Evergreen student wounded in West Bank protest

Should we praise the Israeli Army this time for refraining from outright murdering this non-violent protestor, like they did to Rachel Corrie and Tom Hurndall?

http://www.theolympian.com/home/news/20030730/frontpage/63973.shtml

A student from The Evergreen State College was wounded Monday when pro-Palestinian demonstrators clashed with Israeli soldiers during a protest against Israel's construction of a security fence in the West Bank.

Sam Tsohonis, 26, of Olympia was struck in the leg by a rubber-coated bullet as hundreds of protesters tried to tear down a gate on the wall near the village of Anin. Israeli soldiers wounded five protesters after firing tear gas and rubber-coated bullets.

Tsohonis is about two weeks into a planned two-month trip to the West Bank as a volunteer for the International Solidarity Movement. The organization supports nonviolent opposition to Israeli occupation of areas the Palestinians claim for their future state.

Tsohonis is about two quarters away from earning an arts degree. As an artist, Tsohonis hoped to make his way to Rafah, a city near the Egyptian border, where he wanted to paint a mural in a Palestinian hospital nursery, said his mother, Marci Tsohonis.

The nursery was named for Rachel Corrie, a former Evergreen student and ISM volunteer crushed to death in March by an Israeli bulldozer while she tried to block it from advancing on a Palestinian home. Her son was a friend of Corrie's, she said.

tearing down a fence/wall doesn't sound non-violent

They weren't trying to hurt any persons.
Vandalism you might call it, but its not violence.

if you blow up an empty house it's violence...but at least not trying to hurt people apparently

The point is arguable, usage can be found both ways,
but the distinction between harm to things and to
persons seems worth making. The fundamental meaning of
violence is use of great force, the distinction among
targets is secondary, so if you want I will argue that
the protestors are not using great force in attacking the
fence, and the soldiers by using guns are in attacking the
protestors.

is at least as good as yours I suspect...I just think the distinction servers the purpose of whoever defines it...but you're right about the apparent difference if levels of force used..

if you will concede that manually trying to tear down
a wall isn't. :-)

tearing it down goes past vandalism...it's destruction...more than graffitti

Sort of like bulldozing olive trees, for instance.

whether the actions of the protesters were non-violent...actions by the military are usually violent...it's what they do...
anyway, have a good afternoon

but destroying it, noviolent or not, would have warranted a similar action anywhere in the world. I think that it was nonviolent in the sense that it hurt no one, but not in the sense that it was destroying something in a violent way.

isn't exactly an invitation to hold hands. In fact it is annexation. What is happening to the WB land on the "Israeli" side of the wall? Is it being left alone or are the "faithful" moving in??

The annexation increases the danger for everyone.

of course the focus should be on Israel's continued reckless shootings and murders of innocent people (Western protestors and Palestinian civilians alike) - a far heavier topic than whether or not tearing down a racist Apartheid fence could be considered non-violent or not.

I suppose you would also argue that Gandhi's burning of Indian identification cards "doesn't sound non-violent" either?

murders of innocent people by the Palestinians? Shouldn't the focus be on that, as well?

is that we are not responsible for the actions of others - we're responsible for the actions of ourselves, and as a US citizen who's tax money goes to support Israeli aggression and violence, I feel more inclined to focus on that and say I want it stopped, rather than the Palestinian terrorism which I have little to do with. Now if you want to condemn the activities of Palestinian militants, that is fine and remember, I'll join you in doing so - the killings committed from either side are awful. However, like I said, we've got to start being responsible for ourselves not others.

A quick story to further describe how I feel about it: I was appalled recently when listening to the radio in my car and the guests were 2 speakers from a 'Christian/Jewish pro-Israel rally' and the host set them both up as wanting to promote peace in the region and what can they do to help, etc. Apparently there was this rally over the weekend going on and there was to be all this discussion and a forum featuring these speakers, one a rabbi, one a Christian priest. Anyway, when they finally got to talk on this radio program, all they could do was talk about the problems of Muslims! You know, the problems of the Muslim world, what's wrong with 'them', this so-called 'culture of violence' and how awful suicide bombers are, and how corrupt the Palestinian Authority is. On and on about issues Muslims face in their communities. I kept thinking my gosh these people cannot turn their condemnation for a single second upon themselves, it has to be on someone else! So I see this kind of attitude as a major major problem - to look into the mirror is so much more difficult than it is to criticize someone else.

We need to look in the mirror, is what I'm saying.

in that both sides need to acknowledge their mistakes. There are many on both sides who are in a state of denial of their own side's mistakes, not believing that they could happen.

"On the same topic, Sharon said Israelis were thankful for every hour of "increased quiet and less terrorism," in recent weeks."

Now you were saying? Speak up, you'll have to talk over the noise of constructing the annexation wall.

gutsy woman to send students into a war zone.

interesting line...
"The organization supports nonviolent opposition to Israeli occupation of areas the Palestinians claim for their future state."

yeah...I guess aiding terrorists and helping to hide terrorist
tunnels is now ok.



http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/030728/168/4tcsi.html

so if you support that then you would have to say yes, aiding terrorists is now ok.

people how strap explosives to themselves and blow up buses to be terrorists?

of course. What a ridiculous question

the mantra 'one man's terrorists is another's freedom fighter' gets bandied about a lot...thanks for replying

are to be condemned, whether or not they are a Palestinian militant with a cause or a trigger-happy Israeli soldier. Do we want to stop terrorism? Then we need to stop supporting and engaging in it.

:eyes:

They have an earthly land and people to defend. How could they be? Unless they are so unfortunate as to be kidnapped.

does not excuse the murder of innocents and ongoing terrorist activity by the Israeli Army. Stop the excuses.

n/t

Do not come to me for their sympathy.

Freedom fighters. Non-violent. Non-racist. Pro-peace. The terrorist is the one who would harm them.

They easily could have all been terrorists. I'm not saying they were, but putting them forward as righteous peaceful freedom fighters is going a bit too far.

you are welcome to question that, but yes from reading their materials and learning about their activities and agenda - I conclude that these people are righteous, peaceful, non-violent freedom fighters.

Check them out for yourself at http://www.palsolidarity.org/

I didn't see much about any of the organizations involved in the article speaking of the event though-am I missing something, or is it in a different section?

do you fault them for that?

that is basically horrible distortions of Israeli acts. Not to say that AIPAC is much better...

Anyway, where can I find that information that you mentioned?

horrible distortions? where?

often sends out such distortions-like implying that the photo of the bulldozer was taken moments before Rachel Corrie's death, while in fact it was taken hours before.

And you resort to accusing them of distorting the time-frame of a photo taken of Rachel? Pretty low tactics if you ask me, Darranar.

ordered by the IDF or not, distorting the evidence is unnacceptable. Saddam tried to kill GWB's father: does that justify his lying about WMDs in Iraq?

is a supposed distortion of evidence.

Note: Dead body crushed by bulldozer. :shrug:

Note: IDF personel operating bulldozer. :shrug:

Note: "Distorting" evidence. UNACCEPTABLE!