Palestinian officials call on militants to lay down arms

Over 60 prominent Palestinian officials and intellectuals Thursday urged the public to refrain from retaliation for Israel's assassination of Hamas spiritual leader Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, saying it would ignite a new round of bloodshed that would only hurt Palestinian aspirations for independence.

A half-page advertisement in the PLO's Al-Ayyam newspaper called on Palestinians to lay down their arms and turn to peaceful means of protest to end Israel's occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

The ad reflected apparently growing sentiment among many Palestinian leaders and intellectuals that military struggle is not helping the Palestinian cause.

<snip>

"Responding to Sharon could be by showing his moral and political bankruptcy rather than adopting his methods and exacting revenge," Ashrawi told the Reuters news agency. "Resistance does not have to be violent resistance."
Continue here...

Ashwari takes the face-saving high moral ground. But who cares, as long as they finally get there.

Position more snipers around anti-fence demonstrations.¹

-----

1. To be fair, they give the excuse that "intelligence" suggests terrorists are infiltrating the demonstrations. Anybody who knows 1 particle about these demos knows that is 99% bullshit.

The problem with being the police or the military, you need to worry about the 1% and, with the overall size of the Palestinian terror network, I doubt the number is that small. Even if it is, if 1% were applied to the Palestinian population, I think it would be something like 90,000 terrorists.

Choice points:

1. "Anybody who gets up and talks on the megaphone has bullets whistling around their ears" (quote, Israeli peace activist)

2. "They are shooting at us intentionally" (quote, same person)

3. "Israeli peace activist taken to hospital, after being shot in the eye, is in danger of losing her sight"

4. "We are unarmed, this demonstration is not violent" (said in Hebrew, over a megaphone).

5. The Israeli demonstrators charge that (as usual) stun grenades and tear gas were used, but in addition, that rubber bullets were fired deliberately at the upper part of the body, including the head. The IDF admits to the use of the rubber bullets, but says they were only aimed at the lower part of the body.

6. At least 40 others, said a Palestinian doctor, had been affected by inhalation of tear gas or had suffered arm fractures from truncheons wielded by soldiers.

You can see the purty pictures of the latter point at the first link, below:.

http://www.maariv.co.il/channels/1/ART/672/177.html (Hebrew) ¹
http://www.maarivintl.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=article&articleID=4924 (English)

Of course, this only happens to be reported due to the dedicated activities of courageous peace activists in Israel (which have almost zero support in U.S., thanks to the fact that it isn't "pro-Israel").

This is a tea-party compared to what the Arabs get if they don't happen to have a Jewish presence with them.

Final point: those who loudly laud the virtues of non-violence for the Palestinians while pouring out a constant stream of praise for the delicate nature of the IDF should perhaps consider giving the former some support once in a while, or at least drop the hypocritical nonsense about the latter.

Just a thought.

-----

1. The story, "120 wounded in demonstration against the fence", contains the usual ultra-right comments. To paraphrase at random:

"Helicopters could be used to fire larger bullets if these don't work" (108), "traitors" (105), "finish the job of breaking their hands and legs in Tel Aviv" (83), a quote from Ha'aretz (must be a first, 80), "the stupid left doesn't get that Arabs only understand force" (57), "must be a lack of money for the firing range" (33), "Only 120 injured? Is this a cause for celebration? Maybe 120 dead I could understand ... put an end to the use of rubber bullets!!" (21), "Peace activists? Is this a new nickname for citizens with no loyalty to the state?" (17), "Arafat (god rest his soul) are one and the same as the radical left".

There are some sane comments, (i.e. response 9), if anybody wants them quoted.

So I shall do the same.

I expected a condemnation of this extreme brutality on the part of the IDF. One can dream I suppose.

This is only after initial efforts to get the crowd of demonstrators, who are preventing the crew from working as contracted, from dispersing. Requests to disperse are ignored. Using physical contact is insufficient, and the demonstration is not peaceful. It is aggressive. If it took place on a neutral ground, it would be tolerated. Calls by the leaders of the demonstration to prevent work on the fence are of course not acceptable.

Actually, it's not acceptable, and for anyone who isn't aware, rubber bullets can and do kill people. There is no justification at all for using extreme force on peaceful protesters, even if you believe that protesting isn't acceptable, something I disagree strongly with. Also, how is a peaceful protest aggressive? Aggressive is riots and that sort of thing. There's a very big difference...

Sorry, but is the concept of physically moving protesters obstructing projects like this one a foreign concept to these troops? Aren't they aware that firing rubber bullets and teargas is what's not acceptable? It's something that should be roundly condemned by all, as far as I'm concerned...

on edit: Does anyone recall the IDF opening fire with rubber bullets and teargas on those settlers who refused to move when a handful of illegal and uninhabited settlements were 'dismantled' a fair while ago? I guess the media mustn't have filmed that bit, eh? ;)

Violet...

Of course this isn't your local protest group. You'll have to get the facts straight, however.

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

It doesn't matter one iota if it was a local group or not. If you think it does, it's just lovely to know that you'd believe it was justified to use rubber bullets and teargas on me back when I was involved in some direct action with a national group. Using extreme violence on non-violent protesters is something that everyone should condemn...

But I'm all ears. What facts did I get wrong, Gimel?

Violet...

