≡ Menu

British Foreign Secretary Calls Anti-Wall Protests ‘Legitimate Non-Violent Resistance’

You are currently browsing comments. If you would like to return to the full story, you can read the full entry here: “British Foreign Secretary Calls Anti-Wall Protests ‘Legitimate Non-Violent Resistance’”.

{ 55 comments… add one }

  • Steffen November 4, 2010, 1:23 AM

    ” ‘Britain is being fully exploited for the worse by radical political elements making cynical use of its legal system.’ ”

    So Britain is an incompetent banana republic that can’t decide for herself how her legal system is being used?

    What an offense!

  • Medawar November 4, 2010, 2:19 AM

    They are actually unable to understand, and would regard it as outrageous if they did, that what’s actually at work is not the British government at all, but the very ancient common law right of anyone to bring a criminal prosecution before the courts in England and Wales.

    Several recent governments have found this very inconvenient, but it keeps them honest, and they have only ever been able to chisel at the edges, because not only would a change require legislation that would be vigorously opposed in Parliament, they would more or less have to rebuild the entire legal and administrative system to do this.

    The fact that anyone can bring a prosecution is exploited by government as well as the public: there are dozens of official bodies that bring cases to court in their own name, without needing primary legislation to give them that right.

    I’d give it about twenty years of Parliamentary time to get the machinery of government to move again if the right of private prosecution was removed. Departments that Mr Hague and Mr Cameron have probably never heard of might have to cease whatever function it is they perform.

    Everything from a council worker enforcing an order to remove an unstable wall, to a naval officer checking a trawler’s nets for legality, are all essentially resting on the ability of any party with evidence and a properly made case, to bring a case.

    Hague doesn’t have very many libertarian instincts and Cameron, a former professional PR consultant (oh, how we used to complain when Blair’s cabinet were all lawyers) almost none, but, like Blair before them, they are futilely fighting a thousand years of power moving steadily towards the citizen and away from the state.

    Israel has had King David, Solomon and Hezekiah, it has never had a Henry the First, nor a Charles the Second, who, when asked what the legal status of African and Asian people should be, replied, simply “They are my subjects, like any other.” Parliament, purely to protect its own turf, resisted that rule for a couple of centuries, but it is now unquestioned by all except the BNP and the EDL (founded, funded and organized, coincidentally perhaps, under the flightpath of Luton Airport), who begin to look more and more if they have foreign backing anyway.

    The right of the citizen to take criminal as well as civil matters to the courts, and King Charles the Second’s statement of the profound and the obvious, make England obnoxious to the modern state of Israel.

    Israelis really do need to look at the company they keep in this regard, from Parma and Spain under the Spanish Inquisition, to Bismark, Lubendorf, Hitler, Hoenecker, Stalin, Galtieri, Sukano, Mitterand and Putin.

    Should Israelis find England’s constitution offensive, what would they make of the Isle of Man, where every new law has to be read aloud in its entirety in public, and delayed for a year for a fresh examination if a single registered elector voices his disapproval?

    For all his Eton-instilled purple-toga-wearing grandeur, David Cameron is my servant and that of every other of Her Majesty’s subjects. He was clearly unaware of this as he took office, but the learning curve is upon him and he will know it by the time he leaves.

    • Ariel Shatil November 4, 2010, 3:25 AM

      Medawar,

      I really really hope that you are right in this matter as there are bad precedents such as Spain and Belgium.

    • Mary Hughes-Thompson November 5, 2010, 6:53 AM

      Medawar, thank you so much for putting into words so beautifully what I strongly believe to be the case. As a proud Brit I find myself apologizing for a lot of my country’s evil-doings over the centuries, but I have continued to insist that I believe there will be a Palestinian state long before Britain changes its laws to accommodate a few uppity Israelis. And I mean long before.

  • Colin Dale, London November 4, 2010, 2:48 AM

    It cannot be right that persons alleged to be guilty of war crimes, by an arm of the United Nations, should be allowed to land in Britain and to walk our streets free from arrest; to address meetings and to negotiate with members of our parliament.
    Such proposed changes to the law should be vigorously opposed by Parliament, as an outrage and as an affront to human rights, international law, and the democratic process of a free society.
    To ignore allegations as serious as that of war crime is to collude in extreme violence and death, dressed-up in the guise of self-defence and collateral damage in order to avoid justice.
    The deliberate killing of unarmed civilians is a war crime as is the deliberate destruction of hospitals, food and water supplies, power stations and other civilian targets, as defined by the Geneva Convention on Human Rights which has been ratified by all member states of the European Union and over 133 other states worldwide.

