longde said; "It is obvious that Mr Condell likes the hate, and is hiding behind freedom of speech to spread his toxic message."

I see no "hate", I see someone with concern for future generations. He is not "hiding " behind free speech, he is using it whilst he still has the ability to do so. As for his "toxic" message, I hear no poison in his oratory, just frighteningly real concerns. If anyone truly believes that it is wrong to be defending our way of life, our increasingly limited freedoms, and our right to object to the way our culture is being bulldozed into submission, then Pat Condell is speaking directly to you when he says you don't deserve your freedom. And by the way, he does "stand to be physically harmed" for voicing his opinion. If more people, me included, had his courage to speak out, then maybe we would'nt be living under the threat of our whole way of life being systematically dismantled. He is also defending YOUR right to say; "Yada yada yada......" so carry on and voice your incisive "opinions" whilst the likes of Pat Condell fight for your right to be able to do so.

I'm just worried that without some sort of guiding body of law about how you sort the innocent from the guilty, and what sorts of consequences are appropriate for which kind of violation, it can easily wind up being just a handy casus belli to tell people whenever you feel like conquering some new territory.
I share your concern over that, but in practice that kind of system simply does not exist at an international level. The UN is supposed to be an attempt at it, but it is completely and utterly ineffectual in that capacity. Of all the wars and atrocities committed since the UN was founded, how many has it actually opposed by placing soldiers on the ground? In the absence of a good solution(an effective UN), we are left with the alternative of unilateral action against tyrants and atrocities, with all the enormous misgivings that come with that.

Maybe if there had been some sort of Holocaust-level sort of abuses going on I'd have been able to agree with it, but then if there had been, the UN probably would have gone along with it too, and it would've been the whole world working to stop it.
But when Saddam was committing Holocaust-level abuses, the UN did nothing(in part thanks to American vetos if I recall). When a million were killed in Rwanda not only did the UN do nothing, they actively withdrew all but 400 of the troops they already had in the country. Korea, Vietnam, East Timor, Cambodia, the whole of Africa and South America, all victims of horrific wars and atrocities that the UN could not or would not prevent or stop.

After the first gulf war, the sole thing that stopped Saddam from repeating his campaign against the Kurds was the unilateral, illegal act of war that was the American enforced no-fly zone over northern Iraq. Saddam's first campaign against the Kurds saw him execute an estimated 2-300 thousand people and destroy 90% of all Kurdish villages. Every single Kurd he could capture was placed in a concentration camp. The women, children and elderly were regularly beaten and malnourished to the point that virtually every last child under the age of 3 died. The men were, without exception, hauled off to pre-dug mass graves to be executed and buried by bulldozer. The concentration camps also had rape rooms, not for the amusement of the guards or humiliation of the prisoners, but with the goal of impregnating the Kurdish women with half arab children in order to breed the Kurdish people out of existence.

Saddam committed holocaust level atrocities and 'illegal' unilateral American intervention prevented him from repeating those acts a second time. In spite of the misgivings I have about unilateral wars, I support the Iraq war on the largest level, in spite of the many lies, mistakes and tragedies that came with it the alternatives were worse.



In reply to this comment by NetRunner:

>> ^acidSpine:
Come to Australia. We've got more god-forsaken desert than you can beat a war drum at. You guys could bulldoze shit and build fuck off walls that would make the Chinese blush to your hearts content.

Australia will let 7-8 million immigrants in?

>> ^alizarin:
How does "stop committing war crimes" lead to "I have to move"? Just stop committing war crimes.

Aside from the white phosphorous, which is illegal and over which there was a big debate and investigation here recently, everything else in this "creepy music" video is just war. Funny how no one is bothered by rockets being placed inside a UN facility, but later are horrified at it becoming a military target.

>> ^Asmo:
Are you a war criminal? If so, move directly to jail or hell, your choice.
If you aren't, how about standing up against Israelis who are? Then mebbe one day there will be a lasting peace between the Israelis and the former owners of the country you now occupy.

Lovely optimism. Nice cut-and-dry war-criminal/innocent terminology there too. I've been hearing about lasting peace ever since I was old enough to understand that some people will blow themselves up for the opportunity to kill me. I would also love to hear about American plans to restore the rights of the former owners of the currently-occupied United States, aka the Native Americans.

