DEMOLITIONS AND SETTLEMENTS IN JABAL MUKABER

The Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions

In the past couple weeks ICAHD, Peace Now Jerusalem, Taayush and other Israeli peace organizations have been organizing and protesting against the construction of yet another settlement in East Jerusalem. "Nof Zahav" (Golden View, since it looks out on "quaint" Arab Jerusalem and the Old City) is a planned new "neighborhood" of 500 units for Jews only located squarely in the midst of the Palestinian neighborhood of Jabal Mukaber. This development is not only provocative at this delicate time when the international community is trying to keep its "Road Map" initiative alive; it demonstrates graphically the discrimination and injustice of Israel's planning policies in the eastern side of the Jerusalem. Although Jabal Mukaber has a population of more than 10,000, 74% of the neighborhood's land has been declared "open green space," meaning that while Palestinians own their land, they cannot build housing upon it. Thus only 1000 housing units exist in the community – meaning that 10 people share a small accommodation on the average. After 36 years as part of the "united" Israeli capital, Jabal Mukaber has few serviceable roads, no sidewalks, no street lighting, no mail service and extremely poor community services.

The same rules do not apply to Jews, however. In the midst of this neighborhood, where Palestinian residents cannot obtain building permits and dozens of "illegal" homes have been demolished over the years, a Jewish construction company managed to purchase 50 dunams of land (12.5 acres), for which it has all the necessary permits. Not only that, but the Municipality, in order to encourage Jewish settlement across the 1967 border, expropriated another 65 dunams (16.5 acres) of land from their Palestinian owners, plus additional acreage for access roads and infrastructure. The 500 units of Nof Zahav will draw additional Jewish populations to the area. With the help of a supportive Municipality, Nof Zahav will expand at the expense of the Palestinian population.

(snipped the rest)

paid for by the American taxpayer.

Not exactly an America a real patriot would want to be a part of.



God help the people of this country for their involvement in these crimes.

http://www.fuzzyfaces.com/ US/smU.S.Flag1a.gif

Jeff Halper, head of ICAHD, and other activists, "attempted to stop the demolitions by sitting in front of the bulldozers"

Nobody was deliberately killed this time, thankfully.

And nobody else had the guts to run him down

"kick"

.

I am pointing out that Jeff Halper is lucky he wasn't murdered like how they did to Rachel Corrie.

Were you an eyewitness?

all say it was intentional

you must have been there, right?

But the ISM paid me off to not testify anyplace, but behind an internet name they won't know I broke the agreement

I thought so...

Because no member of the IDF would ever intentionally murder a young peace activist, therefore the four people who were right there to watch the incident take place and all say that yes it was deliberate just must be lying.

What, the IDF murder? No, who could make up such a story! :crazy:

has never ever murdered anyone before...

:eyes:

and that was AFTER the ISM got there stories "straight". We discussed this 'ad nauseum ' on du-1.

So, was RC standing,sitting,on a mound of dirt or on the bulldozers plow....because there is some shitload of contoversy about that.

From my memory,they ISM couldnt get their stories straight initially and wasnt sure what exactly happened...but apparently you are. The initial ISM press release as you may remember claimed that she was "standing" and was visible to the driver of the bulldozer. Was that true??


Another thug, before the ISM "corrected" him, claimed that Corrie had climbed on top of the bulldozer's plow and then slipped.Was that true, resistance?

Then they claimed that Corrie had climbed on top of a mound of dirt and then was crushed. Was that true??

And they finally 'settled' that she was sitting...yeah ,that sounnds'good...we'll go with that. :eyes:

Isn't it unfair that no one can even agree on what exactly happened
and yet you say she was murdered? Its seems you buy the rap by the Ism after they got their story straight.

that i'll trust on what really happened when they're the ones accused of it..

Was RC standing,sitting,on a mound of dirt or on the bulldozers plow?

set me straight,bluesoul.

.

...

you really dont know for certain. The fact is there was
so much conflicting truth until the ISM got the story
*straight* that no one knows.

Thats why i find it so disingenuous for you to accuse
someone of murder when there really is no hard and
fast evidence. Dont you agree??

claiming it wasn't murder as though you are 100% sure about it. Like a car driving over you and then driving away without even helping you. I am sure that driver must have slept like a baby that day...

There is no ground for claiming the death of the unfortunate Ms. Corrie was murder.

Discrepancy among her fellow activists' testimony concerning her precise position and posture does not mean much to me; that sort of thing is normal. Their testimony that the driver acted intentionally is utterly worthless, however: they have no way whatever of knowing what was in the man's mind, and a suspicion of bias in their statements regarding him is a very reasonable one.