  • Tim Haughton November 4, 2010, 2:51 AM

    Having had full blown argument with my MP in the past about Britain’s role in the Middle East, this is a little of a breath of fresh air. But we should be cautious.

    When Mr Cameron made that lovely Gaza “prison camp” quip, I wrote in and said if that was his position, as Britain shares a huge amount or responsibility for the mess in Palestine that is was incumbent upon him to act accordingly.

    Still waiting for a reply on that one…

  • bar_kochba132 November 4, 2010, 9:19 AM

    Don’t you have something to say about the elections? I remember all the predictions you made two years ago….the end of AIPAC, the end of the Likud, the end of the Republicans, the end of the settlements, the end of the Neo-cons, a new progressive order, etc, etc.

    • Richard Silverstein November 4, 2010, 5:55 PM

      No, I’ll let you blather on & lie about my previous statements on just about anything. I never said any of the things you allege. I never predicted the end of Aipac, just its weakening. Never predicted the end of Likud, just the end of Labor. Never predicted the end of the Republicans (they’ve existed for 160 yrs, why would I?). I did predict the end of the neocons & they’re pretty much caput. The Tea Party is far diff. than the neocons. But you wouldn’t understand that. I did think Obama would do better than he has. But just recall the last two yrs. of Clinton’s first term. It went pretty well I thought. So Obama has hope to pull it out.

      Your understanding of American politics is pitiful.

  • Avi November 4, 2010, 9:35 AM

    “He offered the support of the British government for non-violent struggle, saying that this form of resistance would meet with widespread support in the international community.”

    Who can argue with this? I personally would support them. The reason they have lost the support of the Israelies, and the only reason they do not already have their own country on OUR land (we would have given them, our of the mercy of our good heart) is because they’ve tried to reach their destination through terrorist acts. They have blood on their hands.

    And thus we’ve built a wall to protect us. So what?

    • Richard Silverstein November 4, 2010, 12:31 PM

      I find this comment to be deeply offensive, condescending & downright disgusting. If you write such a comment in future you will first be moderated & if you repeat yr offense you will be banned.

      It is not YOUR territory to give to anyone & Israel gives NOTHING out of the goodness of its heart to ANYONE. You’re detestable.

      Everyone here except knows that if Palestinians were uniformly non-violent that they not only would not gain freedom & independence, but that Israel would gobble up whatever territory it hadn’t already gobbled up.

      Human decency…have you heard of it?

      • Avi November 4, 2010, 1:15 PM

        Sorry, it was indeed not well put. Let me rephrase:

        “He offered the support of the British government for non-violent struggle, saying that this form of resistance would meet with widespread support in the international community.”

        Who can argue with this? I personally would support them. The reason they have lost the support of the Israelies, and the only reason they do not already have their own country right where many Jews consider to be the heart of their historic and promised homeland is because they’ve tried to reach their destination through terrorist acts. They have blood on their hands.

        I think that instead of becoming mad at what I wrote (and I agree, the phrasing was not the best) you should notice that it’s true. If there haven’t been so many terrorist otrocities by the Palesitinians, I truly belive they’d have their state long ago.

        • Richard Silverstein November 4, 2010, 4:56 PM

          It’s interesting that you’ve tried to “prettify” your previously odious comment so that now it is merely wrong, but slightly less odiferous. In doing so, you’ve merely gotten to duplicate your thinking which again is a comment rule violation. Say it once. If you said it originally in a way that is gross & offensive next time don’t repeat yrself. Or I won’t print it.

          Once again, you are totally & outrageously wrong about nonviolence achieving Palestinian ends. Non violence only works when the occupying power has a conscious & limits to the force it will use against resistance. The IDF has no moral compass whatsoever & will kill a non violent resister just as soon as it would kill a violent militant. For such, non violence can only be a tactic but not a strategy. I always agree that non violence is preferable & do not defend terror. But I’m not as stupid or naive as you are to believe non violence alone would melt Israel’s heart. That’s total bulls(Yt.

