oppressed minorities in the US, and this is NOT a good thing nor is it acceptable. It is worse than it is made out to be. The situation will only get better when Israel makes strides of overdue progress.

[simcha_6]

100. So donate to ACRI

Don't whine about it on discussion forums.

And comparing sales of Arab land to Jews to the war with Mexico- what are you talking about? Until the war for independence/naqba the Jews bought land. What do you think the JNF was for?

And I fail to see how your assertion that the Jews are totally to blame for the mess in the ME is less idiotic than my argument which is that the Jews bought land, the UN divided Israel, a war was fought, and both sides did bad things. How that's the history of the world. Like the president, you need to learn to see those shades of grey. There are no "Good Guys" in the world, and the sooner you accept that the faster the world will make sense. I'm an idealistic college student and even I know that.

[Colorado Blue]

95. They BOUGHT the land, at exorbitant prices. There's a big

difference in what you describe and what actually happened.

Moreover, populations and income levels ROSE during this time - among the Arab population as well as the Jewish. This was hardly a catastrophe for the region. Misunderstandings and differences in cultural outlooks could have been handled rationally. Many moderate ARABS and their clans were murdered or driven away during this time, as well. Bad leadership, fear and hatred caused things to spiral out of control.

Attempting to paint one group innocently white and the other vile and black, is to create a completely inaccurate picture of the past - just as you are attempting with the picture of life today.

Moreover, trying to excuse the kind of violence that happened in the 20's and the 30's while simultaneously condemning the oppression of the Palestinians, is utterly inconsistent morally and philosophically.

Either you believe that groups of people should respect one another - or you don't. Either you believe that individuals should respect one another - or you don't.

You cannot claim that the violence of the 20's and 30's, in which many completely innocent people were injured and killed, was good - ditto the terrorism of today - while simultaneously deploring the oppression and lack of civil rights experienced by Palestinians now.

Purchasing land and making farms, bringing capital and new types of culture into a region that needed them badly, into a region in which agreements were in place between Arab and Jewish leadership and with the blessings of the League of Nations as well as with the colonial rulers, are hardly crimes that deserve torture and murder.

You can complain all you want to about the right, or lack of right, for tribal leaders like the Emir Faisal or colonial powers like Britain or international groups like the League of Nations to make the decisions that they did, but they did, in fact, make those decisions. The Zionist settlers were INVITED.

You may condemn the injustice of a feudal system that allowed rich landowners or absentee Turkish landlords to sell their land, or even displace their peasantry. But they did, in fact, have that right.

Meanwhile, to condone violence in the past, which has led directly to the violence of today, just isn't a value I can relate to, any more than I can condone the mistreatment of the Palestinian people today OR the terrorism against the Israeli people. Neither is right.

The settlers did not set out to hurt the Arab people. That was NOT their goal. There should have been, judging from population figures then as compared to now, PLENTY of room and opportunity for all and plenty of room for people to learn from each other and share what was available.

And moreover, the settlers were completely justified, being willing to pay extremely high prices for their land, in settling on it and making businesses in the cities, and generally making a new home for their people. The Zionist settlers had and have, a far more justifiable claim to their homeland, in their original land, than most people anywhere in the world, and especially for example in the Western Hemisphere or, for example, North Africa or Sudan, where native people are most certainly being displaced, murdered or oppressed.

I suggest, if one is so angry about the Zionist settlers that he would condone their murders, or indeed the murders of completely innocent dhimmi Jews, who had lived in the region for thousands of years, or indeed the people who lived far from the scene of the crime, as it were, he should pack a suitcase and return whence his ancestors came. Since the entire United States was created by immigrants with NO historical claims to this land, nor did they generally buy it or attempt to deal diplomatically with the existing power structure, such a person has no right to live here while simultaneously condemning the Zionists, who DID try to buy land, who DID have agreements with the existing power structures, and who DID in most cases at least TRY to get along with everybody else.

I think it is tragic, that instead of cooperation and sharing, there was violence and death, which ultimately resulted in severe limitations on land sales and immigration. This exacerbated the situation of people in Europe and directly caused untold deaths in the Holocaust. You say you want justice? So do I.

If you think there is absolution for the violence of the 20's and 30's somewhere, and for the deaths in the holocaust that resulted, and for the demands for Jewish blood that greeted the creation of Eretz Israel, or in the wars and terror and mutual violence in all the many decades since, God bless you. I hope you find peace someday.

Meanwhile, I'll be doing what I can to try and help - nonviolently - and try to urge those in power to give the Palestinian people their freedom and their rights, and to make the situation we have today, a better one for EVERYBODY in the region.

[Chomskypirate]

20. Hmmm lets see

reminds me sort of the guy in Austin Powers one who would not get out of the away and just stood as he was slowly run over

[drdon326]

22. Yeah......

playing chicken with a dozer is a fast way to have a short life.

A concept that was apparently lost on St. Rachel.

[Djinn]

42. so if I run you over with my car

even though I knew you were there and knew I was about to kill you it'd be YOUR fault because you didn't move?

Ever protested anything Don? think you should have been killed for it?

BTW - aren't you always complaining that Palestinians and their supporter need to utilise non violent protest if they wish to succed in seeing an independant Palestinian state? what exactly could be more peaceful than standing in front of a dozer and saying "i will not move"

If some protestors at Chimpy's inauguration were run over by his drivers would you think that was OK?