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

What most people don't seem to grasp, is that there's no one to make peace with at the moment. Fatah controls the west bank mostly, and Hamas controls Gaza. Those two organizations are currently AT WAR with each other. Neither group can be said to be in power over a clear majority of the Palestinian population, and Hamas has made it clear that it will never accept any agreement Fatah makes with Israel.

I want peace. Every Israeli you ask will tell you the same thing. But I want to live, also. I want to be safe. And at the moment, I can't feel safe if I know there's a chance my bus could explode or that a random rocket might land on my roof.

Imagine for a moment that Iraq wasn't on the other side of the world, but rather, shared a border with the US. Let's say in the south. Instead of Mexico.
Now imagine suicide bombers were crossing into Texas on a daily basis, and some terrorist group was firing rockets from Tijuana on San Diego at a rate of 10-15 rockets a day. What would you want your government to do?

>> ^demon_ix:
OK, you win. I'll pack up my stuff and move to.... Wait, where exactly do you want the Israelis to move to?


Come to Australia. We've got more god-forsaken desert than you can beat a war drum at. You guys could bulldoze shit and build fuck off walls that would make the Chinese blush to your hearts content.

hey! dont put the baby in the bulldozer.

Sorry NetRunner, but Schiff is a brilliant libertarian and Keynesian economics is junk science. Krugman's belief that deficit spending is a solution, that we can administer new shots of heroine in perpetuity to avoid withdrawals, is the same as Madoff saying his scheme would never end at its height. It only lasts for as long as you can find new and larger investments. The Fed cannot control long-term interest rates, they can only price fix in the short term in exchange for higher long-term rates. His forecast of perma deflation is pure crap, that would require the Federal Reserve to raise rates higher than Volcker did in a far more dire situation than we were in then. No longer is the majority of our debt financed long-term or domestically. It's majority owned by foreigners in T-bills. There is no exit strategy for the money being pumped in today. This is going to turn into a currency crisis when the debt is monetized and productive foreigners refuse to keep throwing good money after bad into our bond market. "Free Lunch" guys like Krugman who put the cart before the horse, consumption before production, just don't get it in the endgame.

Mish's criticisms are even more laughable. Schiff is a long-term investor, not a trader like Mish. The dollar headfake in the last year where people ran toward the blast initially is not a sustainable trend and totally meaningless. When you know the Titanic is going to sink, you don't stick around because you think you can get one last dance in, and that seems to be what Mish thinks people should do. Decoupling is going to happen whether Mish likes it or not. Our treasury secretary is getting laughed at by Asian students when he tries to reassure them of dollar integrity.

(1) From the creditor's perspective, there's no point in loaning money to someone to consume your production. You don't devalue your currency to export for the sake of exporting, you export for imports or keep your currency strong so that you can consume your own production. Otherwise, you're exchanging products for stashes of paper IOUs that we show no intention of replacing with real products. When the Asian countries figure out how easy it would be to consume their own products, our economy is toast. The only problem for someone like a China is how to head for the exit without causing a stampede. The minute such a large holder of dollars starts spending them, their value relative to goods will diminish substantially. Avoiding a hit now is going to be impossible, but they know that continuing to accumulate dollars is simply creating a larger future hit.
(2) From our perspective, politicians will always do what is expedient in the short-term. Telling the truth and saying you have to cut spending and entitlements by massive amounts for the sake of future generations isn't politically profitable. Not just because of all the people expecting things like unlimited health care regardless of our productive capacity to finance it, but because such a high percentage of our voting population now have overpaid government positions that they don't want to lose. Someone like a Ron Paul tells the truth at the expense of having an chance of winning. Winning requires that you be a candyman.

Savings is underconsumption and required for loans to exist. Ideally, people borrow that finite capital to increase productive capacity, to turn a shovel into a bulldozer and pay the loan off with more production. That is the kind of borrowing that benefits the creditor, the debtor, and society. It's not supposed to be a tool for consumption and winning elections, and that's where this country derailed from the sustainable and healthy growth it had in the 19th century. Whatever "success" we had from things like Medicare and Social Security came at an equal or greater long term cost. It's generational theft in its purest form, borrow to consume in the present to leave each successive generation with a higher and higher interest burden that will have to be paid for with higher taxes or currency devaluation. I say this because it is the fundamental oversight of people like Steve Forbes and Art Laffer who try to cast off trade deficits as "meaningless because it's something we've always had" in debating the resiliency of the bond market without distinguishing how we spent our loans then vs now.