The driver's testimony in a newspaper interview was that he drove towards her, halted when he lost sight of her, and reversed. There does not seem to me any compelling reason to doubt this: it is well within the bounds of normal human behavior, and no reason to suspect the fellow is a monster has emerged. It is also consonant with some other physical facts of the matter.

First, the view from the driver's seat of these machines is not particularly good. Second, Ms. Corrie may well have been atop a mound of debris, that would provide uncertain footing, where a loss of balance could have pitched her either way. Third, it has been reported the autopsy concluded the lethal injury came from the bull-dozer's reversal over her: this has sometimes been used to claim deliberate intent to kill, but seems to me, taken together with all the other elements, to demonstrate the opposite.

The most likely course of events seems to me to be this: the driver advanced towards the unfortunate Ms. Corrie, certainly coming closer than was safe; Ms. Corrie, moving either to be sure the driver could see her, or to scarmble out of the way, lost her footing atop the mound of debris and, unluckily, pitched forward toward the machine; the driver, losing sight of her at that point, threw his machine into reverse; unfortunately, Ms. Corrie was already at that time under the machine between the treads, and came beneath them as the machine backed up.

This does not amount to murder, though a charge amounting to vehicular homicide might well be brought, and certainly a civil suit for wrongful death would be likely to succeed.

you trust the word of a guy who bulldozes the homes of innocent families, but distrust four non-violent peace workers who saw the killing in front of their very eyes.

No-one knows for sure, and when people come up with the most likely course of events and the intent of the driver, their bias is usually at play with what they put forward...

Violet...

The Magistrate (4786 posts)
Mar-17-03, 10:43 AM (ET)
34. Photographs And Eyewitness Accounts
Leave little room for doubt the driver was aware of the person before his blade. That he continued on despite this was criminal; that this resulted in that person's death makes the act one of murder. This is not a case where someone was hiding in a structure, nor was the driver in any immediate danger which destroying the structure would end.
Up above, someone makes reference to the detonation of a bomb on a bus, which killed a number of people, and invites others to express some outrage at it. Someone replies to this with a statement that the act was one of reprisal, and therefore ought not to be denounced. This is mere obtuseness: all crimes, by all parties to this conflict, ought to be denounced, and by all commenting on the matter, regardless of where their sympathies rest in it. Who will not criticize the side they support is unfit to criticize the side they oppose.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/cgi-bin/duforum/duboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=6573&forum=DCForumID30&archive=yes#34

:evilgrin:

Here is my reply to your kind citation, in the discussion where it first caught my eye:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=40647&mesg_id=40702&page=

"When my understanding of the facts changes, I change my opinion. What, Sir, do you do?"

just didn't think you'd spy the rehash of the past buried in this thread.

"What, Sir, do you do?"

What I don't do is just change my mind on the fly and present a argument 180 degrees out of phase with my previous arguments without some explanation. To do otherwise gives the appearance of duplicitous intent, but you have been rather upfront with your change of heart (not that you had much choice given the record).

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

I know you look up to her. My condolences. BTW, reading publically available documents is not "spying" as you put it. I've been reading those archives since DU2 was rolled out. Quite fascinating...reading that is. It's not my fault you repeatedly lose the url, try saving the location under "favorites". And chill out.

new show for 2004...


Newyorican....Super Spy.

laughing at your own jokes is not. Don't worry Don, I tend to take a pass on those that make little or no sense, so your records should be quite safe; unlike Magistrate (who is actually cogent and interesting enough to warrant the effort).

He is a good-hearted fellow, when all is said and done.

the inability to suffer fools gracefully. Something I need to work on, obviously. 20 years of engineering background don't help (high-level mental work with little social interaction). But enough of this self-lament, others have greater crosses to bear.

Nine months and more is a reasonable period for gestation or digestion. My most recent comments on the matter are not particularly new, and are generally accompanied by some statement of the facts and considerations underlying them.

Your courtesy over this, Sir, is very much appreciated.

was the purpose of all that??

:shrug:

non-violent peace activists are depicted as the "thugs"

hey bluesoul -- and we are supposed to be the ones with warped perspectives? :crazy:

tell the story.

If I give my view, then I'm telling lies, but if I don't, then that tells the story.

:crazy:

that eyewitnesses are the LAST thing that a prosecutor wants to prove a case. Don't you?

not trivialities like what color vest the driver had on at the time, or the position of the sun at the moment of impact

Have no competence whatever to testify to the driver's intent; they are, indeed, probably the worst conceivable witnesses for such testimony. Any competent cross-examination would display their bias in moments, and leave any juror convinced they would say whatever suited their political views in the matter.

the ism-er she was with said, at the time before he
recanted his story, was that the bulldozer drive
had "always stopped before"

(i believe my quotes are correct to my memory).

any juror with a conscience would see that Corrie was murdered for her political views. It's not a matter of biased eyewitnesses. They murdered Corrie, got away with it, then moved on to shoot Brian Avery in the face, then gunned down Tom Hurndall, leaving him brain dead in a coma. Now they beat, harrass and deport other peace workers because Israeli planners don't want peace - what they want is to steal land and murder whoever gets in their way.