[meti57b]

57. The bulldozer driver didn't know she was there.

Rachel Corrie's protest would have been a whole lot more non-violent if she stood someplace where the bulldozer driver could see her.

Protesters at chimpo's inauguration were smart enough to stay out of the street, not to mention smart enough to not sit down in front of a moving vehicle.

[manic expression]

70. Too bad

eyewitness reports say differently.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,936305,00.html

[Djinn]

78. ever been in a bulldozer?

my partner's family has been in construction for more than 50 years so I've actually got to have a bit of a go in a couple - they're DESIGNED so the driver can see what's in front of him/her.

If you beleive protestors deserve to get run over for being "stupid" enough to take a risk then I'd suggest re-thinking calling yourself a liberal

[meti57b]

86. Automobiles are designed so the driver can see out of them.

Going by your (logic?) there would be no automobile accidents.

And yes, I have been in a bulldozer. As part of my job, I have put in time in construction inspection of major engineering projects.

I've seen enough heavy construction equipment in operation. Drivers don't especially pay attention to what is on the ground right in front of them. They are concentrating on the work.

I definitely believe it is "stupid" to intentionally get in front of a bulldozer in operation, or in front of any piece of construction equipment for that matter.

Would you please show me where you think I said that anyone "deserves" to be run over ... under any circumstances? Since I never said that, I suggest you apologize for that remark.

[Djinn]

92. I have no intention of apologising to you for anything

if the mods feel the post needs deleting then so be it.

It's total crap to suggest my logic dictates there'd be no car accidents - what it DOES dictate is that if your car was STATIONARY and you KNEW someone was protesting in front of you and you started up the engine and drove over her you would be a murderer just like teh driver of the dozer is.

Please go and sit in one and then tell me how on earth what the driver is claiming can possibly be true.

you may beleive non violent protest is stupid, personally I find calling a protestor a "pancake" etc goes beyond stupid and into vile vomit inducing right wing propaganda, but hey whatever floats your boat

[meti57b]

99. OK, I get your point, you expect someone else to take responsibility for

what you say.

Here is a military version of a Caterpillar D9. Are you telling me that you have been in one of these? Do you think it is easy to see out of it?

http://www.jedsite.info/engineer/charlie-caterpillar/d9r_series/israeli-armoured/israrm-intro.html

Here is a civilian version of a Caterpillar D9. Have you been in one of these? Could you see out of it?

http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?method=4&dsname=Wikipedia+Images&dekey=Cat+D9.png&gwp=8

[Djinn]

101. ah no - where d'you pull that from

I'm not apologising to you because there's nothing to apologise for.

Beleive all you want that the driver didn't know she was there, I prefer to dwell in the land of reality

[Colorado Blue]

96. Could the driver of the bulldozer even see Rachel? nt

[drdon326]

97. What Really Happened To Rachel Corrie?

http://www.ourjerusalem.com/opinion/story/opinion20030808.html


So let`s get this straight. Rachel Corrie was standing, sitting, on a mound of dirt and on the bulldozer`s plow -- all at the same time? Amazing! Doesn`t it strike you as odd that these people, who can`t even agree on what exactly happened that day, are fixated on the conclusion that Corrie was intentionally murdered by the IDF?

...................................................................

[drdon326]

98. Yes, she was a lovely woman, meti...

a little dumb and a pathetically stupid to play chicken with a bulldozer and too bad she was a terrorist supporter, but juuuust a lovely woman.

[number6]

110. lying fu*king BULLSHIT

"she was a terrorist supporter"

[drdon326]

111. I will not reply in kind......

you are free to believe any ISM propaganda you wish.

However , St. Rachel was a tunnel protecting israel-hating terrorist supporter.

Sorry.

on edit...if you really want to get emotional,getting back to the main topic, let your outrage out over these people:

Rachel Levy
Rachel Thaler
Rachel Levi
Rachel Gavish
Rachel Charhi
Rachel Shabo

[number6]

112. was not

shouldn't you be posting at LGF

pan cakes pan cakes :silly:

[drdon326]

113. I'm disappointed but not overly surprised by your failure to respond...

to my post....spec the FORGOTTEN RACHELS.

Rachel Levy
Rachel Thaler
Rachel Levi
Rachel Gavish
Rachel Charhi
Rachel Shabo



Perhaps with that perspective, shouldnt you be posting at....

nah,its just not worth it.

[number6]

114. my sympathy to the FORGOTTEN RACHEL'S.

I don't ask that you like Rachel Corey or
give a shit that she's dead, it wouldn't
bother me if you thought she was reckless
for standing in front of a bulldozer..

HOWEVER this terrorist supporter shit gets old
Rachel Corey was hardly the worlds terrorist mastermind ..

and as for our shitty MSM/SCLM media not covering the
the RACHELS, their too busy doin 9 zillion hours of OJ
and Pope-a-rama and Terry Shivo(excuse spelling)
and other silly crap ....
oh and Palestinian deaths don't count at all ...

[drdon326]

115. Your deep sympathy is duly noted.

no, not terrorist mastermind......but a WILLING TERRORIST TOOL whose tunnel protecting and terrorist supporting activities leave me with absolutly no respect for her.

As for the deaths of INNOCENT palestinians, they deserve nothing but respect and sadness.

see the charts on this....i wish i could post them-if you can post these graphs please do-it is within the rules.
..............................................................

