Pacifists Gassed at West Bank Wall

Pacifists Gassed at West Bank Wall

Ramala, Palestine, Feb 23 (Prensa Latina) Hundreds of Palestinian and Israeli pacifists were repressed with teargas and rubber bullets by Tel Aviv police Friday during a demonstration against the construction of the West Bank wall.

The activists met in the area surrounding the fence in Bilin to commemorate the second anniversary of the protests against the building of that work to segregate the Palestinians.

During the demonstration, pacifist leader Uri Avnery declared the soldiers stationed there do not defend Israeli security and are only useful for the speculators still extending through Palestinian lands.

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert proposed on January 31 to extend the fence to 7.45 miles, five of them east of the so-called Green Line, to annex two Israeli territories with a population of about 1,500 inhabitants.

If the proposal is accomplished about 20,000 Palestinians will be trapped in Israel.

http://www.plenglish.com/article.asp?ID={E8D6E561-7981-4425-AB2E-6A9263BEB674})&language=EN

Very wrong and very sad.

The abuse and imbalance of power is destroying all that's good and decent in this world.

Here's another one:

http://www.plenglish.com/article.asp?ID={E8D6E561-7981-4425-AB2E-6A9263BEB674})&language=EN

On edit: it probably won't work either. Go here and manually click link. http://www.plenglish.com/Default.asp

and the wall is "for security" but 20,000 Palestinians are trapped on the Israel side... they wont have Israeli citizenship... and they wont have access to the West Bank....
But the wall is for ... security???

Not to annex land to Israel by creating facts on the ground???

mostly unreported by the mainstream press, naturally.

http://www.palsolidarity.org/main/

Water cannon fails to dampen spirits on Bil’in second anniversary demo
February 23rd, 2007 | Posted in Reports, Bil'in Village, Photos

by the ISM media team, February 23rd

Around 1500 demonstrators attended today’s second anniversary protest against the Apartheid Wall in Bil’in. Despite the peaceful nature of the protest the IOF used violent means to try to disperse the crowd, including firing sound bombs directly at protesters at close range. Several needed medical treatment for injuries incurred when the sound bombs exploded on them.

Before today’s march to the Wall protesters had a chance to view a photo exhibition of the two years of resistance in Bil’in as well as some of the props used in various creative actions. Bil’in villagers were joined by other Palestinians, including two Palestinian Legislative Council Thebmembers and Member of the Knesset Jamal Zahalka, as well as 200 Israeli activists and 50 internationals.

On reaching the gate in the Wall the villagers chanted resistance slogans and waved Palestinian flags. When some protesters climbed onto and walked along the gate soldiers tried to push them off. The restraint of the soldiers lasted longer than usual, perhaps due to the large media presence, but a few stones thrown at them was the trigger for them to use tear gas and sound grenades against all the protesters. Several were hit directly with the sound grenades . They then invaded through the gate and started firing rubber bullets at children throwing stones. Some activists went down the hill and started dismantling some razor wire.

of protests here in the u.s. from not that long ago.
See photos here....
http://www.palsolidarity.org/main/2007/02/23/bilin-23-02-07/



Then remember this:

So they can punish 20000 Palestinians for a mere 1500 settlers that have no right to be where they are.

" Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert proposed on January 31 to extend the fence to 7.45 miles, five of them east of the so-called Green Line, to annex two Israeli territories with a population of about 1,500 inhabitants.

If the proposal is accomplished about 20,000 Palestinians will be trapped in Israel."

peaceful means throwing rocks, peaceful means destroying property....


but a few stones thrown at them was the trigger ....... Some activists went down the hill and started dismantling some razor wire.


so what do we call redefinition of words?

..all the while ignoring the fact that the troops themselves are anything but peaceful...

'For the past two years, Bil'in residents and anti-fence activists have been holding demonstrations against the separation barrier in the Palestinian village, near Modi'in Illit. The fence cuts through the village, severing it from about half of its land.