That is the truth, Sir. Take a look at the record someday.

"what they want is to steal land and murder whoever gets in their way.
their way."


who is "they"??

who else?

(The answer is stated in my post - please read thanks.)

The members of the I.S.M. are not "peace workers", at least not as most people understand the term. They are not neutral parties, opposed to violence by either side. They are non-violent partisans of the cause of Arab Palestine, who wish that side to be victorious over the other. There is nothing wrong with this, but it is not the same as being a "peace worker", by a long sight.

There is no particular reason whatever to suspect a jury would conclude the unfortunate Ms. Corrie was murdered for her political views, nor any reason to believe the other people you mention were deliberately targeted in any way. The details of Mr. Avery's injury escape my immediate recollection: Mr. Hurndell displayed exemplary courage and self-sacrifice, venturing into a firefight to attempt the rescue of children pinned in fright and exposed to the bullets. One struck him, and that is very much to be regretted.

Most people do understand the I.S.M to be peace workers. You seem to think that because they are working with a sympathetic focus for one particular group of people disqualifies their work for categorization as "peace work". That's just plainly wrong.

Or should we go around branding all peace activists "partisan" and "not really peace activists" based on the idea that they don't focus on any issue but the one they've chosen? Maybe with that logic we should change the name of the 'Peace Corps' to the 'Partisans Corps'?

It is a development agency staffed by volunteers wielded by the United States government with the intention of making friends for that government at a grass-roots level with persons in the developing world, to reduce the tendency of such populations towards resentment of the West, and their susceptibility to radical opposition to the United States. It might better be called "Junior U.S.A.I.D." or some such, and the inculcation of principled non-violence as a means of conflict resolution, or opposition to war in any form, is no part of its charter or activities.

The partisanship of persons or organizations in a conflict definitely conditions whether they can be viewed as advocates of peace, or strivers after victory. A person with a consciencious objection to violence may be willing to accept the victory of one side in a conflict, should the other be the only side that heeds the call to nonviolence, but certainly does not advocate or work towards the victory of one side or the other. Messers Cummings and Dellinger, prominent consciencious objectors to the two World Wars in succession, did not devote any effort to hoping for victory by the Kaiser or the Axis, nor indicate any sympathy with their aims. They were advocates of peace, and peace alone.

A fellow like Gahndi simply sought victory by different means, and the means he employed still required violence for its success: it required violence by his opponents, and sought to create a situation in which his opponents must use violence or acceed to his success. If someone actually has a principled opposition to violence, it is a pretty question for ethical debate whether it is proper action to seek to entice another into doing something you feel yourself it is wrong for any person to do. Ought one set oneself up as an occassion for sin by another, to gain one's own ends? To my lights, it does not leave a person with particularly clean hands, to do such a thing. It smacks of a gap in a minefield leading to a beaten zone staked out by the machine-gun company. It is clever, and a trap a clever opponent ought to see and avoid, but hardly an occassion of moral uplift....

with credit to John Locke

http://home.comcast.net/~jat.action/ISM_essay.htm

ISM Leaders and Founders Enthusiastically Endorse Terrorism

Adam Shapiro recently told the Jordan Star newspaper that "I am not in a position to tell the refugees what to do, but I think they can all start a march towards the Occupied Territories to return to their homes." According to Shapiro, if enough ISM volunteers could be found to walk in front of the "refugees," they could safely walk in and take over Israel since Israeli soldiers would not shoot internationals. There are two notable uses of language in this scenario. "Refugees" as used by the United Nations everywhere in the world applies to people who fled a place, only among Palestinians is it used to connote descendents of those who fled. The other interesting usage, of course, is "occupied territories" to refer to the entire state of Israel. When ISM leaders say "occupied territories" they are referring to all of Israel, which they intend to replace with a Palestinian Arab state.

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

"When ISM leaders say "occupied territories" they are referring to all of Israel, which they intend to replace with a Palestinian Arab state."

And just how do they KNOW what they actually mean by OT? It is quite clear what the OT covers. Mind reading? Oh my... :crazy:

easy....just ask the ISM'S buddies....HAMAS AND IJ.

If you say so. Oooook....

Why wouldn't that also apply to the driver and the IDF? Do you think their bias wouldn't also leave any juror convinced that they would say whatever suited their political views in the matter?

Violet...

this guy bulldozes innocent families' homes -- and we're supposed to trust his word over four peace workers??

