An Israeli Response to a Peaceful Protest by ISM

| Israeli soldiers and Border Police attacked over 300 Palestinians and 30 internationals at the “separation fence” in the Tulkarem region today, throwing teargas, percussion grenades and beating the nonviolent protesters with batons. One American, Bruce Groeneveld from Washington, has been forcefully detained and remains in custody of the Israeli Army.

At 11:30am on Thursday, November 13, Palestinians from Tulkarem and surrounding villages together with International Solidarity Movement and the International Women’s Peace Team marched towards a gate in the wall outside of the village of Baka Sharqia, waving Palestinian flags and chanting “The Wall Must Fall.”

Members of the Swedish Parliament were also present. Within minutes of starting the peaceful march, Israeli Forces fired percussion grenades and teargas into the crowd. Due to the Israeli Army’s violent response, the demonstrators dispersed and regrouped several times in order to continue the nonviolent protest, each time sustaining more injuries. Israeli soldiers attempted to arrest one Jewish-American volunteer over five times, but were unsuccessful.

cut

http://www.unobserver.com/index.php?pagina=layout5.php&id=1175&blz=1

=============================

If these people were making movement toward an area forbidden to them, they can be thankful they were not shot.

What do you mean by that, Herschel? Do you mean that they could have been justifiably shot? Or due you mean that they should be thankful that these miliants didn't kill them, because their policies are aggressive? Please explain, because it's sounds, well, hateful and I would like to give you the opportunity to clear that up for yourself.

Hundreds charged an area strictly forbidden to them. None are dead. Be glad, and thankful to the IDF.

I don't understand how you can be so shallow about it. It is written in the American Constitution that every human being has an inalienable right to protest, among other things. These rights are natural rights and to deny these rights is, in essence, to treat human beings as animals. They shall be violated UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES by goverment. Get it?

Protest marches must have permits to assmble, and some areas are off limits, especially military areas. Many protests were disrupted by police, so don't think AMERICA is any different. Remember Kent State, Chicago 1968 Democtratic convention, and many others that turned violent. Remember that there are laws in the US also governing the right to protest. Do you consider this inalienable right that you think the American constitution granted now the constiution of the world that you apparently think America owns?

On the constitution: that's what it says, and I believe it in it's Jeffersonian interpretation, and it's true. Right? It's good not to treat people like animals Gimel, right?

And forcing assemblers and protesters to register, and thereby gain the inherent right to deny them because of a lack of government permit, is unconstitutional. I know the judiciary probably doesn't agree, but their an oligarchy anyway.

On me and my views: Um I'm not even a capitalist. And I am a contributer to an international socialist organization, the ICFI (look it up). So maybe it's time for a little self-reflection on that latter comment on American ownership, why did you turn to categorical insult when I made a legitimate point?

In a time of war and see how far you get. Peaceful protest is great. More power to them. But marching on a forbidden area is a good way to get hurt.

Just curious, but do you think it's understandable and justifiable if the IDF had opened fire with live ammo on non-violent protesters in this case?

Violet...

They broke up the large protest in a security zone without having to resort to stronger means. How are the soldiers to know what are peaceful protests and what are sham protests to hide potential threats?

I asked you if *you* would think it was justifiable and understandable if they'd opened fire with live ammo on these non-violent protesters....

Violet...

But impossible to tell from the information here. Clearly, they entered a security zone. Depending on what they were carrying, how they were acting, what else was going on around them, there would have been cause or not. It appears no in this case, though I would hate to have to bet my life on that or the lives of my family.

This is why protests in secure areas need to be broken up fast. They DO pose a threat to the soldiers and those they protect. The longer the protest goes on, the more likelihood it will serve as cover for something else.

But isn't it yr opinion that the West Bank and Gaza Strips are 'secure areas'? If that's the case, you seem to be a bit contradictory when you say you support non-violent protest against the occupation, because if you think they're 'secure areas', then you've just said that protests need to be broken up fast. And if any areas within a certain distance of that wall that's going deep into Palestinian territory is a 'secure area', then the IDF could violently attack anyone approaching the wall on the basis that they're not quite sure whether they're a threat or not. If I was a parent of a child that has to now get to a school that's on the other side of that wall from their homes, I'd be just a tad worried...

