≡ Menu

Israeli Attorney General Refuses to Prosecute Jilani’s Police Killers

ziad jilani's family

Ziad Jilani’s surviving family: justice perverted and denied

Yesterday, Israel’s Attorney General Yehuda Weinstein announced his refusal to prosecute Border Police officers Maxim Vinogradov and Khir Al-Din Shadi, who executed East Jerusalem Palestinian Ziad Jilani in 2010, after a minor traffic accident on the city’s crowded streets.  A lower court had earlier found insufficient evidence to prosecute Jilani.  His widow, Moira, appealed to the Attorney General and his response today further confirms the impunity of Israeli security forces when it comes to the murder of Palestinian civilians.

Jilani was the father of three young daughters (see accompanying picture).  He’d met and married Moira, a woman from Texas, and was making a life for himself in Palestine.  One Friday afternoon after prayers, he was making his way home to take his family for an evening out, when he accidentally side-swiped a police vehicle.  Thinking they might be under a terror attack, officers pursued Jilani, wounded him and, when he was immobile on the ground, fired shots into his brain at point-blank range.

Reading what the attorney general has to say about all this is instructive.  One point that stands out is that despite a graphic description in the brief of the execution, the document talks of Jilani’s “death” rather than “murder.”  They don’t even use the term “killing.”

The memorandum says there is insufficient evidence to bring the accused to justice.  The officers took action in pursuing Jilani because they saw their comrades injured and believed they had witnessed a hit and run accident, though the actual injuries of the policemen were minor.  Therefore in the initial part of this action the policemen acted according to their training and initially opening fire on Jilani followed proper procedure.

Do you know many other jurisdictions where policemen are allowed to open fire on a hit and run driver?  I’ve never heard of such a thing.  Pursuit, sure.  But immediately opening fire?  Never.

The State Prosecutor, Hila Gorani argues in her brief, that it could not prosecute Vinogradov because it could not be certain that he had sufficient intent to commit murder, since it could not with certainty determine his frame of mind when he fired the kill shots into Jilani.  He could not determine whether he fired in the heat of the moment, amidst panic and fear the “deceased” would further endanger him.  All of this must also be seen in the context of what the accused thought was a hit and run accident.

The brief says that the case against Vinogradov isn’t being closed because he’s found to have acted according to law.  But because there is insufficient evidence to determine a criminal act.  In other words, we’re not saying our boy Vinogradov was a Boy Scout.  But a murderer?  No way.  Or at least we can’t (or don’t want to) prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.

In an act of counting how many dead Palestinians can dance on the head of a pin,Gorani somehow finds it probative to refute eyewitness testimony that Jilani was murdered by shots fired mere centimeters from his head.  Instead, she counters that the pathologist hired by the murdered man’s family found he died from shots fired from “over a meter [three feet] away.”  Big fucking deal.  That’s all I can say and all this deserves.

Another element of the policemen’s argument that makes no sense is that they argue that they believed Jilani, who lightly injured them in the course of the accident, was a terrorist.  They continued to believe this after they shot and wounded him from a distance of about 10 feet, even though he was no longer in his van and they could see he was unarmed.  They somehow believed when they shot him, that even though he was no longer capable of harming anyone, he was on his way to commit some unforeseen act of terror or that he might fire on them.  They feared, if you believe this sack of lies, that he constituted a danger to others.  This from a bunch who, in firing at Jilani, actually injured a bystander.

The policemen testified (only in their second interrogation, during the first they didn’t even mention this…hmmm) that after being wounded, Jilani “moved his hand” which they viewed as “suspicious.”  Who knows, they surmised, maybe he had a knife, gun or explosive device.  They derive this intelligence from a man who was wounded and lying immobile (except for that fluttering hand) on his stomach on the ground.  They continued to believe it when they shot him twice in the head from a distance of a few inches.  A terrorist?  Really?

All of this constitutes an Israeli version of Stand Your Ground.  Under this doctrine any police officer may kill anyone he believes (or claims he believes) is about to commit an act of terror.  The threshold is quite low.  You don’t have to do anything any normal person would find suspicious.  You merely have to lose control of your van and sidesweep a police car and leave the scene of the crime.  That’s enough to seal your death warrant in the Only Democracy in the Middle East.  Let’s call this Driving While Palestinian.  In the U.S. Driving While Black will land you in jail, perhaps.  In Israel it will land you in the morgue.

The State prosecutor further supports her decision not to prosecute based on the supporting testimony of “numerous” police officers (no mention of the contradicting testimony of Palestinian eyewitnesses since they don’t amount to shit), who of course may be presumed always to tell the truth without favor.

Apparently, Weinstein also wasn’t sufficiently troubled by the fact that during the first interrogation, the commanding officer claimed he fired the kill shots and in the second, only after the family performed an autopsy which could determine with specificity who murdered him, did Vinogradov confess that he was the killer.

Nor did Vinogradov’s homicidal comments posted to his Facebook account shortly before the murder, in which he said the equivalent of, “Gonna go out and kill me some Ay-rabs,” rise to a sufficient level of concern that justified prosecution.  Though of course the statements weren’t very nice.

