Israelis quit Palestinian schools

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4622571.stm

<snip>

"Israeli troops have abandoned three Palestinian school buildings in the West Bank that they had been using as observations posts since 2000.
The army said it had left the schools - which are housed in a complex next to a Jewish settlement in Hebron - in order to ease restrictions on Palestinians.

Israeli troops will continue to monitor the area from an observation post near one of the schools."

<snip>

"Palestinians who visited the abandoned buildings after the soldiers left said they found a trail of devastation, with smashed doors and windows, and broken desks.

Hundreds of troops are based in Hebron to protect 600 Jewish settlers who live in the city of 120,000 Palestinians."

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

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

Not just "some idiots".

Idiots that were agents of the GOI (e.g. The IDF).

Idiots that were under orders.

Heaven forbid someone actually take responsibility for the actions of government troops on (albeit illegal) occupation duty.

Instead we are treated to rationalizations and irrelevant segues to issues unrelated to the original topic.



I know, I know...rules are for "other" people.

What is the real story? You see it as the "trashing of the schools" and I see it as the removal of more outposts allowing for greater freedoms.

Now, since we are on a side topic, please indicate where you were "treated to rationalizations?" I don't see how pointing out the greater issue here is the removal of outposts is rationalizing the condition in which they were left. And the "irrelevant segues to issues unrelated to the original topic" was from YOUR original comment. My piece was a parody of your last paragraph. A parody is a literary or artistic work that imitates the characteristic style of an author or a work for comic effect or ridicule as defined by Dictionary.com. Besides being a parody, mine was somewhat grounded in reality, whereas your paragraph was gross hyperbole. Therefore, any "irrelevant segues to issues unrelated to the original topic" were, in fact, introduced by you.

So, I guess you are correct; rules are for "other" people. I must be an "other."

Schools were trashed. The fact that those schools were used like that for so long would bother most people, but I'm getting the impression everyone's expected to forget about that and sing loud praise for Israel when it's doing what it should have done a long time ago...

Speaking about "other" what was that first line in yr earlier post "Seems someone's feathers are in a ruffle." supposed to mean? Who's feathers?

Violet...

Following the withdrawal plan, Israel's act is overshadowed by something non-monumental. Was it inappropriate? Yup! But, again, many miss the forest for the trees. The fact that even when Israel does what is supposed to do, it is expected to attack her and show how she is unwilling to participate in the peace process and the Palestinians are always the victims. But, I agree, it should have been done long ago...however, one side wouldn't participate in negotiations and it wasn't the Israelis. Isn't it interesting that since the death of Arafat, how fast things have happened?!

The "feathers" comment was in response to the deleted post.

Trashing schools is non-monumental? To the students and the parents, I'd say it probably is. No, but let's forget about all that and ooh and aah at the pretty distraction of disengagement and do nothing but praise Israel.

No, no-one in this thread has claimed that Palestinians are always the victims. What I suspect sometimes is that even hinting that Palestinians are sometimes the victims is enough to upset some folk...

I'd love to hear all about these long ago negotiations where the Palestinians wouldn't participate! I'm all ears!

So you were saying that Newyorican's feathers are in a ruffle? Uh, okay. Yr definately not an "other", bta

Violet...

The trashing is non-monumental. It was inappropriate. However, I bet those students and parents are more excited about the fact that the "occupiers" have left, than what condition inside building is in. And, yes, let's forget all the rhetoric that Israel is not wanting to disengage and focus on the trashing of a 3-year occupied building.

Never said anyone in this thread was claiming Palestinians are always the victim. What I suspect is that even hinting that Israel is doing as asked is enough to have some folks find anything wrong with it.

I would love to tell you about the negotiations that failed...but rather than cut and paste, google "Arafat" and see how many times he was willing to negotiate with Israel.