Defaulting on our debt through inflation is a certainty. If you listen to Financial Sense or Schiff's weekly radio show, you'll learn how obvious that conclusion is very quickly.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JGdj3Gx4A8w
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EgMclXX5msc

"Weee!!!" LMFAHS.

Nice how the bazooka disintegrated the bulldozer.

What happens next? I'm on the edge of my seat!

>> ^BicycleRepairMan:
I've always considered the phrase to be an ironic one, of course grammatically it doesn't make any sense, per say, but I consider it sorta like when you give a false compliment "Yeah that was REALLY smart of you, douchebag" meaning you didn't think it was smart at all. By saying "I could care less" you are actually saying you could NOT care less if you tried. Since English isn't my first language I can't really tell, but that's my 2 cents anyway.


Once again, grammar has nothing to do with comprehension. I could walk into a store and say with perfect grammar: "My pelican needs a hot bath beside the bulldozer." But I doubt anyone will understand what I mean. "I could care less" isn't bad grammar or nonsense.

Can you tell me how the Earth got here? Wut'n it obvious that at one time it was a lot emptier in the solar system? It wut'n a big bulldozer that we created and moved it here.

So it just drifted together here from stuff floating around in space? I suppose you think it orbits the sun too?

(assumes the laughter is in his favor)

(pats self on back for rendering the scientist speechless)

This also can turn deadly here in Pennsylvania. Not 5 miles from my house there was an old man who had a junky front yard. Old cars, washing machines, farm equipment etc. He really liked the stuff and was a bit off. Well the busy-bodies came down on him hard and eventually the county got involved and passed a law specifically for him. When he resisted, the county sent bulldozers and trucks over. He first chained himself to some of the junk, and when that didn't work he went inside his house and shot himself to death.

Thanks Radge,
That was very informative and gives an excellent description as to what is happening in this video.

In reply to this comment by radge:
See this report too:


http://ingaza.wordpress.com/2009/02/03/shooting-at-farmers-what-gives-israel-the-right/



I was fairly certain that one of us would be shot today.

This morning, farmers from Abassan Jadiida (New Abassan), to the east of Khan Younis , the southern region, returned to land they’d been forced off of during and following the war on Gaza. The continual shooting at them by Israeli soldiers while they work the land intensified post-war on Gaza. The Israeli soldiers’ shooting was not a new thing, but a resumption of the policy of harassment that Palestinians in the border areas have been enduring for years, a harassment extending to invasions in which agricultural land, chicken farms, and the houses in the region have been targeted, destroyed in many cases.

Today’s Abassan farmers wanted to harvest their parsley.

Ismail Abu Taima, whose land was being harvested, explained that over the course of the year he invests about $54,000 in planting, watering and maintenance of the monthly crops. From that investment, if all goes well and crops are harvested throughout the year, he can bring in about $10,000/month, meaning that he can pay off the investment and support the 15 families dependent on the harvest.

The work began shortly after 11 am, with the handful of farmers working swiftly, cutting swathes of tall parsley and bundling it as rapidly as it was cut. These bundles were then loaded onto a waiting donkey cart. The speed of the farmers was impressive, and one realized that were they able to work ‘normally’ as any farmer in unoccupied areas, they would be very productive. A lone donkey grazed in an area a little closer to the border fence. When asked if this was not dangerous for the donkey, the farmers replied that they had no other choice: with the borders closed, animal feed is starkly absent. The tragedy of having to worry about being shot once again struck me, as it did when harvesting olives or herding sheep with West Bank Palestinians who are routinely attacked by Israeli settlers and by the Israeli army as they try to work and live on their land.

After approximately 2 hours of harvesting, during which the sound of an F-16 overhead was accompanied by Israeli jeeps seen driving along the border area, with at least one stationed directly across from the area in question, Israeli soldiers began firing. At first the shots seemed like warning shots: sharp and intrusive cracks of gunfire. The men kept working, gathering parsley, bunching it, loading it, while the international human rights observers present spread out in a line, to ensure our visibility.

It would have been hard to miss or mistake us, with fluorescent yellow vests and visibly unarmed–our hands were in the air.