          • JHornet November 4, 2010, 6:07 PM

            So is quasam rockets is you definition falls under your definition of non violence resistance ? what about throwing rocks ?

          • Richard Silverstein November 4, 2010, 11:55 PM

            I didn’t realize that the Bilin anti-Wall protestors are launching Qassams at Israel. Wow, thanks for making me aware of that delusion you seem to have. Hague was praising the anti Wall protests at Bilin and elsewhere. Don’t you bother to read before you post?

            Hey, I’ve been struck by rocks thrown at me by Israeli rightists in Jerusalem. It ain’t fun but it didn’t kill me. IDF guns at Bilin & elsewhere on the other hand have actually killed non violent demonstrators. So pardon me for not buying the tripe you’re peddling about rock throwing being a violation of the laws of nature.

          • JHornet November 5, 2010, 10:15 AM

            I asked specific question and you deflected the subject and gave no answer.
            Both bilin demonstrations, Quasam firing and rock throwing are part of the non violent resistance and used by different Palestinian groups, which form of that do you support ?

          • Mary Hughes-Thompson November 5, 2010, 11:23 AM

            @JHornet
            I realize how upsetting it must be for you that Hamas has been so effective in preventing splinter resistance groups in Gaza from firing rockets toward Israel in recent months. Many times more weapons have been fired by IDF toward Gaza civilians, often with lethal results. Farmers, fishermen, kids playing on their own land… IDF doesn’t discriminate.

            Why is it you are bothered by Palestinians occasionally throwing rocks or firing usually harmless projectiles at Israeli civilians, while apparently justifying the almost daily attacks by armed Israeli soldiers and settlers against Palestinian civilians that occasionally provoke such response from Palestinians.

          • JHornet November 5, 2010, 1:47 PM

            Mary, where did you get those observations about what i support and what i do not support ?
            i didn’t state anything of the sort and unless you have a crystal ball…..
            as for your statement about “usually harmless projectiles”
            so do i need to understand form that statement that you support such activity and you consider it legitimate ?
            and just so you’ll know from firing of qasam rockets between the years 2001-2008 18 people have died, damaged was caused to many structures, and amongst other things in march 28,2006 a katyusha rocket was fired from the gaza strip into the heart of the city of ashkelon
            http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%A7%D7%A1%D7%90%D7%9D

          • Richard Silverstein November 5, 2010, 11:27 PM

            firing of qasam rockets between the years 2001-2008 18 people have died

            This is OFF TOPIC & I warned you already that it was. THe post is not about Qassams or Gaza. It is about non violent protest against the Separation Wall on the W. Bank. YOu will confine your comments to that subject & that one alone. If you ignore me again you will be moderated until you read, understand & comply w. the rules. They’re there for a reason. Read ‘em.

            Richard stated that there was no formal Palestinian group – however the PLO was founded in 1964

            Yes, the PLO existed in 1967 but Israel certainly didn’t recognize or negotiate w. it. So again Israel would not offer land back to the Palestinians or the PLO. It conceivably could offer land back to Jordan, but again it never did.

            I want you to provide credible evidence of yr bogus claim that Israel offered the West Bank back to anyone at any time or that it offered Sinai & Gaza back to Egypt at any time before 1979. If you don’t have any then stop making claims you can’t support.

        • Deïr Yassin November 5, 2010, 12:19 AM

          # Avi)
          ” . . . where many Jews consider to be the heart of their historic and promised homeland”

          That’s something I never get. Maximalist Zionists always justify the occupation of the West Bank by saying that that’s where the historical Jewish kingdoms were situated.

          First of all, of course no rational person would buy this claim. You just have to look at a map of the region through historical times and you realize that nearly every human ethnic group except the Inuits have settled for centuries in the area, before and after the Ancient Hebrews.

          Secondly and most importantly, if the West Bank is the historical creed of the Jewish people why didn’t the Zionists claim that back in 1947 during the various sessions on the Plan of Partition. They got 55% of historical Palestine according to the 181, conquered another 23% during the war of 1948, and now they tell us that their roots are in fact on the resting 22%. Give us a break. You’re going to claim Iraq after that – that’s where Abraham is supposed to come from, isn’t it ?