Almost 1900 Palestinians have been killed since the start of the “al-Aqsa Intifada”, compared to almost 700 Israelis. Numbers like these are used to create an image of lopsided slaughter, with Israel cast as the villain. But such numbers distort the true picture: They lump combatants in with noncombatants, suicide bombers with innocent civilians, and report Palestinian “collaborators” murdered by their own compatriots as if they had been killed by Israel.


More meaningful figures show that Israel is responsible for some 733 Palestinian noncombatant deaths, while Palestinians have killed 546 Israeli noncombatants. Over 54 percent of the Palestinians killed were actively involved in fighting – and this does not include stone-throwers or “unknowns”. And Palestinians are directly responsible for the deaths of at least 253 of their own number – more than one out of every eight Palestinians killed.


On the Israeli side, 80 percent of those killed have been noncombatants. While Israelis account for about 27 percent of the total “Intifada” fatalities, they represent over 43 percent of the noncombatant victims





http://www.ict.org.il/articles/articledet.cfm?articleid...



............................................................

[simcha_6]

72. That's kind of disrespectful n/t

[MrModerate]

24. I guess you missed the part . . .

where movies are different than real life?

[simcha_6]

66. Everyone claims to have the moral high ground

So one isn't more heinous than the other

[Coastie for Truth]

9. What about my cousin

killed by a terrorist bomb on Dizengoff - carrying her wedding gown home for her wedding.

[silverlib]

7. And the Corries stand

with the Women and Black and members of the Israeli army who have signed resistance papers refusing to serve in the Palestinian refugee areas, as well as other Israelis and Palestinians who are desperately seeking peace.

[samilib]

16. If it is of any consolation.

Rachel Corrie does not hardly get any media attention in the regular press. Most victims of IDF do not. By contrast, the regular media constantly speak of the victims of suicide bombings as if they were the only innocents dying.

[drdon326]

17. What BS.

Good show me how many articles are about...

Rachel Levy
Rachel Thaler
Rachel Levi
Rachel Gavish
Rachel Charhi
Rachel Shabo

[samilib]

18. The other Rachels are covered.

Everytime they cover the bombings, they cover the other Rachels. The mainstream media does not typically cover Rachel Corrie, other ISM members hurt or killed, or the the Palestinians hurt most of the time. If it is covered (the Palestinians getting hurt or killed that is), it's often portrayed as necessary. It's never even questioned whether it was necessary or not.

So I think those other Rachels get plenty of attention. I bet there aren't too many Americans who know much about who Rachel Corrie is if they only watch the mainstream news.

[Chomskypirate]

21. This is what you get

When you say that Israelis have been murdered people just offer more excuses

[Djinn]

43. get real

who offered excuses - the point the OP was trying to make is that the whole world is gunning for Israeli and that no-one cares when Israelis die - a breif look at ANY mainstream media outlet demonstrates this is a total crock of shit.

However PLENTY of people have made excuses for Rachel Corrie's death from the slanderous "she was a terrorist" to the psychopathic, the pancake jokes etc

[DemBoom]

38. International Solidarity House of Pancakes

Corrie's story covered at the time of the incident. She was a young woman killed in a war zone. She played a dangerous game of hide and seek with a bulldozer, and she lost.
The tunnel digging and weapons smuggling activity in the area she was in (Rafah) is well known. She was not protecting innocent lives, although she was pretending to protect them; when in reality she was protecting very people who smuggle weapons through those tunnels which are used to slaughter innocent women and children.
Burning American flags didn't do much to help her image either.

[Violet_Crumble]

39. The easy formula to define which lives are innocent...

'She was not protecting innocent lives, although she was pretending to protect them; when in reality she was protecting very people who smuggle weapons through those tunnels which are used to slaughter innocent women and children.'

Got it!

Every Israeli = innocent

Every Palestinian = not innocent

The house she was protecting belonged to a Palestinian doctor and his family and there were no tunnels, nor were tunnels the reason why the house was slated to be destroyed...

And what's wrong with burning an American flag? How does burning any flag make it okay to make disgusting and vile jokes about her death?

Violet...

[DemBoom]

49. Violent

Current Palestinian mythology would have us believe that Rachel Corrie was protecting a Doctor's home,...no wait, it was a Pharmicist's home...No, wait, it was Mother Teresa's home...
Reality has proven that the palestinian side of the tunnels from egypt open inside of homes...the occupation of the residents of the home is inconsequential. Besides, the israelis were clearing brush, not demolishing a home afterall.
Hey, anyone can burn an American flag...that's not the issue. the issue is that Rachel Corrie was not promoting Peace among palestinian children, but rather fostering continued hatred.
If Corrie was truly interested in Peace, she would have riden an Israeli school bus, or perhaps tried to stop a suicide bomber on his way to murder some jewiish kids...Unfortunealy, Corrie knew that if she had been on an israeli bus and a suicide bomber boarded, she'd be blown up along with the kids...just another "martyr" for the cause. Stopping a suicide bomber would most certainly have lead to an untimely death...the only problem after that would be- How to blame the Israelis for it.

[Violet_Crumble]

55. DemBoom...

'Current Palestinian mythology'? I see. That would be reputable news sources like the Guardian?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,936327,00.html

'Corrie, 23, was crushed to death by an army bulldozer in Rafah, Gaza, as she protested against house demolitions.'

Labelling everything you don't like as 'current Palestinian mythology' regardless of how factual or reputable it is, is kind of a clumsy way to approach things imo. But I am curious to see what you consider what's not 'current Palestinian mythology'. LGF? Cox and Forkum? Camera?