Violet...

Again, you misstate my opinion.

West Bank and Gaza are tantamount to war zones and require caution for those who are there on both sides.

Areas around the wall are like a military base and are off limits to all except those who need to be there.

I asked you IF it was yr opinion...

Areas around the wall are NOT like a military base. If you think it is, please tell me exactly what distance from the wall is deemed to be not off-limits? A kilometre? Two? A few metres, perhaps? And how close to the wall did the non-violent protesters get? The article says they'd only begun to march before they were attacked...

Violet...

I have seen pictures of the wall that have posted boundaries around it. THOSE are the boundaries. To cross it means to enter into a secure area and put yourself open to arrest or more.

The protesters were not "attacked." They were stopped. Such a large protest entering into a secure area could easily jeopardize those soldiers guarding the site, as well as those they guard. Do you honestly believe no terrorists would take advantage of such a distraction?

Aren't deadlines related to time and not distance? Also, you claimed that I misstated yr opinion in that earlier post. Can you point out how I did that?

Okay, how do you know whether there was even a boundary in place at this particular section of the wall, or know that the protesters were within this section? Some sections I've seen have a secondary series of wire-like fencing not very far from the actual wall, and others have nothing, which is why there's plenty of pictures of grafitti and some of people spraying grafitti on the wall. Are you trying to say that grafitti is an attack, while beating people and lobbing tear-gas at the isnt? In yr opinion, are peace activists who spray grafitti on the wall opening themselves to arrest OR MORE?

Yes, the protesters were stopped, but they were stopped by being attacked. If they'd been rioting or acting violently, you'd have a point, but they weren't, and this is a case of a non-violent protest being met with violence. Gotta wonder how beaten up Ghandi would have been if he'd been trying to indulge in non-violent resistance against the IDF....

Terrorists? What would a terrorist have taken advantage of a possible distraction to do, Muddle? Daub some graffiti on the wall? If yr talking about suicide bombers trying to get into Israel, I assume even they have the level of intelligence needed to try to cross into Israel somewhere where there is no wall. Of course, if you have examples of terrorists using protesters as a distraction, let me know about them, and we'll go from there...

Violet...

Has meant that a deadline is a line that youc can't cross or you are killed. As for misstating my opinion, it's pretty safe to say that any time you infer what I am saying and regurgitate it, you run that risk.

It is my understanding that there is a boundary around the entire wall. I believe some terrorists found out about this recently while they were sneaking in past that boundary. I am trying to say that a boundary into a security zone is such that none should violate it or they risk being shot.

Hmmm, if Gandhi had been staging a protest that others would have used to attack soldiers or sneak past and kill women and children, I even wonder how GANDHI would have felt.

That any time I ASK you yr opinion, I run the risk of you complaining that I'm mistating yr opinion? Can you tell the difference between someone ASKING a question and someone telling you what yr opinion is? My post fell into the first category, y'know...

Well, well. Learn something new every day. I went and visited dictionary.com and the definition in the American Heritage Dictionary included this secondary one: 'A boundary line in a prison that prisoners can cross only at the risk of being shot.' Since when has the West Bank been a prison, and the Palestinians prisoners?

Yr understanding is wrong. Do you think I'm lying about those pics of grafitti on the wall and people leaning against parts of it?

Uh, others did use organisations set up by Ghandi for violent purposes. Does that mean the British would have been justified in shooting anyone following Ghandi's campaign of civil disobedience, passive resistance and positive action? Besides, where's yr proof that terrorists were using this particular protest? You didn't answer my question about what purpose a terrorist would have in slip-streaming along with a non-violent protest....

Here's a question for you. Do you think it's justifiable for the IDF to attack non-violent protesters on the off-chance that a terrorist MAY be lurking amongst them?

Violet...

See above.