The prosecution claimed Borant had attacked a soldier who asked him to move away. Defense attorney Gabi Lasky showed the court a video that convinced the judge that the charges were false and that the soldiers had used violence, not the demonstrators.'

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/824104.html

It would seem to me that anyone concerned with violence would actually be critical of the violence used by the IDF instead of merely ignoring it...

and i would like to really stick to not the just the actual article but the use of non violence...

so do you also believe that throwing "stones" and tearing down property can be properly defined as being "non violent?......

People were falsely accused of being violent when they weren't.

''For the past two years, Bil'in residents and anti-fence activists have been holding demonstrations against the separation barrier in the Palestinian village, near Modi'in Illit. The fence cuts through the village, severing it from about half of its land.

The prosecution claimed Borant had attacked a soldier who asked him to move away. Defense attorney Gabi Lasky showed the court a video that convinced the judge that the charges were false and that the soldiers had used violence, not the demonstrators.'

But let's talk about violence and how it's defined. Attacking people with tear gas etc isn't exactly non violent, though I'm sure you'll have a myriad of reasons to justify that violence...

cutting a fence that is destroying people's lives is a violent act???

i was refering to the article itself.....

it was clear that "non violent" protesters first started throwing stones...

so the question is still unanswered isnt it?

seems there is a problem here with defining "non violence" protests...perhaps you can clarify that for me?

tough question i guess:

so do you also believe that throwing "stones" and tearing down property can be properly defined as being "non violent?.....

or not. When it is illegal, it should not be rebuilt.
Israel has destroyed homes, tens of thousands of homes, and yet you excuse that.

This wall will destroy lives... and you consider its partial destruction a violent act???
No Israelis were hurt when this fence was cut. Not one. Not even an Israeli kitten was harmed. Not even an Israeli snail.
So no, that is not violence.

When firemen come to a scene of a car accident, sometimes they must cut into the car to free an injured passenger. It causes damage to the car. It is not violence.

For the people of Bil'in to survive, this wall must be torn down... they must have access to their crops.

build the wall in your house if you want it so much.

which if you were out there (as i believe you were) know very well that they are sharp pointed rocks.......some slung with slingshots

you seemed to have "forgotten" that part of the question.

why is it so difficult to get an answer here?....i'm amazed at the ability to "not answer"...the question now is, how soon will this thread die out?

One is because you tend to ignore many questions you get asked, and two is because there's been a few times where I have answered yr questions in good faith, only to find a few weeks down the track that my words are being twisted and thrown at me to try to make out I hold positions I don't. So as far as I'm concerned you can sit there and complain in every post you do that you don't get an answer, coz I've been very clear about why I'm not obligated to answer questions that imo aren't asked in good faith...

because they make show how complex the situation is......as in if the helicopter pilot does not fire a missle to stop the kassam....Your preference....the consequence of that in action is clear as the missle flies into an israeli community (or desert)


usually, as in this case you avoid answering...for instance you written several posts now skiriting the simple question:

if throwing "stones" can be considered a "non violent act"....its kind of a yes or no kind of question

as far as me "not answering"....sorry, cant really agree with you.....i'll be happy to get back to the tear gas question or any other question you may have as soon as we get a definition of "non violent.


ask..if you want make whole list and i"ll answer one by one....

And seeing I know better than you what I'm thinking, at least pay me the courtesy of taking some notice of what I'm saying about how I used to answer yr questions and why I now don't...

... you would start out and then when the questions got a bit complex and i would get into the consequences for the actions or inactions the thread would die

its very typical of this forum...the inability to discuss consequences and various options and potential scenarios

(not to mention redefinition of words.)

I've told you very clearly why I don't waste my time answering yr 'questions' after being subject to having answers I've given in good faith used to try to make out I hold positions I don't. And of course I can provide links to where this has happened, though I'm sure you'll ignore that and claim you know better than I what I'm thinking.

btw, I also don't waste my time answering questions put to me by telemarketers, though I'm now sure they probably sit there after the call ended, going: 'Got her!! My questions are sooo complex and trooth-inspiring that she hung up on me!!'

avoided the simple question......