If you actually have some evidence that Rachel Corrie wasn't there to try to protect a Palestinian home, feel free to share the sources....

So you think Palestinian kiddies are so fucking dense that if an effigy of a US flag wasn't burnt in front of them, they'd love the US? Get real. It takes a lot more than burning an effigy of a flag to instill dislike and contempt of the US juggernaut in people - it takes the US behaving the way it does to do that...

Claiming that Rachel Corrie wasn't interested in peace is ridiculous and the stuff that the right-wing thrive on. How on earth is ignoring Palestinians (who btw, don't have the might of a powerful military to protect them) and riding buses around Israeli cities being 'truly interested in peace'? Yr complaining because she wasn't paying attention to one 'side', yet you want her to have paid exclusive attention to the other 'side'. Also, if it's so damn easy to have been able to intercept suicide bombers or know what buses they'd be on, why wouldn't Israeli security have taken care of it?

Violet (minus the 'n')...

[DemBoom]

59. Shows to go ya

Just shows how credible the Guardian is.
Autopsies showed Corrie died from falling debris, not crushing by a bulldozer...it's sexier to say she was CRUSHED!! MURDERED!!!
Saint Rachel died a fool's death.
http://www.answers.com/topic/rachel-corrie

[Violet_Crumble]

60. The Guardian's a credible source...

So I was right. Anything that doesn't fit in with yr narrow world-view is labelled 'Palestinian mythology' and discarded. I feel kind of ripped off even wasting the energy of the few posts I have contributed to this...

And fyi, I never brought up whether she was crushed by the bulldozer or by falling debris, as I don't feel it's relevant to what I was discussing. If yr going to respond to my posts, how about you actually respond to what I was saying, eh?

Violet...

[Scurrilous]

62. Speaking of a fool's death...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=user_profiles&u_id=168273

[centristo]

133. from an eyewitness off the answers.com link...

", I arrived, and one of the three activists in the house joined me on the ground . . . e began to disrupt the work of the bulldozers . . . At this point, Rachel and the two other activists joined us . . . Rachel and a British activist were wearing jackets that were fluorescent orange and had reflective stripping . . . , Rachel and two other activists began interfering with the other bulldozer, which was attempting to destroy grass and other plants on what used to be farmland. They stood and sat in its path, and though it would drive very close to them, and even move the earth on which they were sitting, it always stopped in time to avoid injuring them . . . , one bulldozer pushed Will, an American activist, up against a pile of barbed wire. Fortunately, the bulldozer stopped and withdrew just in time to avoid injuring him seriously, but we had to dig him out of the rubble, and unhook his clothing from the wire. The tank approached to see if he was ok. One soldier stuck his head out of the tank to see, and he looked quite shocked and dumbfounded, but said nothing . . . , he bulldozer drivers began waving at us, making faces, laughing, and shouting what sounded like lewd comments. One even removed his helmet and posed for a picture, which unfortunately didn't turn out.

Read the whole link. These guys were playing with fire, IMO.

Rachel Corrie reminds me of those "Human Shield" people who opposed the war in Iraq. Instead of protesting in an intelligent manner they flew over to Iraq so that the U.S. couldn't (or would be less inclined to) bomb them. Well sure enough the Iraqi government housed these people in strategic locations, like next to a power plant or ammo dump. They were literally used like pawns in a game of chess.

I think Rachel may have been like this, or has at least become something like this. She fought against something that is legitamately unjust (the occupation) but ended up helping further the cause of terrorists and religious fundamentalists.

[Englander]

40. Welcome to DU!

:hi:

Enjoy your stay,& don't let the doo...oh,nevermind.

[Djinn]

44. burned a US flag

well that tears it the silly girl deserved to die :eyes:

I guess though this reasoning (ludicrous and debunked as it is) means EVERY single member of the IDF deserves to die - they are ALL implicated in the occupation of Palestine and the slaughter of Palestinians - if anyone posted that here they would be rightly condemned

[simcha_6]

89. I heard about her on MSM

The MSM does cover the Palestinian side of things. Check out this headline.

<http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=540&e=3&u=/ap/20050501/ap_on_re_mi_ea/isolated_enclave>

[Scurrilous]

23. More info about the Rachels:

Rachel Levy:

http://www.israel-mfa.gov.il/MFA/Terrorism-+Obstacle+to+Peace/Memorial/2002/2/Rachel+Levy.htm


Rachel Thaler:

http://www.israel-mfa.gov.il/MFA/Terrorism-+Obstacle+to+Peace/Memorial/2002/1/Rachel+Thaler.htm


Rachel Levi:

http://www.racheli.org/


Rachel Gavish:

http://www.israel-mfa.gov.il/MFA/Terrorism-+Obstacle+to+Peace/Memorial/2002/2/Rachel+Gavish.htm


Rachel Charhi:

http://www.israel-mfa.gov.il/MFA/Terrorism-+Obstacle+to+Peace/Memorial/2002/1/Rachel+Charhi.htm


Rachel Shabo:

http://www.israel-mfa.gov.il/MFA/Terrorism-+Obstacle+to+Peace/Memorial/2002/1/Rachel-+Avishai-+Zvika+and+Neria+Shabo.htm

[drdon326]

26. Thanks but......

notice almost all from the Israeli Ministry of Foeighn Affairs.