Via bullhorn, we re-iterated our presence to the soldiers, informing them we were all unarmed civilians, the farmers were rightfully working their land, the soldiers were being filmed by an Italian film crew. We also informed some of our embassies of the situation: “we are on Palestinian farmland and are being shot at by Israeli soldiers on the other side of the border fence.”

For a brief period the shots ceased. Then began anew, again seemingly warning shots, although this time visibly hitting dirt 15 and 20 m from us. Furthest to the south, I heard the whizz of bullets past my ear, though to estimate the proximity would be impossible.

As the cracks of gunfire rang more frequently and louder, the shots closer, those of the farmers who hadn’t already hit the ground did so, sprawling flat for cover. The international observers continued to stand, brightly visible, hands in the air, bullhorn repeating our message of unarmed presence. The shots continued, from the direction of 3 or 4 visible soldiers on a mound hundreds of metres from us. With my eyeglasses I could make out their shapes, uniforms, the jeep… Certainly with their military equipment they could make out our faces, empty hands, parsley-loaded cart…

There was no mistaking the situation or their intent: pure harassment.

As the farmers tried to leave with their donkey carts, the shots continued. The two carts were eventually able to make it away, down the ruddy lane, a lane eaten by tank and bulldozer tracks from the land invasion weeks before. Some of us accompanied the carts away, out of firing range, then returned. There were still farmers on the land and they needed to evacuate.

As we stood, again arms still raised, still empty-handed, still proclaiming thus, the Israeli soldiers’ shooting drew much nearer. Those whizzing rushes were more frequent and undeniably close to my head, our heads. The Italian film crew accompanying us did not stop filming, nor did some of us with video cameras.

We announced our intention to move away, the soldiers shot. We stood still, the soldiers shot. At one point I was certain one of the farmers would be killed, as he had hit the ground again but in his panic seemed to want to jump up and run. I urged him to stay flat, stay down, and with our urging he did. The idea was to move as a group, a mixture of the targeted Palestinian farmers and the brightly-noticeable international accompaniers. And so we did, but the shots continued, rapidly, hitting within metres of our feet, flying within metres of our heads.

I’m amazed no one was killed today, nor that limbs were not lost, maimed.

While we’d been on the land, Ismail Abu Taima had gone to one end, to collect valves from the broken irrigation piping. The pipes themselves had been destroyed by a pre-war on Gaza invasion. “The plants have not been watered since one week before the war,” he’d told us. He collected the parts, each valve valuable in a region whose borders are sealed and where replacement parts for everything one could need to replace are unattainable or grossly expensive.

He’d also told us of the chicks in the chicken farm who’d first been dying for want of chicken feed, and then been bulldozed when Israeli soldiers attacked the house and building they were in.

My embassy rang me up, after we’d managed to get away from the firing: “We’re told you are being shot at. Can you give us the precise location, and maybe a landmark, some notable building nearby.”

I told Heather about the half-demolished house to the south of where we had been, and that we were on Palestinian farmland. After some further questioning, it dawned on her that the shooting was coming from the Israeli side. “How do you know it is Israeli soldiers shooting at you?” she’d asked. I mentioned the 4 jeeps, the soldiers on the mound, the shots from the soldiers on the mound (I didn’t have time to go into past experiences with Israeli soldiers in this very area and a little further south, similar experience of farmers being fired upon while we accompanied them.).

Heather asked if the soldiers had stopped firing, to which I told her, ‘no, they kept firing when we attempted to move away, hands in the air. They fired as we stood still, hands in the air. “ She suggested these were ‘warning shots’ at which I pointed out that warning shots would generally be in the air or 10s of metres away. These were hitting and whizzing past within metres.

She had no further thoughts at time, but did call back minutes later with Jordie Elms, the Canadian attache in the Tel Aviv office, who informed us that “Israel has declared the 1 km area along the border to be a ‘closed military zone’.”

When I pointed out that Israel had no legal ability to do such, that this closure is arbitrary and illegal, and that the farmers being kept off of their land or the Palestinians whose homes have been demolished in tandem with this closure had no other options: they needed to work the land, live on it… Jordie had no thoughts. He did, however, add that humanitarian and aid workers need to “know the risk of being in a closed area”.