While non-violent resistance is of course incredibly noble, let's be realistic and point out that the government you're resisting must be at least close to just. If Ghandi had used his non-violent resistance against Stalin, he'd be icepicked like Trotsky. If Martin Luther King had used his boycotts and marches against Sharon, he'd be in the treads of an armored bulldozer with the U.S. vetoing a resolution condemning his murder.

Blayde! :yourock:

:thumbsup: ;) :toast: :yourock:

yea - - "If Martin Luther King had used his boycotts and marches against Sharon, he'd be in the treads of an armored bulldozer"

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

My remark was far from snide .

Verbal attacks are much preferred to the armed uprising with suicide bombing attacks. If Ashrawi was able to admit it, which she isn't.

that may follow up with her boss at some point...

"Resistance does not have to be violent resistance."

Back when all the kerfuffle over the Sydney Peace Prize was raging and she was being falsely accused of supporting suicide bombings, I produced an article where she and other Palestinian moderates had spoken out against suicide-bombings. I can go back and find it if you are interested in reading what her position and her thoughts really are....

Violet...

Under pressure, she finally did say she opposed them. Nice. Her little "boys will be boys" attitude is a bit tiring.

Yr claim is that she did support suicide bombings and has only changed her tune under pressure, and doesn't believe what she's saying. So, it's time for you to provide some CREDIBLE (not right-wing shlock that's unverifiable) proof that this is the case. Because it appears that moderate Palestinians are subject to a massive smear campaign from some quarters, and the ferocity and frequency of the attacks are due to a fear that moderates will actually be able to put an end to the violence and do it in a way that's fair to both Israelis and Palestinians....

If you can't provide any proof to back up that claim, I for one will take Hanan Ashrawi based on all I've read from her and what she actually says she thinks, over claims that aren't backed up with any shred of proof...

Violet...

Because it appears that moderate Palestinians are subject to a massive smear campaign from some quarters, and the ferocity and frequency of the attacks are due to a fear that moderates will actually be able to put an end to the violence and do it in a way that's fair to both Israelis and Palestinians....

Brilliant!

Where, can you show me, that I said Ashwari supports suicide bombings? She side steps the issue with every little press conference. Oh, when she was up for some award in your country, she announced her opposition to the horrendous crimes.

I'm not offering proof of something I never said. Sorry.

I don't recall claiming you said Ashrawi supports suicide bombings. You've made the accusation through some pretty strong implications that she doesn't mean what she says when she does speak about them, and is only doing it for PR value....

btw, yr wrong about her only saying she opposed suicide bombings when she was up for the Sydney Peace Prize....

June 20 2002

Prominent Palestinians condemn suicide bombings

More than 50 Palestinians took out a full-page newspaper ad today condemning suicide bombings, sparking debate at a time when most Palestinians support the attacks as an effective way to hit Israel.

<snip>

The signatories included Hanan Ashrawi, a leading Palestinian spokeswoman and a legislator, and the Palestinians' senior Jerusalem official, Sari Nusseibeh, along with other prominent figures regarded as moderates. The ad urged other Palestinians to join them in their opposition to the bombings.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/06/20/1023864469813.html

Wanna try explaining how it is that this appeared way before she was nominated for the Sydney Peace Prize?


Violet...

Usually the candidates know that they are being considered for a prize such as this, so I don't think the claim that she signed this petition in the newspaper (I do recall that, and it was a first for her). She did actually sign a petition to that effect. How marvelous of her.

But like I said, a change in approach for the better, is always welcome.

If Palestinian terrorists are indeed infiltrating the protest, then Israel has every right to shoot them. But if all the Palestinians are doing is obstructing construction of the wall then any violence - even non-lethal violence - is inappropriate. For once, the Palestinians appear to be resorting to non-terrorist forms of activism. They should be encouraged.

"For once".

I agree that non-violent means are preferable. Some call the fence itself genocide. Well, if so, it's a non-violent genocide. So preventing it's construction is not exactly non-aggressive.

In the US, demonstrations are required to have permits. A certain limited time and space is allowed for them. In this case, the lawlessness of the demonstration proves that it is not essentially non-violent.

I abhor the violence. I think, however, the people participating expect and know it will be violent. I really wonder why they go... thinking, like Rachel Corrie, that they can stop the conflict by standing in the way. If they would be a permanent human barrier, preventing attacks from the Palestinian side, but no, not their intent at all...

The idea that the fence is genocide is absolutely ludicrous. Fences don't kill people. If the fence saves lives it may well be appropriate.

In the US, demonstrations are required to have permits. A certain limited time and space is allowed for them. In this case, the lawlessness of the demonstration proves that it is not essentially non-violent.

I'm not saying what the Palestinians are doing is legal. But I am saying that breaking the law is appropriate some times, and inappropriate other times. Non-violent civil disobedience is morally justified even if it is technically illegal. I think Israel is perfectly justified in building the fence, although I do quibble with how they're doing it, but the Palestinian response is certainly much better than what it has been. This is how you resolve disputes, not with violence.

Doesn't apply, because the system of "law" in the territories is a ridiculous joke.

When non-violent acts facilitate violent ones, they lose their moral superiority. The Peace Fence is being constructed to preserve the lives of innocent Israeli civilians. Stalling that is signing their death warrants.

when reading the aforementioned, under-construction concrete object referred to with such a reverent pair of words with Capital Letters, no less?

Not even members of Sharon's cabinet go that far. An interesting insight into the "pro-Israel" cultural scene, I think.

The wife of Dr Thabet Thabet is a signatory.

Sorry, widow. He was liquidated.