NOW .....Compare to the seemingly endless articles on the patron Saint OF Tunnel protectors.

Scurrilous, care to comment on the FORGOTTEN Rachels ?

[Scurrilous]

27. Welll don...

...I don't think they are 'forgotten.' I'm sure plenty of people still mourn these women and will remember them always.

[drdon326]

28. Funny how they make a propaganda play.....

and leave off her terror supporting ISM and they dont mention her terror tunneling protection.Must have been an oversight.

and i'm sure they dont mention the other Rachels who were wantonly butchered by the terrorists that our little St. Rachy supported.

No, the audience wont hear any of those people....just some glorified propaganda .

[Violet_Crumble]

36. Why would they include dishonest bullshit and slurs?

Proof's been posted here many times in the past showing those who cling to the 'terror tunnel' line that the IDF was destroying a home of a doctor and his family and there were no tunnels involved at all. And the ISM doesn't support terrorism, not unless innocent Palestinian civilians are terrorists all living in houses that hide tunnels...

Something for you to try and think about, don. If Rachel Corrie was a 'terrorist supportin' tunnel protector' then why wasn't she arrested by the IDF? Why if the home she was trying to protect was hiding tunnels was the family still in the home several days after her death? To any rational person who wants to put even a minimum of thought into it, those questions make it pretty clear that the stuff about tunnels and terrorist supporter are nothing but mindless and disgusting slurs and as far as propaganda goes, pretty clumsy...

Violet...

[Violet_Crumble]

35. I'll comment on them...

I wonder if mindless conservative losers ever called them things like 'Pancake Queen'?


Violet...

[simcha_6]

73. Um, no, that's not right at all

Unless the news has changed drastically in the last seven months, the press gives plenty of attention to Palestinans killed by Israelis. Remember the operation "Defensive Sheild" coverage?

[Colorado Blue]

29. You know what? ALL these beautiful people are victims of

a long, long tragedy and I hope somebody with the talent to do so will make a movie about them, and about the tangled web that bound them, and snuffed out their young lives. And the movie should tell also, about the hurt they left in their wake, and that we remember them all, and weep for their deaths, and weep for the hatred that still festers in the world they have left behind.

How often are we going to tell this story? Every generation, it seems, makes the same damn mistakes and snuffs out these beautiful lives.

We can watch "Romeo and Juliet" and see the tragedy rushing at us headlong, like a freight train on the Texas plains - but we CAN'T STOP IT. Maybe someday we will learn.

[drdon326]

30. It pains me to KIND OF disagree with you , CB

IT IS A TRAGEDY.....but one brought on by TERRORISTS who have absolutely no regard for human life and no respect for innocent people.

These innocent women were victims of TERRORISM carried out by pseudo-religious inhuman murderers.

While the targeting of innocent civilians is not new, the PALESTINIAN TERRORISTS have really taken it to new lows..... Bombing pizzerias and blowing up busses in order to get to heaven ....mindnumbing.

No.....the forgotten rachels dont get a movie or play but a tunnel protecting terror-supporter does.

Never again.....never forget.

[Colorado Blue]

31. Yes. I know. Lacking words! nt

[Donald Ian Rankin]

32. You're using a tactic

which are favourites of apologists for both Israel and the Palestians, namely to claim that any discussion of the atrocities committed by the side you support is illegitimate, because taken in isolation it doesn't refer to the atrocities committed by the other side.

There have been numerous books, plays, movies etc which portray the Palestinians as the villains and the Israelis as the victims. The fact that you can find one Palestinian supported whose death has sparked public interest and seven Israelis whose deaths haven't proves nothing - I could easily find you thousands of innocent Palestinians whose deaths have been completely ignored, except that I can't, because I've never heard of them.

[drdon326]

33. huh?

You're using a tactic which are favourites of apologists for both Israel and the Palestians, namely to claim that any discussion of the atrocities committed by the side you support is illegitimate, because taken in isolation it doesn't refer to the atrocities committed by the other side.


Oh.....you mean "moral equivalency"?.......got it.

I would ask you if you think al-queda had a legitimate reason to kill thousands of innocent americans,but i'm afraid to hear your answer.

[Englander]

34. "Maggie?"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=1743616

[Donald Ian Rankin]

37. No, of course I don't.

However, the overwhelming majority of the Palestinians killed by Israelis have not been terrorists, just like the overwhelming majority of the Israelis killed by Palestinians.

Saying that because Al Quaeda has killed people it is legitimate for Israel to kill Palestinian civilians is no more logical than saying that because Israeli soldiers (and non-soldiers) have killed people it is legitimate to kill Israeli civilians.

And I quite agree with you that the two sides are not morally equivalent, because a) Israel has killed more than twice as many Palestinians as the Palestinians have killed Israelis, and if you measure total suffering rather than simply number of deaths, the "balance of atrocities" is even more one sided, and b) Israel is occupying Palestinian land, rather than vice versa.

Too many supporters of Israel assume that Palestinian = terrorist = legitimate target.

[Name removed]

52. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

124. Whether or not

most of "us" believe it depends on whom you mean by "us", of course, but I'd be very surprised if most people in the UK don't believe it, and whether or not they do isn't really the issue.

I'm sure that most of the IDF don't believe it, but that's because for depressingly many supporters of Israel the terms "Palestinian" and "Terrorist" are interchangeable. Throwing stones at a tank that's demolishing your house does not make you a terrorist. Being in the same street as a genuine terrorist when he's hit by a missile fired from a helicopter that kills him and seven passers-by does not make you a terrorist.