I was saying his feathers were all a "fowl." I am OK being an "other" because it means I follow the rules. When I don't, my posts are deleted. Even when I am angry, I still follow the rules to the best of my ability. So, I don't mind being an "other." Being gay and a Jew, I have been called much worse. It is water off a duck's back....heehee...yet another "fowl" reference on my part! Watch out Jon Stewart and Al Franken, another funny Jew is hot on your heels! :)

After all, there was no need for them to mention the schools got trashed, was there? Couldn't they have put a Happy Smiley spin on it and ignored it and instead published an article about how wonderful the disengagement is and especially wondrous how it apparently makes Israel immune from any criticism? Please, bta. Tell me that's not along the lines of what you think. Seriously, I'm failing to see why there shouldn't be criticism of what was done. It was wrong, those who carried it out should be punished, and that sort of thing shouldn't happen again. btw, I don't really think it's a good idea to try to say how Palestinians would feel. I doubt any of us know what they'd think or feel...

If you never said that anyone in this thread was claiming Palestinians were always the victims, then why bring it up in this thread? As for yr suspicion, who in this thread is behaving that way?

No, I don't want you to copy and paste and I haven't got the time or the interest in going on some vague googling exercise without something specific to go with. What I'd like is for you to tell me about when and where it was that the Palestinians refused to negotiate. Are you talking about Camp David? If it is, any attempts to paint one side or the other as being to blame for the negotiations failing isn't correct. Both parties and the US were to blame for the failure there. But maybe yr talking about some other thing other than Camp David, where the Palestinians most certainly did engage in negotiations...



Violet...

You asked, "So you think the article took the wrong perspective in reporting it?" I didn't say that or imply it. It is not the reporting that is the issue, but the reaction to the article.

"After all, there was no need for them to mention the schools got trashed, was there?" I didn't say that, did I?

"Couldn't they have put a Happy Smiley spin on it and ignored it and instead published an article about how wonderful the disengagement is and especially wondrous how it apparently makes Israel immune from any criticism?" Again, I have problem with the what is contained in the article. My concern lies in that when Israel does some thing it is supposed to do, it is met with ridicule, derision, and/or contempt.

"Please, bta. Tell me that's not along the lines of what you think. Seriously, I'm failing to see why there shouldn't be criticism of what was done." I didn't say that they shouldn't be exempt of criticizm, now did I? I actually said it was inappropriate.

"It was wrong, those who carried it out should be punished, and that sort of thing shouldn't happen again." I agree with you. It was, as I have said twice before, inappropriate.

"btw, I don't really think it's a good idea to try to say how Palestinians would feel. I doubt any of us know what they'd think or feel..." The comment you are referring to was a direct response to you. Therefore, you indicated how they felt. Is it only a bad idea when I surmise what they would feel?



"If you never said that anyone in this thread was claiming Palestinians were always the victims, then why bring it up in this thread?" Sometimes, that is an excuse used to attack Israel and was just one of the excuses I included.

"As for yr suspicion, who in this thread is behaving that way?" Where did I say I suspected this (some always seeing the Palestinians as victims) was happening in this thread? Or were you talking about my suspicion "that even hinting that Israel is doing as asked is enough to have some folks find anything wrong with it.?" If you are talking about the second one, I think it is pretty obvious. In your condemnation of the condition of the school, did you once say anything positive about the withdrawal? Even in my praise of the withdrawal, I commented several times on the inappropriateness of the condition in which the building was left.

"No, I don't want you to copy and paste and I haven't got the time or the interest in going on some vague googling exercise without something specific to go with. What I'd like is for you to tell me about when and where it was that the Palestinians refused to negotiate. Are you talking about Camp David? If it is, any attempts to paint one side or the other as being to blame for the negotiations failing isn't correct. Both parties and the US were to blame for the failure there. But maybe yr talking about some other thing other than Camp David, where the Palestinians most certainly did engage in negotiations..." There are plenty of examples, some can even be found on the pages at the UN. I wasn't referring to Camp David because both sides did sit down to negotiate, they just didn't reach any good conclusions. I am also aware of several negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians, some of them with positive results.

My biggest beef is that Israel has started to follow through with the withdrawal, yet it never seems to be good enough. And, if something like the trashing of the school happens, it completely overshadows the positive. Give credit, where credit is due. I leave this as an example:

It is great that Israel has withdrawn from an outpost, as promised. However, the condition in which the school was left was inappropriate and actions should take place to correct the situation and ensure that it doesn't happen again.