          As far as ‘promised’ is concerned, the Torah is not recognized as a valid document from a legal point of view.

          • Elisabeth November 5, 2010, 4:30 AM

            Very well said!

        • Mary Hughes-Thompson November 5, 2010, 5:07 PM

          @JHornet

          “between 2001-2008 18 people have died”

          (from rockets fired from Gaza)

          And in that same period how many thousands of Palestinians died, including hundreds of infants, children and women?

  • JHornet November 4, 2010, 10:06 AM

    I do not understand one thing, why in your opinion Israel doesn’t have the right to build a fence ?
    Peace you make with your enemy’s, it too the PA 45 years 48 – 93 to accept 242,338 – during that time they gave the Israelis many reasons not to trust their intentions.
    it’s been 17 years since they changed their mind, it will take time for the israelis.

    • JHornet November 4, 2010, 10:55 AM

      i am sorry for the mistake, i meant to say that it took the PA 45 years to recognize the existence of the state of Israel and accept 242 & 338.

    • Richard Silverstein November 4, 2010, 12:34 PM

      They have a right to build a fence if they wish on THEIR side of the Green Line. Not on the Palestinian side, which is what they’re done.

      Israel has had over 40 yrs. to recognize the Palestinian national movement & agree to its state. That’s time enough I’m afraid.

      • JHornet November 4, 2010, 6:02 PM

        In an interview Abu-Mazen gave to channel 1, about a month ago he stated that after the 67 war, Israel offered the Palestinian the land back based on their recognition of the state of Israel, they refused and turned to armed resistance.

        by that statement of abu-mazen, one can learn that Israel wanted to recognize the Palestinian right, they refused.
        interview was conducted by oded granot.

        • Ariel Shatil November 4, 2010, 11:37 PM

          I’ll help you out here. The interview in question is here:
          http://www.youtube.com/user/reshuthashidur#p/a/u/1/uMfg6kjFnpQ
          Abu-Mazen’s relevant comment is near the 5:30 mark.

          I hope that you are aware that resolutions 242 and 338 have nothing to do with recognizing the Palestinian right (as it pertains to states) but actually have more to do with recognizing Israel. Therefore, saying that “Israel wanted to recognize the Palestinian right” is an outright lie. I suggest you read up a bit on the resolutions before making such false allegations.

          Just to put things in context – Back in `67 and `74, Israel didn’t recognize the PLO as representing the Palestinians. We didn’t even admit that the Palestinians existed as a nation. Back in the eighties, it was illegal for a short while to say “Palestinians” on national media. Remember the Madrid negotiations back in the early nineties? Israel refused that the Palestinian negotiators have anything to do with the PLO. Saying that Israel wanted to recognize the Palestinians back in 67 is a joke. The only reason Israel accepted the resolution in the first place is because it was non-binding and because the wording was such that allowed Israel to lay claim to territories beyond the 67 borders.

          • Steffen November 5, 2010, 6:33 AM

            “Back in the eighties, it was illegal for a short while to say “Palestinians” on national media.”

            I didn’t know this actually. Thanks for sharing this!

          • Richard Silverstein November 5, 2010, 11:15 PM

            In fact, it was illegal to advocate that Israel negotiate with the PLO, which was how I ended up at that Jerusalem demo in 1979 doing precisely this, at which point a rightist asshole plonked me with a rock on the chin (nothing broken luckily).

          • Ariel Shatil November 5, 2010, 11:14 AM

            JHornet,

            You were too lazy too look up the relevant video, I had to do it for you. You seem to be too lazy to look up resolutions 242 and 338, don’t expect me to help you out there. Don’t assume, as a character on “Under Siege 2″ said – “Assumption is the mother of all fuckups”. When you quote an interview, have the decency to watch it to the end, it isn’t saying what you think it’s saying.

            Abu Mazen gave the short short version of history. The point he is trying to make isn’t whether such an offer was on the table (it wasn’t) but that over the years, instead of negotiating Israel kept making demands of the Palestinians to show good faith and when they did, Israel just made more demands that it hoped the Palestinians don’t/can’t accept. At some point it’s painfully obvious to everybody that these are not demands, these are excuses to do nothing.