Like I said, a line you can't cross. In the references I've seen it wasn't just for prisoners. Perhaps it came into more use afterward as a security term.

Large protests that enter into secure areas can distract the people who are there to guard and such actions -- thanks to the danger of the Palestinian terrorists -- can have deadly consequences for the soldiers or the civilians they are protecting.

The IDF, much like any force protecting something, has the right to keep others out of a secure area. If you try to enter a military base in the U.S. in times like these, you will find quickly that they will not tolerate it. If you get a large group and try to invade the base, they will use crowd control on you.

I don't understand.

or don't want to.

If it was logical, I'd understand it.

If the IDF don't know if the protests are potentially dangerous, then they would be justified in killing? Would that go even with no proof of potential danger? Lovely.

just violence

The IDF is made up of Israeli citizens. I think you had better tone down your rhetoric.

are part of the problem...

And now you don't remember the evens of the past three years. Let me give you the statistics.

http://www.ict.org.il/casualties_project/stats_page.cfm

Here, a threat!?!? In the great halls of (internet) debate, you threaten. Like I said, you're pretty funny Gimel.

Did that sound threatening to you? No. I'm not going to punch you out, or call in the brigades. I think you're a little off the wall, and I wasn't even addressing you.

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

There was no or else in that statement. He was obviously offended and he was saying that someone should tone down their rhetoric. I don't see any rule that violates.

the IDF and Sharon are major sponsors of terror

Arafat is just a liiiiittle pussy cat, right?

Which is what you seem to be attempting to do here, is that it's hypocritical to condemn groups like Hamas for making no distinction between military and civilian targets while turning around and blurring the lines between the military and civilians so that any criticism of the IDF is attempted to be painted as a criticism of Israeli citizens and that attacks on military targets are terrorism. It's very similar to the blurring of the lines that's used by people who'd support attacks by Hamas on Israeli civilians, and in both cases I think it's very wrong and in most cases a very cynical attempt to paint their 'side' as the Good Guys and the other as the Bad Guys....

Of course the IDF is made up of Israeli citizens. Well, duh. The occupation forces in Iraq is mainly made up of US citizens. Criticising the IDF or US forces for their violence is in no way making that accusation against Israeli or US citizens that aren't participating in the occupations as part of the military, and in most cases not a criticism of the individual troops, who are in both cases operating at the behest of hard-line right-wing governments, who deserve the criticism that's sent their way...

Violet...

They shut down a protest and no one was seriously hurt. Not violent, just effective.

Sorry, but that's definately a violent response, especially to a non-violent protest. It's the sort of reaction to protests that I've seen happen when there's riots or non-violent protests in countries that aren't democratic and/or are undergoing serious internal upheaval...

I remember someone posting in an earlier thread a long while back that spraying graffiti on the wall is an act of violence. Do you agree with that? If you do, I'd be interested to know how spraying paint on an inanimate object is violence while beating people and lobbing teargas canisters at them is non-violent...

little edit: Judging from the violent reaction to this non-violent protest, it's not hard to imagine what reaction any Ghandi-ish organised non-violent resistance from the Palestinian people would earn them...

Violet...

but different interpretation

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=124&topic_id=31054

article from thread:

http://www.counterpunch.org/keller11132003.html

Little Israel can't have peaceful protestors just roaming around.The IDF did right to secure Israel from such extremists.

holds some truth. I will leave it at that.

agrees with me.I'm trying to be more like you and this is a solid statement to show I'm on the right track.

these rowdies had to be stopped. The IDF reacted morally.

KENT STATE! KENT STATE! KENT STATE!

May 4, 1970

there's no room for peace in Israel.We must stand up against it before peace breaks out.As a fellow progressive I'm with you %110!!!

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

Apologize.

I'm sure you understand this.

:evilgrin:

he's a fine progressive and DU should be proud to have his views on race and peace represented here.

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

even seriously, so RW are their views regarding peace activists and anti-war protesters...