Seriously, after you've been told why I'm not going to answer yr barrage of questions anymore, what is the point of totally ignoring what I said and continuing?

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

You try to blur the issue with another issue when your argument doesn't hold up. You try to bring other things into the mix that are nothing more than Israel's justifications and often have nothing to do with the issue.

Keep telling yourself it's too complicated for us to grasp. It's only complicated because you need it to be in order to defend your position.

tom was willing to:

the demonstrations are not "non violent"....they include violence by the palestinians as tom was gracious enough to explain....thats all i was looking for: no smoke no mirrors just some honesty...

A few months ago I was discussing the conflict with an aquaintance who was truly misinformed about the history of Zionism/Israel, (actually I'm pretty sure she just didn't know anything much about it except for her strongly held opinion, yet for some reason she felt more comfortable taking random guesses as to the history rather than admit she was sketchy on the details.) Anyway, I was trying to explain an aspect of the situation meaningfully without needing to explain the 20 other things its tied up with and began struggling to keep the thread when details began piling up. So I smiled and offered by way of explanation, "It's pretty complicated," to which she replied, her voice thick with disgust, "That is SUCH an unbelievable cop-out. Give me a break!"

I honestly feel like anyone who knows for certain that they've got this conflict locked down, that they understand what's really going on, why it is happening, who is doing it and what is at stake, then you shouldn't even waste your time asking them anything because they're not only truly, perfectly clueless but they are also, without doubt, a total douchebag.

was an act of "violence". It seems downright preposterous to say that.

Yes, the throwing of the rocks by these kids is not pacifistic, but first, that is discouraged by the protest organizers, and secondly, it is not as violent as the Hebron settlers, who throw rocks at unarmed, unprotected, children, old people, internationals (hebron settlers never have to face rubber bullets...or arrest and conviction, or anything more than a pat on the back).... these Palestinian kids are throwing rocks at suited occupation army, that represents a much greater violence... these soldiers are part of the system that is destroying their village. You don't think people have a right to self-defense?

You expect flowers?

they throw rocks and they are not pacifistic...that is their right.

so lets not call the demonstrations "non violent" thats all
(destroying property that is not you own, throwing rocks are not usually considered non violence acts)

can we agree upon that?

The violence of the Wall, and the theft of land and real threat it poses, is an "existential threat" to the existence of the village.

These people who are working to remove that threat, the annexation wall, are taking back what is theirs.

just looking for an honest answer that describes the protestors...

"Yes, the throwing of the rocks by these kids is not pacifistic

these Palestinian kids are throwing rocks at suited occupation army,"

call it what it is: they are not pacifistic

so I can assume that when someone calls these protests "non violent" we can expect to hear your comment, that that kids are not pacifistic and do throw rocks?

it cannot expect flowers. That a few, of the hundreds there, only threw stones, shows a remarkable degree of restraint.

If the IDF troops want flowers... they should stay home with their spouses.

i did not ask for the reasons...just the description that both you and i know.....nothing more than that

toook a very looooooong time didnt it?

Why do you insist on complete pacifism?

many of the demonstrators are not pacifists as both you and i know ......and throwing rocks, which is a constant, is not a definition of a "non violent peaceful protest.


hence the demonstration should not be defined a "non violent".... (as in Dr Kings marches...those define what non violent demonstration is all about)


that has been my only point throughout this thread

So, what do you do? Just pretend that the parts of the discussion which fall outside the scope of your rebuttal never existed? Do you really not see them via some kind of mental block that takes over?

It wouldn't be a big deal if you weren't going on about how even the kittens and snails continue to rove around the wall unscathed as though pelsar only talked about that, and not... you know, the other acts. The violent ones.

Firemen... Injured passenger...?