          • JHornet November 5, 2010, 1:58 PM

            Ariel, thank you for posting the video, i wasn’t to lazy i just couldn’t locate it, i was looking at the news1 channel website.
            don’t adopt the tone people here allowing themselves.
            arguing with the facts is an extremely arrogant act.
            Abu Mazen states that twice, in 1967 and in 2974 israel stated that if the Palestinians would recognize 242 & 338 they will get the land back. he his saying they refused, how can you even argue with that is beyond me.
            Richard stated that there was no formal Palestinian group – however the PLO was founded in 1964, so i guess there was a group that was representing the Palestinians.

        • Richard Silverstein November 5, 2010, 12:01 AM

          First, you don’t offer a link. Second, you paraphrase. I never trust anything written by people like you based on yr paraphrase of what was said. Quote & link if you want us to believe a single word you say.

          Israel didn’t offer the Palestinians the land back after 1967. In fact, there was no formal Palestinian group to whom it could do so. YOu may be referring to the Jordanians who had claim to the territory at the time. In fact, if Israel had offered Egypt back the Sinai, Sadat would not have started the 73 War. Golda Meir stiffed Sadat when he broached the subject, hence war.

          • JHornet November 5, 2010, 10:18 AM

            Ariel above you provided the link and the time market, your statement is simply wrong, this is not what Abu-Mazen is saying, and i assume he knows better then you.

        • Ariel Shatil November 5, 2010, 2:27 PM

          JHornet,

          I took me less than 5 minutes to locate the video ON Channel 1 website. Lazy is as lazy does (or in this case, doesn’t).

          The PLO was formed in 1964, however it wasn’t recognized by Israel as representing the Palestinians up until the Oslo accord nearly thirty years later. If you had bothered to watch the interview, or just that little example by Abu Mazen until the end, you would have known that. He gives that little speech to prove a point about the importance of mutual recognition.

          Now, since you take issue with my arguments, let me explain something very simple. Taking things out of context and playing stupid when caught isn’t very endearing. I suggest you do the following:
          1. Pay attention to the fact that you are reading the Hebrew translation of the interview, not understanding the Arabic source.
          2. Read up on resolution 242 and the controversy surrounding it.
          3. Brush up on your history.

          • JHornet November 5, 2010, 4:48 PM

            Ariel
            The fact that the PLO wasn’t recognized them is irrelevant .I’m sure that the Palestinians were offered a deal at which they would recognize 242 & 338 and in return Israel would recognize them, which is kind of what happened in the Oslo agreement. there were talks before Oslo that lead to Oslo and there were talks in 67 and 74 which were rejected by the Palestinians. Abu-Mazen states that. and i don’t see why you even argue that.

            as for your self righteousness, do me a favor you don’t know me, i treat you with respect, i don’t appreciate your bull(it. if you can’t handle a civilized exchange of things, GFY.

          • Richard Silverstein November 5, 2010, 11:32 PM

            I’m sure that the Palestinians were offered a deal at which they would recognize 242 & 338 and in return Israel would recognize them

            OK, here’s an elementary lesson in rhetoric, debating, etc. When you make a claim about history you provide evidence. Saying “you’re sure” something happened doesn’t constitute evidence. It constitute hucksterism. I don’t go in for such nonsense. You produce real proof or you don’t make the claim. You make the claim anyway you don’t last long here. Capiche?

            there were talks in 67 and 74 which were rejected by the Palestinians

            Never happened.

            You haven’t treated anyone w. respect here. You think making things up out of whole cloth constitutes showing respect? You’re right on the cusp, buddy. Don’t test me.

    • Ishbel April 20, 2011, 11:01 AM

      A “fence”! Are you a complete idiot? It’s 28 feet high! Twice as big as the Berlin Wall. Was that a fence?

      Richard; for gods sake ban this offensive fool.

      • Richard Silverstein April 20, 2011, 3:09 PM

        I can’t remember, but he hasn’t commented here in ages & I may have done so. But I wouldn’t ban anyone for calling the Separation Wall a “fence.” He may be wrong, but that’s not a banning offence.