They were unarmed and peaceful, and the Israelis used violence against them because they were making movement towards an area forbidden to them? At the very least, shouldn't they wait until they're there? Why should Israel use violence against peaceful protesters in the first place?

The wall is there for security reasons. For security reasons people are kept away from it. Why should Israel violate its own security just for the protest?

I thought the wall provided security, instead of making the situation worse? Or, at least, wasn't that the assumption?

And not using "effective" violence on peaceful protests is not violating Israel's security...

If these people were attacking IDF soldiers or were bearing arms, perhaps I would see your point, but they weren't. They were peaceful protesters, not attackers.

Of course it is there for security. It doesn't make the situation worse. People who violate the security area make the situation worse.

Then they have the audacity to complain that the soldiers don't like it.

For the record, teargas and shock grenades (those that flash and stun) is not violence. If you enter into a prohibited military area, you get what you ask for. The soldiers can't just let a large group of people into a secure area.

So I guess throwing stones isn't, either.

and I'm sure someone will be along to tell you why.

One is done by the IDF, the most moral army in the world, which enjoys bipartisan support from Democrats and Republicans.

The other is done by the Palestinians, most of whom are part of the great Islamic conspiracy to destroy the US and Israel.

</sarcasm>

Teargas and stun grenades are showing major restraint.

As you may recall Palestinians terrorists doing recon were shot near the wall just recently. These protesters risked the same fate. All Israel did was minor and mostly involved chasing them away.

If they wish to protest peacefully, let them do it OUTSIDE of a security area.

They posed no threat to Israel's security!

And I don't think beating and gassing people is "restraint", btw.

people armed with steely glares are dangerous.Be glad.

The Most Moral Army In The World could have launched pre-emptive missile strikes against people armed with steely glares. Instead they take the Moral High Ground and peacefully beat them and lob teargas at them. Another instance of the IDFs peaceful intentions being twisted by those who are opposed to a peace that can only come when the Palestinian people (aka Supporters Of Terrorism) give up this silly idea that the land they live on belongs to them and succumb to the overwhelming light of morality and kindness that is the Most Moral Army In The World. I'll believe there'll be peace when Palestinians start running out into the street with cups of coffee for this poor, misunderstood occupation force, or inviting them into what's left of some of their bulldozed homes for a nice, peace-making dinner. Oh, my!

Violet....

The protest was an act of theatre and too many people have suspended their beliefs. Let’s put this in some context.
1) ISM is not a pro-Palestinian, non-violent organization. They ARE a Palestininan group (founded in the territories), which opposes iDF military operations, but does NOTHING to stop Palestinian violence. They have explicitly defended the right of Palestinians to take up armed resistance. That is not a characteristic of a non-violent organization. It is also an organization that is founded on the premise that if you place white, western faces in the middle of the conflict the press coverage and propaganda would be tremendous, especially if they are hurt or arrested. Unfortunately the Kurds, Kosovo Albanians, or the Congolese did not have the ISM. Why? Anyone, anyone, anyone…?
2) Human Rights Reports, while condemning Israel without a sense of proportion, report how Palestinian fighters use schools, Mosques, hospitals and homes to hide themselves and weapons. They also often shoot from behind crowds and duck into populated alleyways and markets when in battles with the iDF or right after shooting an Israeli family. They use children to distract soldiers or to actually perpetuate violence. Palestinian attackers also use civilian cloths, both Arab and Jewish religious garb, to safely approach iDF and Israelis before shooting.
3) What is the point that Israel did something? Logically what does it mean what is the implication? What is the point of reporting any given ‘bad’ behaviour by Israel without context, anaylsis or argument? In the same time period
Palestinians fired at the iDF on the Israel-Egyptian border
IDF safely exploded two bombs near a Jewish town
Palestinians fired two anti-tank missiles at the iDF in the Gaza strip
IDF exploded more discovered bombs
Israeli-Arab taxi drive convicted for knowingly driving a suicide bomber who killed 20.
4 Israeli-Arabs were arrested for being agents of Hamas