:shrug:

For the people of Bil'in to survive, this wall must be torn down... they must have access to their crops.

Mmmmm, this is a good one. How'd you like to make a wager on this one? I'd wager that in the event the wall is left standing where it is the people of Bil'in, despite restricted access to their crops, will not actually perish. I'm even willing to give you 5 to 1 odds. Whaddaya say? Are you game? How much time do you figure the wall has to stay up before they all succumb? A year? Two years? I don't want the bet to drag on for too long before payday.

This is contemptible. Totally within my expectations of the behavior of some here, but contemptible.

the results of this wall are that people will be forced to relocate.

Like at horse races? Dog fights?

I enjoy gambling. There is an element of chance that makes it exciting, most people find it at least a little thrilling.

But then we aren't really talking about gambling here. We're talking about me. You're metaphorically unveiling my true nature to all of DU, who for the first time, may see my cruel, unvarnished form. A conscious-less man who is accustomed to viewing people's (and I guess also dogs' and horses') suffering as mere entertainment, an indulgence I allow myself, whereby I coldly pray for their fate to twist in a direction that puts a few more coins in my pocket. The money, of course, means little to me, scarcely more than the valueless humanity itself that serve as playing cards in my odious games of chance. No, I don't do it for the money. I do it for the thrill! For the tiny twinge I occasionally feel deep in my ossified breast that reminds me, ever so murkily visible through endless layers of callous indifference I have spent a lifetime cultivating, of what it might be like to feel something, anything just one last time. But then, in a flicker, it's gone so completely, so permanently, that I'm certain it never existed in the first place.

Either that or it was just implying how I find your hysterical predictions to lessen and demean the actual hardships that these people face. That theatrics don't add gravity to a situation as much as they delegitimize it.

Or whatever you manage to take away from it. The "ossified breast" thing is cool too if you prefer it.

It was proven in court that the accusations by the IDF about those so-called violent demonstrators was false, and that it was the troops themselves who were violent....

So unless you can provide something from an independent and impartial source to prove the protesters were violent, I've got to keep on wondering why yr concern with violence doesn't extend to being concerned when the IDF is violent...

http://www.palsolidarity.org/main/2007/02/23/bilin-23-02-07/

well they're not really impartial....so you disagree with them?

and the court case had nothing to do with my question..its pretty simple actually:

do you define throwing stones as being non violent...breakaleg at least has said yes...what about you?

And the court case has everything to do with things when yr claiming that protests are violent when there's proof that the IDF has lied in the past about protesters...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=167804&mesg_id=167974

reply no 40

hes been there......is his opinion good enough? (though hes not impartial)

But first, I think anyone truly concerned about violence would be critical of ANY unnecessary violence, whether it came from the IDF, Palestinians, settlers or protesters. Nothing I have read from pelsar indicates that he is at all unconcerned with needless violence no matter what camp it comes from. On the contrary, he has always spoken out against any group or individual who wantonly causes bloodshed. He's probably posted more than anyone else here about the murky ethics and difficulty of weighing when violence may be truly necessary.

About the article... I spent a while clicking around reading this story on different sites and checking out other stories on the original site posted. It's pretty clear that these protesters were not pacifists and didn't go there to just protest peacefully or even engage in non-violent direct action but to provoke the soldiers into engaging them, creating a fiasco for the cameras. But what's scarier to me is the way this article portrays the events, they are so innaccurate as to basically just be lying. And considering that this story is being covered by so many legit news sites, why did the DU poster specifically choose to link to the Cuban news site unless it was because their fake, anti-Israel news was preferable to real, unbiased news? And why do so many of you seem so unfazed by the gross innaccuracy of the clip that you are actually defending it?