  • uncle joe mccarthy November 4, 2010, 11:00 AM

    none of the protests has ever been “non-violent”

    the palestinians themselves use the term, “unarmed”

    because they see rock throwing as a legitimate form of protest

    so the foreign minister is wrong

    • Richard Silverstein November 4, 2010, 12:21 PM

      Jeez, I guess William Hague disagrees with you. He sees Israeli soldiers shooting lethal weapons at protesters & killing & severely wounding them & he sees 1 or 2 demonstrators throwing rocks back & he’s willing to praise these demonstrations as “non-violent.” What does he know that you’re too stupid to know?

      Gee, Uncle Joe McCarthy–British foreign minister. Which one do I believe? It’s a tough one buddy but you lose.

      • uncle joe mccarthy November 4, 2010, 9:27 PM

        got that switched around richard

        i understand that you only get to see protests from the uploads on youtube (i have called for the border police to have mounted cams, just like they do in the usa) but the rock throwing is always first

        palestinians call it “unarmed resistance”

        you know, as well as i do that every protest is organized for media affect

        show a bunch of people marching and shouting slogans, make sure to keep the kids who are the rock throwers in the back, then only show the idf response

        im sure that the foreign minister is much like you….has yet to see any of these protests in person

        and why do you always have to answer me with a pejorative

        i would be happy to debate the foreign minister

        as long as i can show up with the unedited tapes of one of these so called “non violent” protests

        shoot…at least your friend jerry is honest about what happens at these protests…he just believes like the palestinian, that rock throwing, when one is under occupation, is a legitimate form of protest

        • Richard Silverstein November 4, 2010, 11:39 PM

          the rock throwing is always first

          You don’t know what the f___ you’re talking about. Were you ever AT a protest so that you’d know what the hell you’re talking about? No, of course you weren’t. Where are the videos that prove what you claim? I have read verbatim reports of numerous demonstrations and none affirm yr claim.

          Further, yes I’d love it for the IDF to have mounted cams which would document their cold blooded murder of Palestinian & American peaceful protestors & thus be quite effective before an international tribunal. Oh yeah, the mounted cams will go over real well in the IDF. Would you pls. pitch that to them for us?

          you know, as well as i do that every protest is organized for media affect

          No actually, here’s what I know (& don’t you dare tell me what I know or that anything I know affirms any poisonous notion swimming around in yr brain), that the protests happen because Israel is stealing Palestinian land & killing non violent protestors in the process. And can you tell me how many journalists dare to cover such protests when such figures have pointedly been targeted by the IDF hit-men during such protests? “Media effect” my ass. You know, you’re a provocateur. That’s all you are. And I’m rapidly tiring of your antics.

          why do you always have to answer me with a pejorative

          Oh, I don’t know…maybe it’s because I find you incredibly noxious, snarky, offensive & downright stupid in a quick-witted sort of way. You remind me of a smart lizard.

          as long as i can show up with the unedited tapes of one of these so called “non violent” protests

          Can you pls show up w. the one of the protest that ended in the near murder of Tristan Anderson? Or the one that ended in the actual murder of Abu-Rachmeh? That should be interesting for William Hague to watch from start to finish.

          shoot

          What an interesting Freudian slip…

          Here’s your 2 minute warning…the very next thing you do or say which offends & I pull the plug on you.

        • Deïr Yassin November 5, 2010, 12:42 AM

          # uncle joe)
          Here’s some non-violent protest in Bil’in. I guess that’s why the Israelis sentenced the leader, Adîb Abu Rahma, to two years in prison. Listen to what he says – in Hebrew, and I ‘m sure it’s better than yours – about stone throwing.
          And like the Israeli soldiers to whom he’s talking, you seem to have a stone where your heart should be.
          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=St2hn_qPwE&feature=player_embedded

        • Mary Hughes-Thompson November 5, 2010, 7:09 AM

          @Uncle Joe McCarthy,
          No, Uncle Joe, when it occurs at all, comes well after the firing of tear gas grenades, sound bombs, and bullets. And sometimes missiles containing chemicals and sewage. Mostly the bullets are the rubber-coated kind, but they still cause injury and occasionally death. Join us in Bi’lin sometime and see us– internationals, Israelis and Palestinians. One time I was there with 200+ women after a Women in Black Conference in Jerusalem. Some of us were grandmas and great-grandmas in our 60s, 70s and 80s. No rocks were thrown. Just teargas, sound bombs and bullets. Hasbara’s not working so well any more, Uncle Joe. Too many witnesses to the truth I’m afraid.