Yes, if the Arabs had killed more Israelis, or the Israelis had killed fewer Palestinians, that would make a difference - it would mean that the level of force the Israelis had used was less disproportionate.

I agree that there are elements who will never accept the existance of Israel. However, there aren't that many of them. If Israel was to pull back to its borders, they would be sufficiently marginalised that the PLA would be able to largely contain them, I suspect.

I won't pretend it would be perfect - there would still be atrocities, exponentially decaying for decades, I suspect - that much anger doesn't go away over night - but they would be sufficiently reduced in numnber that even from a purely selfish Israeli point of view, doing so makes sense, I think.

[eyl]

125. Sorry, but the argument that

"Yes, if the Arabs had killed more Israelis, or the Israelis had killed fewer Palestinians, that would make a difference - it would mean that the level of force the Israelis had used was less disproportionate."

Strikes me as..wierd.

The only reason that Israeli casualties are lower is that Palestinian attacks are less successful. Are you seriously maintaining that the other side's lack of capability translates into a moral equation? For example, if an IDF force engages in a gun battle with a group of, say, 3 Hamas gunmens, and kills all three, while the IDF force takes no casualties, that makes the IDF troops are less moral?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

126. It only works If you apply it to innocent victims,

Obviously, in a battle, it's not immoral to kill as many of the enemy combatants as you can while taking as few losses as possible.

What I'm arguing is that the Israeli policy has killed more innocent Palestinians than can be justified by the need to protect innocent Israelis.

[drdon326]

128. Please tell me what you base that on .

What I'm arguing is that the Israeli policy has killed more innocent Palestinians than can be justified by the need to protect innocent Israelis.

Obviously you have first hand knowledge of the endless threats and successful suicide bombings that allow you to make a statement like that.

Obviously you have DETAILED INTELLIGENCE of potential attacks against innocent Israelis for you to make such an astounding claim like that.

Please share your first hand detailed knowledge that allows you to make such an assertion.

[Name removed]

131. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

132. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[eyl]

129. It would help

if there was an accurate seperation between innocents and "innocents". The ICT is the only organization to try to do a report seperating the two; B'tselem's figures, for example, which are widely quoted, include many Palestinian "militants" in the "civlian" category.

[Name removed]

45. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[pelsar]

46. djnn...

funny how blowing up buses, ships carrying civilians, marketplaces and hijacking airplanes are all utterly horrendous but yet are glorified in museums in Israel...oh sorry I forgot when Stern/Irgun/Hagganah etc did it, it was pure and good.

somebody is just making this stuff up........or is there a hidden museum that i missed that you've been to?

please pass this new information on so that I can go see it.

[Name removed]

47. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

80. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Djinn]

93. going to admit you were wrong don

[Englander]

48. Will any of these do?

"Museums in Tel-Aviv;

Etzel Museum (Historical Museums)

This museum is the history of the struggle for Independence (1947-1948). The main exhibit – the Passover 1949 campaign to liberate Jaffa. The idea of the Etzel movement itself is the free entrance of Jews to Palestine. Etzel (N.M.O.) Museum – history of Etzel, the retaliations against Arab terror and struggle to dissolve the British mandate.

Hagana Museum (Historical Museums)

The Hagana Museum describes the horrors of the situation in the country on the eve of the formation of the Hagana organization, the activities of the organization in the efforts to get a Jewish state, the development of the organization and its achievements. The main exhibition is arranged according to thirty subjects, tracing Israel’s defense history from 1878, when the first "shomrim" or watchmen were organized to protect the early settlers, through the Haganah’s establishment in June 1920, the quelling of disturbances in the 1920’s and 30’s, and the struggle against the British authorities up to the War of Independence.

Lechi Museum - Beit Yair (Historical Museums)

The exhibits are devoted to "Lehi" organization (Fighters for Israel freedom) and one of its founders - Abraham Shtern. The history of Independence War in the period of British mandate in photos and documents. Library, archives.

The Jabotinsky Museum (Historical Museums)

Zeev (Vladimir) Jabotinsky – the famous leader of Zionism movement. The history of the Revisionist Movement and Etzel and Lehi underground movements. Electronic devices are widely used in the museum."

http://www.ilmuseums.com/srch.asp?lg=ENG&c=All&r=Tel-Aviv+and+surroundings

[newyorican]

63. Awww...

Now you done gone an' killed the sub-thread. I was for giving them more rope to display ignorance. We didn't even get to mentioning Stern Street.

:rofl:

[Englander]

84. Aye. Or "Avraam Shtern St",

to give the full name,which is the location of the Lechi Museum,
& where,apparently Stern was killed;

" >snip

By 1942 the British had offered a reward for Stern's capture. On February 12, 1942, the British discovered and forced their way into Stern's hiding place in Tel Aviv, and killed him immediately. The building is now a museum of the Lehi movement."

Jewish Virtual Library

[Djinn]

79. oh dear pelsar

don't get out much do you:

"The Haganah Museum, 23 Rothchild Blvd., 03/560-8624 The museum is located in the former home of Eliyahu Golomb, one of the leaders of the Haganah. The museum follows the evolvement of the underground defense force (known to Palestinians who survived the Nakba as TERRORISTS, from its founding until the beginning of the new State of Israel and the establishment of the IDF (Israel Defense Forces)."