What's really telling here though is the reaction of some DU'ersto the revelation that this was not a peaceful protest. What I am basically hearing are attempts to minimize the violence or sidestep it by showing examples of IDF perpetrated violence instead of really discussing it or condemning it. It is the clearest example of double standards that I have ever seen here at DU. I'm actually a little shocked. For all of your accusations against others of defending Israel no matter what, it looks like you might be guilty yourselves of that exact practice, only against Israel. It clearly doesn't matter to some of you what happens in any given situation, does it? An action taken by an Israeli may be deemed a racist war crime yet the very same action taken against Israel is seen as inconsequential or even acceptable.

Settlers who throw rocks at Palestinians are described as the equivalent of terrorists. (And I happen to agree that militant settlers are vicious monsters.) But then when protesters attack soldiers with rocks launched from slingshots their actions are excused and defended. Let's be clear here, these soldiers were not engaged in any aggressive actions, they were not storming a village or destroying a house or doing anything that required defending against. In fact, they were responding cooly to attempts to engage them until they were actually attacked. And they WERE attacked.

If you doubt this or think that they responded with excessive force I suggest you try an experiment. I think there's a pro-Palestine rally soon in New York. NYC cops can be gruff and quick-to-anger but they are a far cry from being stormtroopers or shock troops; they're a good group to try this test on. It's an easy test, if you want to try it I'll come with you to record the results and attempt to bail you out later. Look for a group of 4 or 5 standing together, walk a half block away and start throwing shit at them. (I don't recommend using a slingshot.) Now, the test is not to see whether they beat the crap out of you or not. (They will.) It's to see what you get charged with and whether the rally is described as "Peaceful" later on the 6 o'clock news.

And that's *unnecessary* violence. And from yr history of posts here in this forum, it's easy to see that when the violence comes from the IDF, it's deemed to be necessary violence...

Nothing I have read from pelsar indicates that he is at all unconcerned with needless violence no matter what camp it comes from. On the contrary, he has always spoken out against any group or individual who wantonly causes bloodshed.

Okay, show me links to all these posts you say exist that are speaking out against the violence of the IDF...


About the article... I spent a while clicking around reading this story on different sites and checking out other stories on the original site posted. It's pretty clear that these protesters were not pacifists and didn't go there to just protest peacefully or even engage in non-violent direct action but to provoke the soldiers into engaging them, creating a fiasco for the cameras. But what's scarier to me is the way this article portrays the events, they are so innaccurate as to basically just be lying.

Ah, so even if a protest was a totally non-violent one, any violence from the soldiers would be written off as claiming the soldiers were provoked. Great. That's the same sort of argument that men who beat their partners and rapists use to justify their own actions...

And considering that this story is being covered by so many legit news sites, why did the DU poster specifically choose to link to the Cuban news site unless it was because their fake, anti-Israel news was preferable to real, unbiased news? And why do so many of you seem so unfazed by the gross innaccuracy of the clip that you are actually defending it?

I'm a bit curious as to how you managed to read the article seeing as how the link didn't work for me, even when I copied and pasted the entire thing including the ampersand that was causing problems into another browser. Have you got a working link for me to use? Also, I notice you totally ignore that I posted a very credible article from Ha'aretz which proves that the soldiers do lie about protesters being violent in order to justify their own violence. No surprises there :)

Do you have anything of substance to provide when it comes to yr claims that the source isn't a credible one? Apart from it being Cuban, that is?


I'm actually a little shocked. For all of your accusations against others of defending Israel no matter what, it looks like you might be guilty yourselves of that exact practice, only against Israel.

Go back. Read the post yr replying to and explain to me how you came to that conclusion.


Settlers who throw rocks at Palestinians are described as the equivalent of terrorists. (And I happen to agree that militant settlers are vicious monsters.) But then when protesters attack soldiers with rocks launched from slingshots their actions are excused and defended. Let's be clear here, these soldiers were not engaged in any aggressive actions, they were not storming a village or destroying a house or doing anything that required defending against. In fact, they were responding cooly to attempts to engage them until they were actually attacked. And they WERE attacked.