        • Ariel Shatil November 5, 2010, 11:37 AM

          Uncle Joe,

          Here’s a good one for you – Back in 2005 protests in Bil’in were peaceful, and whenever a demonstration was organized, several well known and respected individuals volunteered to make sure nobody threw any rocks.

          The demonstration began, there were a few people who had their faces covered with a Kaffia on the edge of the demonstration who threw rocks and were angrily scolded by the volunteers who demanded that they cease. The demonstration continued and as soon as it ran up against some Israeli soldiers, the same hooded individuals started throwing rocks again. The volunteers ran up to them to make them stop only for the instigators to remove their Kaffias, put on a cap identifying them as the Massada unit of the Israeli Jail Service and arrest the very people who came to stop them from throwing rocks.

          The whole thing was filmed by former channel 2 reporter Yoram Binur. You can read a little about it in this (right leaning) site here:
          http://www.news1.co.il/Archive/001-D-83240-00.html?tag=02-17-57
          And here:
          http://www.haaretz.co.il/hasite/pages/ShArt.jhtml?contrassID=1&subContrassID=5&sbSubContrassID=0&itemNo=603089

          As a footnote, if my memory serves me correctly, one of the volunteers arrested was released without charge the following day, the other one after two days. Both were severely beaten.

          I’m still looking on-line for Yoram Binur’s tapes. I think that his reporting on this matter facilitated his dismissal from Channel 2 News.

          So, you were saying something about “violent demonstrations”? Care to elaborate? I’m still waiting for you to answer me in a different thread how an hour on the kerb sucks compared to a night in jail. Please don’t run away here as well.

          • Mary Hughes-Thompson November 5, 2010, 11:48 AM

            @Ariel Shatil
            The kind of chicanery you cite has been proven over and over. A few years ago I was part of a non-violent march in Al Ram, protesting the building of the apartheid wall which was just beginning there and is now complete. There was a marching band of young uniformed Palestinian musicians and a group of supporters, including Palestinians, Israelis and internationals. Before being attacked by IDF soldiers and border police, a couple of fellows were seen to be acting suspiciously. They were quickly recognized and exposed as IDF infiltrators before they had a chance to start throwing rocks. They ran away in a big hurry as soon as they realized their cover was blown. Nobody threw rocks but we were viciously attacked anyway.

          • Deïr Yassin November 5, 2010, 1:45 PM

            There’s even a word for those infiltrators: “mistaravim”.
            During last week’s demonstrations in Umm al-Fahm a ‘mista’arev’ was wounded when participating in a Palestinian demonstration protesting the right-wing-settler-rally who had chosen Umm al-Fahm of all towns in Israel to demand the dissolution of a Muslim political party.
            http://www.maannews.net/eng/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=327953

            And also last week, the leader of the most influent French trade union, CGT (‘communist’) and a leading left-wing politician accused the police of infiltrating the numerous demonstrations these last weeks, wearing CGT-badges, and acting violently in order to discredit the demonstrators.
            A video actually proved the accusations, and my first reaction was: “That’s the Israeli methods”.

            French-Israeli military collaboration has been intensified since Sarko became president, and Israeli military instructors have been training the French police on how to cope with a eventual new ‘surburban revolt’. They apparently learned a lesson on infiltration as well.

          • Richard Silverstein November 5, 2010, 11:20 PM

            I think Uncle Joe must be making the rounds of all the other progressive pro peace sites to which the Hasbara Institute assigns him. He seems to fly in for the random comment once every fews days & them promptly leaves for parts unknown. He doesn’t do much responding so you prob. won’t hear from him till he helicopters in once again to slum amongst us.

            Thanks for that info about the agents provocateur. What an old tried & true tactic. Let me know if you find the video online.

  • Deïr Yassin November 4, 2010, 11:18 AM

    # Avi)
    You are so full of …. Hasbara !

    “The only reason they do not have their own country on OUR land”
    No, the State of Israel was established on THEIR land.

    “We could have given them, out of [the] mercy of our good hearts”
    You mean like dropping White phosphorus on kids in Gaza. And this sentence reaffirms that you have a colonial approach to Palestinians. You don’t use the word ‘mercy’ if you consider them equal human beings, it’s like your ‘cheap Palestinian labor’.