"After nearly a decade in design and construction, Beit Hapalmach, the Palmach History Museum, located next to the Land of Israel Museum in Tel Aviv, has finally opened its doors. The aim of the museum, explains Ilan Lev, Director of the Museum, is to give a sense of the period which led to the founding of the state."

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Society_&_Culture/palmachmuseum.html

but then again no need to let truth get in the way of a good argument - unless of course the jewish virtual library are rabid evil anti-semites

[pelsar]

83. djnn, englander, newyorican....

sorry, no rope here to hang myself..

i was referring to your text:...specifically the word "glorified"
funny how blowing up buses, ships carrying civilians, marketplaces and hijacking airplanes are all utterly horrendous but yet are glorified in museums in Israel..

the fact that there are museums that explain the period using a variety of methods is usually a good sign. In fact it would be rather absurd of israel to ignore the part that the stern gang etc had in israels formation and infact still plays a part in todays politics. A countries history, both its good and bad remain its history and only the foolish and ignorent attempt to keep it hidden for whatever political reason.

or do actually think its better that a country NOT show part of its history in its museums?..both good and bad?.....your using the word "glorified" (and I am just guessing here) is probably not based on a personal visit to the musuems, so why use such a word?

the last musuem i visited was the navel museum (last year) where I did not see a single "glorification" of the battles fought. I read about pride, I read about losses, I saw memorials to both israeli and egyptian dead....but no glorification. I guess you've confused us with a different society....we dont glorify death here.

let me correct myself, there is one death that i know of that is "glorified" a guy named trumpledor, though when I was in the museum that commemorates him I dont recall seeing to much:anyway his last words " it is good to die for ones country" I never found to be inspiring, but thats just me (anyway they're probably made up) . I would place that in the catagory of "glorification"...but thats the only one. Like I said, wrong society, try our neighbors I think their more "into that"

[Djinn]

94. do they show

how those groups murdered children? do they detail how they exploded bombs in public places, do they show them pillaging arab villages?

Do any of them specify that Israel's terrorists did EVERYTHING that Palestinian terrorists do now or do they act as if they were fine upstanding god fearing men and women worthy of respect???

[Name removed]

104. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Djinn]

106. pull the other one pelsar

I'm frankly fucking tired of you pretending you know ANYTHING about me.

The museums spoken of here speak in glowing terms about a bunch of terrorists

You can deny it and LIE about my knowledge in this area but it doesn't actually change facts.

This is how the Etzel Museum describe themselves:

... history of Etzel, the retaliations against Arab terror and struggle to dissolve the British mandate.

no word of the FACT that arabs were RESPONDING to Zionist terror

Haganah:

the quelling of disturbances in the 1920’s and 30’s, and the struggle against the British authorities up to the War of Independence.

"quelling" well there's a PR gem, someone should tell Hamas to describe their bombings and murders as "quellings" and it'll all be OK

None of the MANY museums dedicated to Israel's founding terrorists/freedom fighters make ANY mention of the horrors they committed, if anything at all (and the majority do not even go this far) they talk about brave jewish fighters "responding" to violence.

[pelsar]

107. djnn....

the word you used is "glorified"...i dont see that in your examples...as in "glorifying killings"....that is akin to celebrating deaths. Your above examples mention neither glory, nor celebration etc....


and no I dont know anything about you, nor do I even know if you've been to israel, though I have asked but you never do respond. You can enlighten me (us) as to your knowledge, either via books/internet/experiences/visits/friends/relatives etc.

For all i know you could be the daughter of a palestenian who lived in the village near my home: Ein Hod, and your mom/grandma are telling you what they went through.

your always free to tell....

[Djinn]

117. I have responded

if you didn't like it too bad.

until those museums insist on calling Irgun/Stern/hagganah etc TERRORISTS then at the VERY LEAST they are downplaying what they did.

Speaking of Deir Yassin as "responding" to terrorism is revolting whether you see it like that or not.

[pelsar]

118. changed the subject?

now the description is "terrorist"....what happend to "glorified"?.....and what happened to at least explaining where you knowledge comes from?.....its not a matter of whether I like it or not, i just believe accuracy where ever possible is a good thing.

btw though I have never been most museums throughout the world I tend to doubt that most of them describe their own independence wars as terrorism...meaning israel is no better or worse than what is accepted in the world. But that is usually a mute point.

[Djinn]

119. it's really not hard

when you speak of these people as "freedom fighters" not terrorists THAT IS GLORIFYING

when you speak of slaughter an entire village in terms of "responding" THAT IS GLORIFYING

when you speak of individual terrorists in glowing terms THAT IS GLORIFYING

And I have already answered your demands for an explanation as to were my knowledge comes from I'd suggest you go look for it.

[pelsar]

120. your not being accurate...

you mentioned that the ACTS were glorified...the ACTS of killing...not the people involved but the action of killing.....that I have yet to see here in this country

and I dont recall your mentioning from where your knowledge is from...can you point me to it?

and yet another "misnomer" the use of the description " freedom fighters" for all as a general description for the war of independence....thats not used here (outside of the religious kooks, extremists, etc). There is no "freeing of the land of the infidels" thats our neighbors attitude. The general feel was that the jews need a refugee, which has a whole different meaning and leads to the hypocrasy of freedom and terrorism.