According to the logic that exposing an act by the iDF is somehow indicative of the corruption and validity of the entire Israeli position is intellectually dishonest. By that same logic, I scan the list above and declare that the Palestinians are clearly without merit based on their violence

So what do you think would happen when a crowd, in a time of conflict, refused to turn back and approached a security zone protected by soldiers. The right to approach a security zone does not have the same moral weight as say trying to approach a luncheon counter or voter registration office. This was an attempt to provoke soldiers for the sole purpose of doing so. Provoking violence, even if unarmed, is violence. This is no trick of rhetoric and I understand that a gun and provoking is NOT the same thing. Yet, refer to practitioners of non-violence and provoking violence is not one of their tools

So you have been manipulated or chose to be manipulated by discussing the minutia of who hit first, should tear case have been used, it the iDF moral etc.

The price and implications of any of this on the appropriate resolution of this conflict IS AN ABOLUTE ZERO.
The propaganda value: PRICELESS

1) ISM is not a pro-Palestinian, non-violent organization. They ARE a Palestininan group (founded in the territories), which opposes iDF military operations, but does NOTHING to stop Palestinian violence. They have explicitly defended the right of Palestinians to take up armed resistance. That is not a characteristic of a non-violent organization. It is also an organization that is founded on the premise that if you place white, western faces in the middle of the conflict the press coverage and propaganda would be tremendous, especially if they are hurt or arrested. Unfortunately the Kurds, Kosovo Albanians, or the Congolese did not have the ISM. Why? Anyone, anyone, anyone…?

Key word: Non-violent. A non-violent protest was met by a violent response. Nothing you say to discredit the ISM can change that.

They are NOT a Palestinian group. ISM is not composed of Palestinians. The proper term is PRO-PALESTINIAN, not Palestinian. Not that it has any bearing on the discussion, but I thought I'd point it out...

No one is claiming that ISM isn't biased. ISM defends the Palestinian right to legitimate armed resistance, which does not neccesarily include suicide bombings. This is of course subjective terminology; once again, I am not making the claim tgaht ISM is unbiased.

2) Human Rights Reports, while condemning Israel without a sense of proportion, report how Palestinian fighters use schools, Mosques, hospitals and homes to hide themselves and weapons. They also often shoot from behind crowds and duck into populated alleyways and markets when in battles with the iDF or right after shooting an Israeli family. They use children to distract soldiers or to actually perpetuate violence. Palestinian attackers also use civilian cloths, both Arab and Jewish religious garb, to safely approach iDF and Israelis before shooting.

"Human Rights Reports" doesn't exist, unless you are refering to the State Department Annual Human Rights Report, which hardly condemns Israel at all.

If you are speaking of Human Rights Watch, a different institution, they do not condemn Israel without a sense of proportion. If you think they do, please cite examples.

Palestinian atrocities are not in doubt.

3) What is the point that Israel did something? Logically what does it mean what is the implication? What is the point of reporting any given ‘bad’ behaviour by Israel without context, anaylsis or argument? In the same time period
Palestinians fired at the iDF on the Israel-Egyptian border
IDF safely exploded two bombs near a Jewish town
Palestinians fired two anti-tank missiles at the iDF in the Gaza strip
IDF exploded more discovered bombs
Israeli-Arab taxi drive convicted for knowingly driving a suicide bomber who killed 20.
4 Israeli-Arabs were arrested for being agents of Hamas

And that justifies this how?

According to the logic that exposing an act by the iDF is somehow indicative of the corruption and validity of the entire Israeli position is intellectually dishonest. By that same logic, I scan the list above and declare that the Palestinians are clearly without merit based on their violence

And that argument was made by whom? This is an example of the IDF's violent responses to non-violent protests - all it does is show that the IDF goes beyond "self-defense" in its operations.

So what do you think would happen when a crowd, in a time of conflict, refused to turn back and approached a security zone protected by soldiers. The right to approach a security zone does not have the same moral weight as say trying to approach a luncheon counter or voter registration office. This was an attempt to provoke soldiers for the sole purpose of doing so. Provoking violence, even if unarmed, is violence. This is no trick of rhetoric and I understand that a gun and provoking is NOT the same thing. Yet, refer to practitioners of non-violence and provoking violence is not one of their tools

How exactly do you know the motivation for these people? They were trying to protest the wall - a worthy goal.