Meaning, apparently, that it is OK with Jordie that Israeli soldiers were firing on unarmed civilians, because Israeli authorities have arbitrarily declared an area out of their jurisdiction (because Israel is “not occupying Gaza” right?!) as a ‘closed area’.

Israel’s latest massacre of 1,400 Palestinians –most of whom were civilians –aside, Israel’s destruction of over 4,000 houses and 17,000 buildings aside, Israel’s cutting off and shutting down of the Gaza Strip since Hamas’ election aside, life is pretty wretched for the farmers and civilians in the areas flanking the border with Israel. Last week, the young man from Khan Younis who was shot while working on farmland in the “buffer zone” was actually on land near where we accompanied farmers today. Why do Israeli authorities think they have an uncontested right to allow/instruct their soldiers to shoot at Palestinian farmers trying to work their land?

If Israeli authorities recognized Palestinian farmers’ need to work the land, Palestinian civilians’ right to live in their homes, then they would not have arbitrarily imposed a 1 km ban on existence along the border, from north to south. What gives Israel the right to say that now the previously-imposed 300 m ban on valuable agricultural land next to the order extends to 1 full kilometre, and that this inherently gives Israel the right to have bulldozed 10s of houses in this “buffer zone” and ravaged the farmland with military bulldozers and tanks.

Furthermore, what gives Israel the right to assume these impositions are justifiable, and the right to shoot at farmers continuing to live in and work on their land (as if they had a choice. Recall the size of Gaza, the poverty levels?)?

Nothing does.

See this report too:


http://ingaza.wordpress.com/2009/02/03/shooting-at-farmers-what-gives-israel-the-right/



I was fairly certain that one of us would be shot today.

This morning, farmers from Abassan Jadiida (New Abassan), to the east of Khan Younis , the southern region, returned to land they’d been forced off of during and following the war on Gaza. The continual shooting at them by Israeli soldiers while they work the land intensified post-war on Gaza. The Israeli soldiers’ shooting was not a new thing, but a resumption of the policy of harassment that Palestinians in the border areas have been enduring for years, a harassment extending to invasions in which agricultural land, chicken farms, and the houses in the region have been targeted, destroyed in many cases.

Today’s Abassan farmers wanted to harvest their parsley.

Ismail Abu Taima, whose land was being harvested, explained that over the course of the year he invests about $54,000 in planting, watering and maintenance of the monthly crops. From that investment, if all goes well and crops are harvested throughout the year, he can bring in about $10,000/month, meaning that he can pay off the investment and support the 15 families dependent on the harvest.

The work began shortly after 11 am, with the handful of farmers working swiftly, cutting swathes of tall parsley and bundling it as rapidly as it was cut. These bundles were then loaded onto a waiting donkey cart. The speed of the farmers was impressive, and one realized that were they able to work ‘normally’ as any farmer in unoccupied areas, they would be very productive. A lone donkey grazed in an area a little closer to the border fence. When asked if this was not dangerous for the donkey, the farmers replied that they had no other choice: with the borders closed, animal feed is starkly absent. The tragedy of having to worry about being shot once again struck me, as it did when harvesting olives or herding sheep with West Bank Palestinians who are routinely attacked by Israeli settlers and by the Israeli army as they try to work and live on their land.

After approximately 2 hours of harvesting, during which the sound of an F-16 overhead was accompanied by Israeli jeeps seen driving along the border area, with at least one stationed directly across from the area in question, Israeli soldiers began firing. At first the shots seemed like warning shots: sharp and intrusive cracks of gunfire. The men kept working, gathering parsley, bunching it, loading it, while the international human rights observers present spread out in a line, to ensure our visibility.

It would have been hard to miss or mistake us, with fluorescent yellow vests and visibly unarmed–our hands were in the air.

Via bullhorn, we re-iterated our presence to the soldiers, informing them we were all unarmed civilians, the farmers were rightfully working their land, the soldiers were being filmed by an Italian film crew. We also informed some of our embassies of the situation: “we are on Palestinian farmland and are being shot at by Israeli soldiers on the other side of the border fence.”

For a brief period the shots ceased. Then began anew, again seemingly warning shots, although this time visibly hitting dirt 15 and 20 m from us. Furthest to the south, I heard the whizz of bullets past my ear, though to estimate the proximity would be impossible.