So again your using poor description of us and our attitudes. You seem to be assuming that both us and the palestenians have the same exact attitudes and actions seperated only by time. Thats not true at all, the cultures are very very different, with very different attitudes toward societies, the individuals etc

But as i think about your past writings I dont think you see that, I get the impression that you think we have similar cultural values and are in fact "one and the same".....

point to me to knowledge base...perhaps that will help me understand.....

[Name removed]

121. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Djinn]

41. for every Israeli child killed in this conflict

there have been three Palestinian children killed - strangely though EVERY time there is a suicide bombing in Israel it makes the news in my part of the world - the ONLY times in the last couple of years that a dead Palestinian child has been deemed newsworthy have been the murders of Muhammad Al-Dura and Iman al-Hams. The killers of both children are known and unpunished.

I guess all this just goes to prove how "anti-semitic" the media really is.

BTW don you (apparently) support a violent occupation, you've stated you have ZERO problem shooting into crowds of Palestinians, that "targetted assasination, even when it kills bystanders is perfectly legitimate, that bombing buildings that (alledgedly) contain terrorists, regardless of who else may live in the building is also legitimate - why is the terror you support OK? :eyes:

[DemBoom]

50. Al Dura Hoax

Once again, it's not a game of checkers. It's an old tactic used by Arab "freedom" fighters. hide men and weapons among women and children...when they get killed offer crocodile tears.
It's been proven that Al Dura was not killed by the Israelis. It's also questionable whether he was killed at all! German TV uncovered the hoax. The blood libel helped to fuel the intifada. Meanwhile, after the hoax was staged, Palestinians revived the cult of Moloch by strapping bombs to their children. Instead of spiritual benefits for the sacrifice of their young however, they received $25000US "per head".
http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_1991to_now_alaqsa_dura.php

[drdon326]

65. The “al-Aqsa Intifada” – An Engineered Tragedy

Almost 1900 Palestinians have been killed since the start of the “al-Aqsa Intifada”, compared to almost 700 Israelis. Numbers like these are used to create an image of lopsided slaughter, with Israel cast as the villain. But such numbers distort the true picture: They lump combatants in with noncombatants, suicide bombers with innocent civilians, and report Palestinian “collaborators” murdered by their own compatriots as if they had been killed by Israel.


More meaningful figures show that Israel is responsible for some 733 Palestinian noncombatant deaths, while Palestinians have killed 546 Israeli noncombatants. Over 54 percent of the Palestinians killed were actively involved in fighting – and this does not include stone-throwers or “unknowns”. And Palestinians are directly responsible for the deaths of at least 253 of their own number – more than one out of every eight Palestinians killed.


On the Israeli side, 80 percent of those killed have been noncombatants. While Israelis account for about 27 percent of the total “Intifada” fatalities, they represent over 43 percent of the noncombatant victims





http://www.ict.org.il/articles/articledet.cfm?articleid=440

[Djinn]

81. oops sorry forgot

every Palestinian child killed was either a terrorist or a terrorist plant while every Israeli child killed is a tragedy.

[simcha_6]

103. I don't think he did that

What do your numbers say when you separate combantants with non on both sides?

[Guy_Montag]

123. Had a look at palestinefacts.org

strangly one fact missing seems to be the number of Palestinian children killed by the IDF.:shrug:

[simcha_6]

74. I see as much coverage of Palestinian victims as Israeli ones

Can we please stick to the issues and semantic arguments instead of the "the media likes you more" whine?

(I have some lovely chider cheese to go with it, if you can't.)

[Djinn]

82. well in that case

perhaps you'd like to direct that at the ORIGINAL post which claimed no-one notices or cares about Israeli deaths - or is it just Palestinian supporters you that need to be told to shut up

[simcha_6]

102. Interesting point

I'll treat you to my thought process to check the validity of your statement.

You say that the media doesn't pay attention to Palestinian deaths.

The poster talks about other Jewish victims of bombings, and says that they should get as much attention as Rachel Corrie.

Your post is more explicit, but I guess the poster is saying that there is bias.

If he's talking about the media, then you're probably right. (Although truth to tell I've decided he's a somewhat to the right of me in terms of Israel, and I'm about as right on the ME issue as I tolerate. The rest I write off. Does that mean, by disagreeing with you, I respect you more?)

In that case, the same goes for him. Quit b****ing about unfair coverage and talk about something productive.

If, on the other hand, he's referring to those people posting all the stories about Corrie (sic?) on DU, then I can't attack it the same way because my point only goes to those complaining about the MSM.

[Name removed]

105. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

109. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

116. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

122. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[drdon326]

108. I will remember.

Rachel Levy
Rachel Thaler
Rachel Levi
Rachel Gavish
Rachel Charhi
Rachel Shabo

[bennywhale]

127. I don't know anyone who condones

or supports palastinian terrorist murders of innocents. These are abbhorent acts and that is fact, they are also carried out by outlawed murderous terrorist groups.

The point with the isreali government is that it is supposed to be a democratic nation. A member of the international community. It has a seat on the UN. Hamas doesn't.

Plays were also made about people killed by the british army in Northern Ireland, but not about those innocent british people blown up by the IRA.

The reason people like Racheal Corrie gets attention is cos she was killed by a legitimate nation.

If i were murdered unlawfully by a criminal tommorow i would recieve limited attention. If i was murdered unlawfully (or killed if you like) by the British State, my name would be remembered for years.

[pelsar]

130. bennywhale

that strikes me as a reasonable explanation to the way the "world works"