The driver is the principal source for his own state of mind: the persons from the I.S.M. can have no knowledge whatever of this. Their testimony does not include any allegation even of some shouted threat or other outward sign of the driver's intent, and therefore their comments on it can be nothing but an exercise in mind-reading, in which they cannot be presumed to have any particular expertise.

Murder, it is important to remember, is a term with a definite meaning, beyond some killing of which the utterer does not approve. It means a deliberate and intentional and unlawful killing, in most jurisdictions. In some, a killing which is the result of depraved indifference may count as murder, but depraved indifference is a very extreme standard, well beyond any momentary negligence. Unintentional killings, even when they are the result of deliberate attempts to harm, are not murder, but manslaughter.

Whether the driver is telling the truth, it is beyond my power, or yours, to determine. In any legal proceeding, he would certainly be questioned, and people would attempt that judgement by his demeanor, tone of voice, and body language, as we all do in assessing what people say. What he says is about what one would expect anyone in his situation to say, but it is also something that seems quite likely, and that seems to fit the observed facts of the case. Therefore, absent the chance to see him speak, and absent any obvious conflict between what he says and the physical facts of the matter, my inclination is to assume he is telling the truth. What the I.S.M. people say about the driver's state of mind is only what they think it was, and what they could be expected to think it was. It is therefore not worth much.

You are certainly free to attempt to milk all the propaganda value from the incident you wish, or feel you can; that is a seperate matter from what actually happened, and bears, put bluntly, little relation to what actually happened. It is, after all, only by such iconic incidents that non-violent action can gain any political effect. If, for example, the Alabama State Police had simply allowed the marchers to cross the bridge at Selma, no one would ever have taken notice of the march. In this case, if the Israelis had bothered to deploy a squad of soldiers and carry these people bodily from the scene, we would be wrangling about some other facet of this conflict, instead of picking over these bones endlessly.

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

Propaganda is a part of such a struggle as this, and you would be remiss in your advocacy if you did not make such an attempt. Justice is a somewhat over-rated commodity, particularly during war, and your upset of there being no justice for murdered "peace workers" requires one to share your assumption the incidents are in fact murders. Persons who do not share that assumption will not be so moved by the cry. There have been many, many persons murdered without doubt in this conflict over the years, and there will not be justice for any of them. There is nothing particularly special about those you name.

War is a dangerous thing, to participate in, or even to be near. The shooting of a correspondent troubles me no more than the shooting of a soldier, or of a civilian unfortunate enough to be the target of a militant.

And I don't even have an opinion one way or the other as to whether Rachel Corrie was murdered. My idea of justice is for an independent investigation to be carried out so whether or not it was a murder can be determined....


Violet...

If we are, since when has the words of the accused been the principle source when it comes to determining intent? It's testimony of eye-witnesses, the accused actions and claims of intent or lack of intent during whatever incident it was, and a variety of other things that determine intent....

It's true that none of us here know whether the driver is lying or not, but the same goes for the claim in this very thread that ISM members are lying....

Violet...

Intent is, of course, difficult to determine in any case.

Eyewitness testimony concerning intent generally features statements reported to have been made, or describes actions from which intent may be inferred. Repeated blows, for instance, may demonstrate intent to kill, as may an uttered threat to kill. An eyewitness saying "I know it was intentional" carries very little weight.

In this matter, there is nothing about the man's actions that clearly establishes he intended to kill. Nor is there any particular contradiction between what he says of his intent, and the facts of what occured. It boils down to whether one thinks he was an evil man or not, or whether one thinks he was acting under some order to kill. There is no evidence adduced of the latter, and as for the former, it is my practice to extend to all the courteous asumption they are decent fellows, until at least it becomes obvious in some particular instance that only a fool could believe that. This threshold has not been nearly reached here.

And the person who has done it not stigmatized as a creature of deliberate evil.

As a general matter, it seems to me unwise to insist on deliberate malice as a motive where this cannot be demonstrated, first because people are not generally creatures of malice, and secondly, because any belief false to fact is sure to issue in innappropriae suggestions for remedy.

For the record...what proof do you have that Ms. Corrie
was intentionally murdered??

lets hear it.

We've been through it over and over. Please pay attention this time, thanks.

It is fully a matter of trust: I trust the four peace workers who saw the thing take place, particularly over the word of some thug who bulldozes the houses of innocent families.

Four of Corrie's friends and co-workers saw her deliberately and intentionally run over by the driver - they all say they warned the driver to stop, yet he didn't. He just says he didn't see her, or some made up story.

I trust peace workers, not an army that murders for sport and bulldozes innocent people's homes. It's as simple as that.

thats depends on whether you believe the iniatial reports
or the ISM "whitewash" after the fact.

But not too worry...we'll have this discussion again when you
post the next Rachel Corrie requieum thread....


or the one after that....

or the one after that....

or the one after that....

n/t

:kick:

.