As the cracks of gunfire rang more frequently and louder, the shots closer, those of the farmers who hadn’t already hit the ground did so, sprawling flat for cover. The international observers continued to stand, brightly visible, hands in the air, bullhorn repeating our message of unarmed presence. The shots continued, from the direction of 3 or 4 visible soldiers on a mound hundreds of metres from us. With my eyeglasses I could make out their shapes, uniforms, the jeep… Certainly with their military equipment they could make out our faces, empty hands, parsley-loaded cart…

There was no mistaking the situation or their intent: pure harassment.

As the farmers tried to leave with their donkey carts, the shots continued. The two carts were eventually able to make it away, down the ruddy lane, a lane eaten by tank and bulldozer tracks from the land invasion weeks before. Some of us accompanied the carts away, out of firing range, then returned. There were still farmers on the land and they needed to evacuate.

As we stood, again arms still raised, still empty-handed, still proclaiming thus, the Israeli soldiers’ shooting drew much nearer. Those whizzing rushes were more frequent and undeniably close to my head, our heads. The Italian film crew accompanying us did not stop filming, nor did some of us with video cameras.

We announced our intention to move away, the soldiers shot. We stood still, the soldiers shot. At one point I was certain one of the farmers would be killed, as he had hit the ground again but in his panic seemed to want to jump up and run. I urged him to stay flat, stay down, and with our urging he did. The idea was to move as a group, a mixture of the targeted Palestinian farmers and the brightly-noticeable international accompaniers. And so we did, but the shots continued, rapidly, hitting within metres of our feet, flying within metres of our heads.

I’m amazed no one was killed today, nor that limbs were not lost, maimed.

While we’d been on the land, Ismail Abu Taima had gone to one end, to collect valves from the broken irrigation piping. The pipes themselves had been destroyed by a pre-war on Gaza invasion. “The plants have not been watered since one week before the war,” he’d told us. He collected the parts, each valve valuable in a region whose borders are sealed and where replacement parts for everything one could need to replace are unattainable or grossly expensive.

He’d also told us of the chicks in the chicken farm who’d first been dying for want of chicken feed, and then been bulldozed when Israeli soldiers attacked the house and building they were in.

My embassy rang me up, after we’d managed to get away from the firing: “We’re told you are being shot at. Can you give us the precise location, and maybe a landmark, some notable building nearby.”

I told Heather about the half-demolished house to the south of where we had been, and that we were on Palestinian farmland. After some further questioning, it dawned on her that the shooting was coming from the Israeli side. “How do you know it is Israeli soldiers shooting at you?” she’d asked. I mentioned the 4 jeeps, the soldiers on the mound, the shots from the soldiers on the mound (I didn’t have time to go into past experiences with Israeli soldiers in this very area and a little further south, similar experience of farmers being fired upon while we accompanied them.).

Heather asked if the soldiers had stopped firing, to which I told her, ‘no, they kept firing when we attempted to move away, hands in the air. They fired as we stood still, hands in the air. “ She suggested these were ‘warning shots’ at which I pointed out that warning shots would generally be in the air or 10s of metres away. These were hitting and whizzing past within metres.

She had no further thoughts at time, but did call back minutes later with Jordie Elms, the Canadian attache in the Tel Aviv office, who informed us that “Israel has declared the 1 km area along the border to be a ‘closed military zone’.”

When I pointed out that Israel had no legal ability to do such, that this closure is arbitrary and illegal, and that the farmers being kept off of their land or the Palestinians whose homes have been demolished in tandem with this closure had no other options: they needed to work the land, live on it… Jordie had no thoughts. He did, however, add that humanitarian and aid workers need to “know the risk of being in a closed area”.

Meaning, apparently, that it is OK with Jordie that Israeli soldiers were firing on unarmed civilians, because Israeli authorities have arbitrarily declared an area out of their jurisdiction (because Israel is “not occupying Gaza” right?!) as a ‘closed area’.

Israel’s latest massacre of 1,400 Palestinians –most of whom were civilians –aside, Israel’s destruction of over 4,000 houses and 17,000 buildings aside, Israel’s cutting off and shutting down of the Gaza Strip since Hamas’ election aside, life is pretty wretched for the farmers and civilians in the areas flanking the border with Israel. Last week, the young man from Khan Younis who was shot while working on farmland in the “buffer zone” was actually on land near where we accompanied farmers today. Why do Israeli authorities think they have an uncontested right to allow/instruct their soldiers to shoot at Palestinian farmers trying to work their land?