    “they’ve tried to reach their destination through terrorist acts”.
    Like Lehi, Stern, Irgun . . .

    • uncle joe mccarthy November 4, 2010, 9:29 PM

      [comment deleted because commenter is a unregenerate fool who mischaracterizes UN resolutions]

  • neitherherenorthere November 4, 2010, 6:39 PM

    I’ve come across your site and was just reading your ‘glad tidings’ re the British Foreign Secretary William Hague . It seems your joy was premature as the man’s already backtracked.

    U.K. foreign secretary: Israeli officials shouldn’t fear arrest
    Hague sought to reassure Israeli leaders after they suspended an annual strategic meeting in Britain last month due to fears they could be arrested under the principle of universal jurisdiction.

    By The Associated Press
    http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/u-k-foreign-secretary-israeli-officials-shouldn-t-fear-arrest-1.322998

    As you remarked he speaks from both sides of his mouth as good politico does. And must. It’s the same with this business of the Wall. Many people find it outrageous. I don’t find it especially outrageous nor do I think it wrong for a country to protect itself from a bunch of maniacs who cannot and won’t and don’t ever seem to accept the fact, that they lost. And all the business about the territories being illegal? Gold Meir once told Oriana Fallaci “Since when do the losers dictate the terms of peace?” The land the UN calls occupied ought to have been just been outright annexed years ago and there would be no problem.

    • Richard Silverstein November 4, 2010, 11:52 PM

      the man’s already backtracked.

      You don’t have a clue what you’re talking about nor did you actually bother to read anything I wrote apparently. I didn’t say Hague was ever opposed to the notion of ending arrest warrants for Israeli leaders. In fact, I clearly said that Hague & his gov’t DO approve this position. So what the hell are you talking about?

      nor do I think it wrong for a country to protect itself

      The Wall doesn’t protect anyone. There are thousands of areas where Palestinians pass freely from their territory to Israel regardless of a Wall. If they wanted to they could resume terror inside Israel. But they haven’t done so deliberately. Plus, the wall actually steals Palestinian land a violation of international law.

      they lost

      How nice. Another arm chair Israel booster who tells the Palestinians they’ve lost but just haven’t woken up to that fact. Isn’t it interesting that Samson too lost but managed to take down the temple and hundreds of his Philistine hosts with him when he went. It was quite a show. Maybe you’d like to be there sometime to know what it feels like when someone who’s lost hasn’t seemed to have gotten the msg. & wreaks havoc on the so-called winners. When thousands of Israelis over the years die in terror attacks what is that? Winning? Not what I call it.

      a bunch of maniacs

      Racism is a blatant violation of my comment rules. Violate them again & you won’t be back.

      Gold Meir once told Oriana Fallaci

      Wow, you really had to go far back into the dusty uber-ZIonist archives to find that one. 40 yrs. You’re really up on the latest hasbara aren’t you?? Couldn’t you have managed a little Benny Morris to be a little more contemporary?

      ought to have been just been outright annexed years ago and there would be no problem.

      Robert Wright proposed just that in the NY Times a few wks ago & I thought it was brilliant. Annex the entire Occupied Territories & then Palestinians can mount a worldwide campaign for a free & fair democratic election because Israel would have to give them citizenship in order to annex them (ah, yes but Kahanist that you are you’d find a way to expel them or deny them citizenship). Then they could take over the state and you’d have a one-state solution with Palestinians outnumbering Jews. That would be an excellent choice, don’t you think? Lest anyone choose to quote this passage out of context later, there is irony & satire in my writing voice.

    • Steffen November 5, 2010, 12:11 AM

      Golda Meir? The one who said she didn’t want the sick and the disabled to come to Israel so they wouldn’t be a burden on society and preferred it if they stayed where they were?

      I am glad we agree that her opinion counts. It’s great!

  • dickerson3870 November 5, 2010, 5:26 PM

    RE: “A situation in which an Israeli leader, whether minister or military officer, cannot travel to Britain is absurd and must be stopped for the sake of good Israeli-British relations.” – Livni
    MY SNARK: Try Skype, Tzipi. It is not nearly so detrimental to the environment as is international travel. You Israelis do care about the environment, don’t you?

Leave a Comment