And it still is non-violent to provoke an attack.

So you have been manipulated or chose to be manipulated by discussing the minutia of who hit first, should tear case have been used, it the iDF moral etc.

Minutia? Uh...

The price and implications of any of this on the appropriate resolution of this conflict IS AN ABOLUTE ZERO.
The propaganda value: PRICELESS

That is not true. The IDF's attitude towards such peaceful protests is important to consider.

Do you have a macro written that automatically puts the word junk in the subject heading when you hit reply to my posts, or do you need to think "hmmmm, should I use 'junk' again, or perhaps 'crap,' no no wait I got it, 'garbage', because it implies both junk and crap. Imagine that, all of my thoughts, hopes and dreams summed up in one simple word."

please respond to my points.

Darranar: it is clear that you and I come from very different intellectual backgrounds. For me debate is about using critical thinking to take facts and construct a belief and argument. Now there can be differences in the arguments one constructs from the same basic facts (that’s the 1st reason to debate—to learn from others), there can also be disagreement on the nature of the facts. Yet there are some facts that just are.

Darranar
They are NOT a Palestinian group. ISM is not composed of Palestinians. The proper term is PRO-PALESTINIAN, not Palestinian. Not that it has any bearing on the discussion, but I thought I'd point it out.

1st line on ISM's website
"The International Solidarity Movement is a Palestinian-led movement of Palestinian and International activists."
ISM was founded in the West Bank by Palestinians!

For the record
" We utilize non-violent, direct-action methods of resistance to confront and challenge illegal Israeli occupation forces and policies...we recognize the Palestinian right to resist Israeli violence and occupation via legitimate armed struggle. However, we believe that non-violence can be a powerful weapon in fighting oppression and we are committed to the principles of non-violent resistance."

I would argue that direct action against armed forces in a conflict zone is not peaceful.

Allying yourself with and trying to prevent iDF movement against a Palestinian Movement whose intrinsic characteristic since FATAH was formed in the 1950's has been racism and violence perpetrated on Jewish-Israeli civilians and against dissenting Palestinians is to provide comfort, support and legitimacy to such a movement. As they write above in their mission non-violence is another “weapon” in the violent struggle against Israel.

does not imply violence.

It is direct action to stop a bulldozer from trying to destroy the home of an innocent person; it is also non-violent, unless the dozer is targeted with weaponry.

The targeting of IDF soldiers is legitimate armed resistance and not terrorism, regardless of who does it.

The ISM is not wholly composed of Palestinians - hence, it is not a Palestinian organization, regardless of who leads it.

For me, debate does not consist of propaganda thrown in as facts and presented in a form that appears to be reasonable.

How about an exchange? I will give you something to think about over the weekend and you can give me something to consider.

Here is mine. What does the word sincerity mean to you? How do you apply it in your life? It is compromised in your single-minded attempt to distort basic facts around the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?
Sincerity: honesty of mind: freedom from hypocrisy


Darranar: They are NOT a Palestinian group. ISM is not composed of Palestinians

Jplawne (JP): 2 minutes later: ISM website "The International Solidarity Movement is a Palestinian-led movement of Palestinian and International activists."

Darranar 5 minutes later: The ISM is not wholly composed of Palestinians - hence, it is not a Palestinian organization, regardless of who leads it

Never knew that it meant throwing around insults (however subtle) about your opponent.

Now, what was that about sincerity?

JP provided you a window into the logic of your own thought process, and you are calling that an insult...I guess he can rest his case...

no, he called me insincere (however thinly-veiled) because of two comments I made that could be construed as contradictory.

But I'm too tired to do standup at the moment.

First, non-violent action is not necessarily predicated on an abhorence of or opposition to violence. There are many political circumstances in which it is a more effective means of achieving ends than violence, and so is chosen as a strategy, or a tactical tool. The activists of the I.S.M. are clearly in this class, and it would be something of a misnomer to call them pacifists or peace activists, as some do.