Y'know, there's something abhorrent about settlers throwing rocks at civilians whether they be adults or children. The same would go if it were Israeli civilians. But somehow yr stirring defence of those poor defenseless IDF troops just leaves a fair bit to be desired when it comes to realism. They're armed, and as the article I posted shows, are guilty of unprovoked violence...

If you doubt this or think that they responded with excessive force I suggest you try an experiment. I think there's a pro-Palestine rally soon in New York. NYC cops can be gruff and quick-to-anger but they are a far cry from being stormtroopers or shock troops; they're a good group to try this test on. It's an easy test, if you want to try it I'll come with you to record the results and attempt to bail you out later...

Whoo hoo! I'll be there as long as you pay the airfare!!!

they are in the wrong business. I would hardly classify "a few stones" in what news reports was a peaceful protest, to classify as "violence".

But as a member of the IDF yourself, if you are telling me it is, then I guess your standards must be quite low. Thanks for that info.

btw if you stand in a park in your city and throw a "few stones" a people...i understand that will be confused when the police come and arrest you.....after all its just a few stones which is quite peaceful....

probably as peaceful as the teargas...after all what does it do, but make one cry....i guess that solider who lost an eye was probably just "kidding around"..after all whats a few stones...


at least you've actually come forth and redefined "throwing stones" (like so many other redefinitions that are exclusive to this forum)...btw via my experience they dont really throw "stones"....who knows maybe tom, might join in an actually explain what is actually thrown....

probably as peaceful as the teargas...after all what does it do, but make one cry

Here's what it does:

NILDA ESCOBAR AGUILAR - KILLED, OCTOBER 16, 2001

SPECIFIC CASE: Nilda Escobar Aguilar (38 years old) was hit by a tear canister, which became imbedded in her forehead, suggesting that security officers fired at extremely close range. She died at the health center soon after.

Autopsy Report Conclusions: “An impact in the encephalic mass of 9 to 10 cm with brain tissue bursting out of that region (incrustation of the tear gas canister

http://www.wola.org/andes/Bolivia/bolivia_us_funded_counternarcotics_units.htm

A tear-gas weapon presents several dangers to the eye. The eye ma! be damaged by the shock force generated by the propellant charge for the chemical agent. It should be recalled that two enucleated specimens had obvious deformities of the angle from contusion. In addition, the burning residues of gunpowder or primer may strike the eye, inflicting a burn. Another source of damage consists of the fragements of wadding from the tear-gas pens. Metallic fragments from certain tear-gas munitions such as grenades may also cause injuries. Upon striking the cave, these fragments may be particularly destructive because they are often saturated with the chemical agent. Experimental studies. have revealed the remarkable penetrating capacity of the wads from a conventional tear-gas pen, and it was felt that a contusive injury above the afflicted eye represented the site of impact of the wading. A granulomatos endophthalmitis caused by retained foreign bodies was present in case 4, but the exact nature of the material could not be determined.

http://www.zarc.com/english/tear_gases/opthalmologyeyeinjury.html

Six patients hospitalized by eye injuries caused by tear-gas hand weapons are presented. Five of the lesions resulted from a short-distance shot of aerosol irritant projectors. Severe swelling and bloodshot of the lids and conjunctiva occurred in all cases. Epithelial defects, swelling and blurring of the parenchym were observed in the cornea. The treatment of each case took weeks, even months. Such an injury can because of scars in the cornea permanently lower the visual acuity.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?itool=abstractplus&db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=abstractplus&list_uids=1108587

its probably as peaceful as "throwing stones"......

These people weren't standing in a park. They were standing along a wall in Palestinian territory, during a demonstration against their occupying power, against the ILLEGAL wall with which their occupying power is stealing their land. See the difference? Have you forgotten the raging conflict? Do the occupied not have a right to protest against the invading power? They do. They had every right to be there.

It's one thing to point out when Palestinians try to harm innocent Israeli civilians. This falls under the category of rightful resistance I'm afraid.