Tell me if I'm getting this wrong. You have a problem not with people pointing out that it's not really good form to occupy schools for years, then trash them on departure, but when people don't spend equal or more time gushing about how wonderful it is that Israel is pulling some troops out of the schools? And make sure the praise of Israel goes first in any sentence, of course. How is pointing out that it's not at all acceptable behaviour to trash the schools turn into 'ridicule, derision, and/or contempt.' of Israel?

Using this 'seeing the positive' tactic, can you explain to me why I should be talking in glowing positives about the Howard govt here recently loosening up the mandatory detention policy for asylum seekers just a little bit? Or does this thing only apply to Israel? Because I have nothing but a deep and abiding contempt for my govt's tactics. What they did has been too little, too late, and too many innocent people have suffered for it...

I was talking as a parent of a school-age child how I'd imagine other parents would feel....

Considering I wasn't talking about 'excuses to attack Israel' I've got no clue as to why you talked about it in the reply to my post. It might help a bit if you address what I'm saying in my post in future and when speaking of things I didn't say, make sure that you point that out...

I left the whole concept of praising someone/something for things that should happen anyway back when my kidlet realised that she should be doing things not for the praise, but because she knows she should be doing it. I find this whole positive reinforcement stuff just a bit on the tedious side, and best left to dealing with puppies and small children, not when discussing states like Israel and its actions.

There are plenty of examples, some can even be found on the pages at the UN. I wasn't referring to Camp David because both sides did sit down to negotiate, they just didn't reach any good conclusions. I am also aware of several negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians, some of them with positive results.

Let's apply the 'credit where credit's due/positive reinforcement for anything done right' theory to yr comment about the Palestinians refusing to negotiate. Can you see now where yr argument could be turned back against you to good effect, despite what I think is the utter pointlessness of the entire argument?

The UN is a massive site. I'm not wading through it with no hints at all. You must have some specifics to go on when you made yr original claim that the Palestinians refused to negotiate. Hold on, though. Why in that claim wasn't there praise for the Palestinians when they did negotiate? (not that I think they've actually refused to negotiate anymore than Israel has when actual negotiations have been on the agenda) What happened to the 'credit where credit's due' and praising for things done right and not focusing on negatives theory? ;)


Violet...

say,if you were commenting on someone who'd
farted in church,maybe,or worn a brightly coloured
necktie at a funeral.

The seizing,occupation,& destruction of a school is
a criminal offence;personally I'd use an adjective that
carried a bit more weight.

Credit Where Credit's Due aka Seeing The Positive In Things is a very delicate thingumeebob that requires the most feather-light of touches, adjective-wise, on the side of criticism of Israeli actions to balance it with the copious and gushing praise given to Israel. I'd do a lovely little formula using cute scientific equations and nonsensical algebra stuff to make it look real impressive, but I worry that short of me working out how to do that copyright symbol in my posts, some lurker may flog it and spread the theory far and wide across DU...

In the spirit of Seeing The Positive In Things, here's a little song that I think displays the complete and utter seriousness that I hold for this theory...

Always Look On The Bright Side Of Life

Some things in life are bad
They can really make you mad
Other things just make you swear and curse.
When you're chewing on life's gristle
Don't grumble, give a whistle
And this'll help things turn out for the best...

And...always look on the bright side of life...
Always look on the light side of life...

If life seems jolly rotten
There's something you've forgotten
And that's to laugh and smile and dance and sing.
When you're feeling in the dumps
Don't be silly chumps
Just purse your lips and whistle - that's the thing.

And...always look on the bright side of life...
Always look on the light side of life...

For life is quite absurd
And death's the final word
You must always face the curtain with a bow.
Forget about your sin - give the audience a grin
Enjoy it - it's your last chance anyhow.

So always look on the bright side of death
Just before you draw your terminal breath

Life's a piece of shit
When you look at it
Life's a laugh and death's a joke, it's true.
You'll see it's all a show
Keep 'em laughing as you go
Just remember that the last laugh is on you.

And always look on the bright side of life...
Always look on the right side of life...
(Come on guys, cheer up!)
Always look on the bright side of life...
Always look on the bright side of life...
(Worse things happen at sea, you know.)
Always look on the bright side of life...
(I mean - what have you got to lose?)
(You know, you come from nothing - you're going back to nothing.
What have you lost? Nothing!)
Always look on the right side of life...

written by Eric Idle (I think)

Violet...