Second, non-violent action gains its political force solely through the actions of the security services opposing it. The classic "Ghandian Gambit" is to reveal the security services as morally bankrupt, and by extension, show the same of the order they uphold, through the brutal means they employ to break up unresisting groups. There is something deep in humankind that revolts at such a spectacle, and it requires a trained mind to override that reaction. This training is, in most instances, an unfortunate misdirection of mental energy.

Non-violence is, actually, an extreme specialization of certain aspects of typical guerrilla strategy, which has as one of its leading aims the provoking of security services into atrocity, in hope of benefiting from the political effects of this, both in turning a subject populace against the authorites, which aids recruitment and clandestine operations, and in turning some portion of the political dominant classes against the very security services protecting the order they benfit from, in revulsion at the acts, and recognition they are to a great degree counterproductive. Typically, guerrilla movements achieve this result by attacks against security personnel, or atrocities of their own directed against targets they feel the subject population will approve of being vilely treated. They rely on the greater power of the security services to conduct atrocities that greatly exceed their own to dwarf their own misconduct, and also on the poor aim with which such operations are generally carried out. Non-violent action aims at provoking the same brutal reaction by security services, without going to the trouble of committing atrocity to provoke it, thus removing any possible ambiguity from the wide political response to such actions. It is a matter of some wonderment how routinely security organs continue stepping into this trap.

It is the political dimension that matters.

It is the habitual tendency of the military and police arms of
the state to presume that violence is the universal solution to
all popular resistance that makes non-violent methods effective.

One may note the resolute refusal of Mr. Chavez in Venezuela to
oppress his opposition, no matter how much effort they expend to
elicit that response.

One may note the resolute refusal of the state propaganda organs
in the USA to report on or give credence to protests, and the fact
that they are most careful these days not to beat the living crap
out of protesters. Nowadays they take great care to keep them out of sight
and out of mind. That seems to be one lesson learned from VietNam.
Would that a few others had been learned also.

ban these basic outlets of free expression and hands will naturally make their moves (and in that, the passive would be preferred).

Despite the misleading title, it is not a UN report, but a ISM report which claims that they have the right to police the IDF and to demand that they are in charge here. They can protest, but they are likely to be ignored at best, and risk their lives by putting themselves into this conflict.

If they were as violent as the terrorists, they would have killed several protesters and none would have escaped arrest.

Let's see what the IDF accomplished on Nov 13:

http://www.idf.il/newsite/english/111303-1.stm

Must they not only stay out of the areas 'forbidden to them' but also not 'make movement towards' or risk being shot? What if they just look? Should they be shot then?

Or worse? Palestinians walk, drive, work, etc. in Tel Aviv, Jerusalem (east and west), Haifa, etc. every day in as much safety as any Israeli. Can an Israeli Jew take a stroll through Ramallah or Jenin or the Gaza strip in as much safety as any Palestinian?

And there's a military occupation going on there? That's news to me. Instead of justifying the lack of safety for Palestinians living under the occupation by comparing apples to oranges, maybe you could try addressing the issues raised in the thread?

Do you think non-violent protesters should be grateful they weren't shot? Do you think the idea of shooting non-violent protesters is an acceptable one or something that should even be considered an acceptable reaction to any non-violent protest?

Violet...

I was really hoping for some answers to the last two questions I asked. Oh, well....


Violet....

"If these people were making movement toward an area forbidden to them, they can be thankful they were not shot."

Would you include that logic towards black people who sat in at restaurants that were forbidden to them just decades ago? What about women in history who joined an army, and were forbidden to be there?

What about Israelis who settle in an area that is forbidden by the UN and more importantly, the residents already there?

Your logic is flawed. I'm sure that you would like to rephrase such a cold comment.

This is a military situation and the actions the military takes are designed to protect soldiers and the civilians they in turn protect. The incidents you mention have no bearing whatsoever.

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