If Israeli authorities recognized Palestinian farmers’ need to work the land, Palestinian civilians’ right to live in their homes, then they would not have arbitrarily imposed a 1 km ban on existence along the border, from north to south. What gives Israel the right to say that now the previously-imposed 300 m ban on valuable agricultural land next to the order extends to 1 full kilometre, and that this inherently gives Israel the right to have bulldozed 10s of houses in this “buffer zone” and ravaged the farmland with military bulldozers and tanks.

Furthermore, what gives Israel the right to assume these impositions are justifiable, and the right to shoot at farmers continuing to live in and work on their land (as if they had a choice. Recall the size of Gaza, the poverty levels?)?

Nothing does.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
There's no spin. It's an accurate and fair assessment of the situation. There are more players in the game than just Israel and the Palestinians.

Oh blah blah blah, there is no point reading the rest of it.

You say the Arab world is supporting Palestinian efforts but don't acknowledge the large military and political help the Israelis receive from the US. Who they circumvent by attacking Palestinian areas anytime their big brother isn't looking. Note how vicious attacks got post 9/11 (under guise of fighting global terrorism not local oppression) and before transition of power in the US.

The Israels making concessions is a facade, the Road map to peace which I mentioned in my previous comments clearly was a progress to peace that Kadima's Sharon perused. The Palestinians at the time agreed to it, what happens next? Israel unilaterally imposes 'reservations' on the peace process and dismantles the no expansionary Israeli settlement clause in the articles. One of the key arguments Palestinians have with Israel.

Israeli demands and their concessions are out of balance, a 1% adjustment in Palestinian lands to Israelis remove all economic and political areas out of Palestinian lands. This is all while more lands in the West bank are criss crosses and ceded back into Israel with walls, towers and troops moving in to defend these new settlements from people whose homes just got bulldozed.

Israel doesn't want peace, all it wants is to keep the peace process in formaldehyde. The seeming appearance of perusing peace while it builds walls, sniper towers, blockades, and walls the Palestinians in further and further. That's why Palestinians and the rest of the Arab world do not really take their declarations of seeking peace seriously because it's always the same bullshit.

But you know I can see why you would think otherwise, Israel has AIPAC, WINEP, MEMRITV and a thousand other media apologists to fight the media perspective on how this conflict is read out in the rest of the world. I quote:

"Simultaneously, the Israeli media has been towing the government line to such a degree that no criticism of the war has been voiced on any of the three local television stations. Indeed, the situation has become so absurd that reporters and anchors are currently less critical of the war than the military spokespeople. In the absence of any critical analysis, it is not so surprising that 78% of Israelis, or about 98% of all Jewish Israelis, support the war."
http://www.counterpunch.org/gordon01162009.html

"The Immigrant Absorption Ministry announced on Sunday it was setting up an "army of bloggers," to be made up of Israelis who speak a second language, to represent Israel in "anti-Zionist blogs" in English, French, Spanish and German."
http://haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1056648.html

""We used to hold signs at protests reading 'The occupation will corrupt'," she told me. "Now, we can see that it has [come to pass]. As a society, we have lost our ability to see clearly; we have let fear blind us. Once, calling someone a racist was the harshest accusation you could make. Later, you began to hear people say 'I know I'm a racist, but...'; nowadays [during Cast Lead], we heard 'I know I'm talking like a Nazi, but at least the Nazis knew how to deal with their enemies'."" Yeah, yeah, yeah. I know, I know. But I don't like those analysis which refers to 1967 as the year when Israel "lost its soul"--whatever that means. It never had a soul to be begin with.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jan/21/gaza-protest

But most disturbing of all was the graffiti they daubed on the walls of the ground floor. Some was in Hebrew, but much was naively written in English: "Arabs need 2 die", "Die you all", "Make war not peace", "1 is down, 999,999 to go", and scrawled on an image of a gravestone the words: "Arabs 1948-2009".
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/20/gaza-israel-samouni-family

"Estimates for the proportion of civilian deaths among the 1,360 Palestinians killed range from more than half to two-thirds. Politicians, diplomats and journalists are by and large shying away from the obvious, namely that Israel has been deliberately targeting Palestinian civilians and the very infrastructure of normal life, in order to – in the best colonial style – teach the natives a lesson."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jan/20/gaza-israelandthepalestinians

Boy some of you are naive. Do you really think that if Isreal bulldozed its security measures and retreated like good little kids to whatever borders you THINK would satisfy the Palestinians that anything would change? You think the Palestinians would be good little boys and girls if the UN was there as a 'peacekeeping' force? Just as the Africans what they think of the UN as a 'peacekeeping' force. The things you think would bring peace would be a bloodbath of Khamir Rouge proportions.