I haven't redefined anything and this is the second time I've pointed that out. Putting words in my mouth, deliberately misrepresenting what I'm saying after I've explained it to you, won't work. This is the reason why I usually ignore your posts.

eventually if you keep having a discussion with me, your probably going to end up saying two things:

that you condone violence in this conflict

that when it comes down to it, you prefer that in the "pecking order" you put palestinians above israelisl


i have no problem with that....i have a problem with the dishonesty that goes on here, pretending that "there is no pecking order, of preference of who lives and who dies...(though you did say the "settlers get what they deserve....)

i've been told that 'i put words in peoples mouths here"...well it maybe but that is because at one point, right when the discussions are getting down to some real interesting decisions...you'all quit.

if you want to define throwing rocks is acceptable and that you define that as "peaceful"..thats fine with me, but i think you should just come out with it and say it.

but why bother calling them "peaceful" demonstrations, they arent....no need to redefine the word....stand behind what you believe: violent demonstrations are their right....(see how easy that is to write down.)


i dont understand these word games....just say it in plain english

If you want a discussion to go in a certain way, then open up a thread about what it is you'd like to discuss. Instead of directing every thread off topic. Then perhaps you'd find someone willing to engage with you.

Again, stop telling me what I think. Especially after I've corrected you on your inaccuracies.

and then described the palestininans as the ones who started to throw stones....

anyway i believe in a round a bout way you've made it clear that its they're right to throw stones, and i actually agree it is their right.

i just disagree in calling that a "peaceful" protest.

so why dont you just say "what you think"...in simple english so i dont have to guess..here:


do you believe protests that involve throwing stones (actually tom and i agree that they are actually rocks) can be described as "peaceful"?

simple straightforward question..no smoke and mirrors

(this is directed at the original topic....always has been)

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

"protest into something more dramatic and violent for the benefit of getting more media attention."

How would you know this? Perhaps it was a symbolic gesture - them trying to take down the wall they were protesting against? As you said, they were never going to actually take it down.

And then you went on to accuse them of being "smugly sanctimonious or hypocritical" on no basis. Protesting is a perfectly legitimate way to make yourself and your cause heard to the occupying power. It should be commended, not ridiculed.

and the incredible violence it represents. It is not to cause violence, it is to stop the violence of the confiscation of Palestinian land.

to the simple question:

can "throwing stones and destroying property be considered non violent? This being the description of last fridays protest at bi'illin
__________

Tom has written that the kids are not pacifistic (though they are discouraged) and do throw rocks

Pelsar agrees

seems both of use have some experience out there in the westbank (though i've never been to bi'ilin)
_________________________________

the other posters seem to have trouble answering the question directly as simple as it is.......

in my pursuit of nothing more than a simple answer, i have tried to decifer the various answers, after which i am told i dont understand, cant read minds etc. This is all true, and i admit, i also have a hard time understanding what is the problem with answering such a simple question.

but i guess if i were to put forth a more complicated question such as why such a simple question cant be answered, i would only get more evasive answers.....

that the IDF regularly lies about protectors being violent. The court case VC mentioned is only ONE example.

my question was to the posters of this forum.

it seems to crop up regulary that there are "massive non violent protests by the palestinians....and its never refuted....

Now i've never seen nor heard of one (outside of when ghandi was here), so i was wondering if my definition of non violent is some how different from the other posters here....hence my question;

seems tom agrees that the palestinians are not pacifist...so i understand that he too agrees that the protests are not "non violent" (though he does express some reservations about those who do throw the rocks)

i guess you do to

i also agree that throwing rocks (as tom and i describe them) is rather violent.

the others didnt answer the simple question when i asked what they thought....though i dont know why.

_______

i just thought it would be nice that next time someone puts up the "massive non violent protests" that all the posters who know that they dont exist would one after the other refute the obviously false alligation and hence commence a forum culture where obviously false information is immediatly debunked by those who know better, irreguardless of which side of the line they are.

Why do you use quotes? Who are you quoting?