From 'The Life of Brian'

'EX-LEPER:
Alms for an ex-leper. Bloody donkey owners. All the same, aren't they? Never have any change. Oh, here's a touch. Spare a talent for an old ex-leper.
MANDY:
Buzz off!
EX-LEPER:
Spare a talent for an old ex-leper.
MANDY:
A talent? That's more than he earns in a month.
EX-LEPER:
Half a talent, then.
MANDY:
No, go away!
EX-LEPER:
Come on, Big Nose. Let's haggle.
BRIAN:
What?
EX-LEPER:
All right. Cut the haggling. Say you open at one shekel. I start at two thousand. We close about eighteen hundred.
BRIAN:
No.
EX-LEPER:
Seventeen-fifty?
MANDY:
Go away!
EX-LEPER:
Seventeen-forty.
MANDY:
Look. Will you leave him alone?
EX-LEPER:
All right. Two shekels. Just two. Isn't this fun, eh?
MANDY:
Look. He's not giving you any money, so piss off!
EX-LEPER:
All right, sir. My final offer: half a shekel for an old ex-leper.
BRIAN:
Did you say... 'ex-leper'?
EX-LEPER:
That's right, sir. Sixteen years behind the bell, and proud of it, sir.
BRIAN:
Well, what happened?
EX-LEPER:
I was cured, sir.
BRIAN:
Cured?
EX-LEPER:
Yes, sir, a bloody miracle, sir. God bless you.
BRIAN:
Who cured you?
EX-LEPER:
Jesus did, sir. I was hopping along, minding my own business. All of a sudden, up he comes. Cures me. One minute I'm a leper with a trade, next minute my livelihood's gone. Not so much as a by your leave. 'You're cured mate.' Bloody do-gooder.
BRIAN:
Well, why don't you go and tell him you want to be a leper again?
EX-LEPER:
Ah, yeah. I could do that, sir. Yeah. Yeah, I could do that, I suppose. What I was thinking was, I was going to ask him if he could make me a bit lame in one leg during the middle of the week. You know, something beggable, but not leprosy, which is a pain in the arse, to be blunt. Excuse my French, sir, but, uh--
MANDY:
Brian! Come and clean your room out.
BRIAN:
There you are.
EX-LEPER:
Thank you, sir. Thanks-- Half a denary for me bloody life story?
BRIAN:
There's no pleasing some people.
EX-LEPER:
That's just what Jesus said, sir.'



Graham Chapman -- Screenwriter
John Cleese -- Screenwriter
Terry Gilliam -- Screenwriter
Eric Idle -- Screenwriter
Terry Jones -- Screenwriter
Michael Palin -- Screenwriter

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

All because a handful of Israeli settlers who shouldn't even be there need to be 'guarded'? Why have these students been made to suffer because of 600 settlers, and why has Israel risked the lives of hundreds of Israeli troops to keep what in Hebron are mainly extremist religious settlers happy? And what those troops did in trashing the schools when they left is not just idiotic - it's so much more than that. It's dangerous for two big reasons - their destructive and unprofessional actions are likely to instil hate, and secondly by doing what they did, they're an insult to the other troops who wouldn't behave in that way...

Violet...

because I really dont have much to say...its happend more than once when IDF troops have taken over a building and have trashed it for no real reason....and it doesnt make me feel very good about it either.

i wont defend the various troops who over the years moved in and moved out of those buildings and did nothing to take care of it, nor will i defend the commanders whos responsability it was to insure that the property was kept intact. As far as I am concerned there was no excuse for trashing it.

It seems mainly to be a trait of the younger soldiers as opposed to the older reserve soldiers who tend to appreciate the cost that goes into properties......I knew of one guy who after cleaning up would leave some money...probably more out of guilt than anything else , but it was at least a humanitarium gesture.

As far as giving credit to israel for leaving the outposts....on a personal note i admit, like a child, i want to be credited, the feeling of being appreciated, that "we did good"....but then I suspect we all have that same child within. But I dont really expect to hear it.....intl politics doesnt have much of the "touchy feely" aspect to them.