I stick to my original thoughts on this matter. All Palestinians should be forcibly relocated to British or American territory because those countries 'took' thier land away. All Isrealis should be forcibly relocated to Sicily because it was Italy's fault the Jews lost thier land hundreds of years ago. Isreal, 'Palestine' and the surrounding area will be unpopulated and turned into a big international museum where no one is allowed to live.

>> ^Yehoshua:
Ok, so you added some good details to this unilateral plan for peace; the UN comes in and enforces it, the US and EU broker the agreements. At what point would Israel be justified in ending a peace in response to an attack?

This is a wrong way of looking at the situation as you are searching for some kind of allowance to when Israel can use it's military power in response to an attack when we are discussing a peace deal. Such terms can never be defined and have never formed any part of a peace deal. Cessation of terrorist activity yes but not a stipulation of when retaliation can occur. Its unrealistic.

I find it best to look at parallels in other conflicts and how the peace treaty was worked out, in Northern Ireland you had a concrete disengagement from both sides, an agreement to end hostilities, a firm declaration of no favored status from the UK which ultimately lead to peace. This is now the kind of situation we require in the Middle East peace process.

Previous peace engagements have failed due to forced concessionary actions by Israel towards Palestine. In the 2003 Road map for peace article 1 stipulated an end to settler expansions in the West Bank, this was refused by Sharon who claimed that settlements cannot stop in the West bank. Then we had numerous 'reservations' put in place by Israel towards the peace plan - http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=297230

One of which was a complete dismantlement of terrorist organizations before the implementation of the rest of the articles of the Road map to peace, something I always found an unrealistic expectation as its impossible to control the numerous groups that hold extremist views against Israel ranging from pure jihad against Jews to complete annihilation of the State of Israel. The Palestinian people do not have the refined policing force that could prevent and guarantee such action.

Furthermore it stipulated the complete need to disarm the Palestinian people, which is a completely unrealistic thing to ask towards a people that have been fighting a war against occupation. You cannot expect them to suddenly trust your 'word' that you will remain committed to the articles that relate Israeli concessions to Palestinian. All of which were laced with phrases like "Subject to security conditions, Israel will work to restore Palestinian life to normal: promote the economic situation, cultivation of commercial connections, encouragement and assistance for the activities of recognized humanitarian agencies."

This is not a peace process, this is forced concessions on the Palestinians. Bush left the region, the IDF entered Gaza and killed a Palestinian and the cycle of violence escalated again.

Suicide bombing or a rocket barrage, which has been accepted as a valid tactic by the vast majority of the Palestinian people.

Unfortunately the Palestinian people do not have the military assistance and help of the US to allow them to purchase F-16s, Apache attack helicopters, M-16s and other weapons. Israel launched countless rocket attacks over the areas designed to essentially assassinate leaders. What kind of impression does this create in the Palestinian people?

The Palestinians have, in my experience, more often had leadership interested in pursuing military action.

The Palestinians support these attacks because they exist under Israeli occupation, I find it fascinating that you do not look into the sheer conditions that Israel imposes on the Palestinian people which to me explain their armed resistance, from the separation wall, to check points, to arbitrary incursions, to open air prison, to blockades, to home bulldozing, to large scale bombings and destruction that we have witness over the last few weeks.

As I said again terrorist action is a symptom not a disease in Palestine, the Israelis gave no other option to many Palestinians who resist the occupational actions. To us this may seem like lunacy but then again we haven't lived most our lives under occupation.

I don't condone alot of their actions, I believe alot of it is counter productive, but am not living in those conditions and I cannot simply brush aside these attacks and claim that they are simply being stubborn, that they are all extremist or all are seeking martyrdom. Because we have seen such sacrifices and terrorist actions in previous conflicts.