Gorani attempts to argue that Jilani was murdered because he drove erratically.  To support this, she even notes that the authorities performed tests of his vehicle and found it to be in good working order.  Doing so, presumably would argue that Jilani’s mental state and indecipherable motives were the cause of his own execution.

The prosecutor concedes that there is sufficient grounds for disbelieving the testimony of the policemen that they fired the kill shots because they still felt Jilani might be a danger to them.  But not enough to justify prosecuting them on criminal charges.  Our boys may be liars, she appears to be saying, but we can’t (or don’t want to) prove it.

In rejecting the appeal of Jilani’s family, the State feared it couldn’t prove guilt.  But is that any surprise in a legal system gamed against Palestinian victims?  Is it a valid argument for a prosecutor in a country that disregards the rule of law regularly to say he can’t prosecute because his legal system would never find any policeman who murdered a Palestinian guilty?  That’s essentially the argument here.

But you can be assured, Gorani tells us, that she didn’t arrive at this decision easily or cavalierly, but only after heavy consideration of the evidence.  We looked at all the evidence, as did the police investigation and the State attorney’s investigation, she says.  So you can rest assured that all that investigating covered all of our asses and arrived at the only and proper conclusion.  The premise here seems to be that if you have a case in which an Israeli security officer behaves badly the more investigations you have the better.  Not that the investigations will arrive at the truth or justice.  They can and should all arrive at the same conclusion: permitting and justifying impunity.  But merely having such a process, as kangaroo-like as it may be, serves a useful purpose that will presumably anesthetize the victims and indemnify the perpetrators.  The underlying message is that the fix is in, but we’ll do our best to prove otherwise.

That “proper conclusion” I mentioned above is that while our boys didn’t behave terribly well, they did their job as best they could and a poor Palestinian suffered as a result.  But in the greater scheme of things it’s far more important that we protect the boys who protect us, than that we protect the lives of innocent Palestinians.  That’s the shameful sentiment in a nutshell.  Impunity reigns triumphant.  And the rule of law is prostituted.

{ 49 comments… add one }
  • Deïr Yassin June 30, 2012, 2:28 AM

    Killing Without Consequences:
    link to vimeo.com

    Yehudah Weinstein is the attorney general who recently refused to prosecute Yitzhak Shapira and Yosef Elitzur, the authors of “The King’s Torah” and earlier on Shmuel Eliyahu, the Rabbi of Safed, the man behind the petition of Rabbis demanding the Jews in Safed not to rent to Palestinian students.
    So if Weinstein didn’t prosecute authors of a book justifying the killing of Palestinians, kids included, how could he prosecute someone who actually did nothing else than what’s he’s been brainwashed to think: that Palestinians are Amalek and thus legitimate targets ?

  • Bob Mann June 30, 2012, 3:52 AM

    What is the next step? It seems that Moira will continue to pursue whatever legal channels she can. Do you know what those are? Will this be appealed to Israel’s Supreme Court? Where does it go from here?

  • SUE GRIFFITHS June 30, 2012, 5:20 PM

    Out of curiosity, what would have happened to Israel’s Attorney General Yehuda Weinstein if he had found the murderer Vinogradov guilty? Every one involved on the Israeli side including the attorney is a shower of shite. I’d like to see them pay for their lies in this life, I know they’ll pay in the next life but we won’t have the satisfaction of seeing them squirm and suffer. May the fleas of a thousand camels infest their arseholes.

  • Davey June 30, 2012, 10:58 PM

    Having repeatedly elected to sacrifice peace and thousands of Palestinian lives in the name of a Jewish state, the original sin, it is doubly tragic that the power is abused in this vain idiotic pursuit and corrupts the state completely and all of its actors. There is just no sense in building a Jewish state that is so vile and corrupted and universally despised. Who needs this state? I can imagine criminals gravitating to such a state — I understand they have — and I can imagine exploiters of every type also settling on stolen land, but I cannot imagine a future for a Jewish civil society on stolen land, built on the ruination of another people. This murder of a Palestinian by a moronic brute is another disaster for Jews and for Judaism and for everyone else who believe in basic decency. Israel is the moronic brute. If arriving Jews have to “hebracize” their names maybe they should chose something descriptive like “Scuzzy” or “Shitface” or “Empty.”

    • Bob Mann July 1, 2012, 2:34 AM

      I find it incredibly insulting for you to suggest that “Shitface” would be an appropriate Hebracized version of a person’s name.

      • Deïr Yassin July 1, 2012, 2:57 AM

        Nah, you know what’s insulting ? Organizing a Miss Holocaust Survivor Contest as this week in Haifa. That’s insulting, makes my stomach turn. A French stand-up comedian has been taken to court by the local moral guardians of the Jewish community aka the French version of AIPAC for using the expression “memorial pornograhy of the Holocaust”. This is really an example. “Shitface” is nothing next to that.
        link to news.yahoo.com
        @ David
        I hope you had/will have a inspiring meeting with M.P. :-D

      • Richard Silverstein July 1, 2012, 3:28 AM

        What would you call Maxim Vinogradov? I don’t have any problem calling him some pretty vile names considering that he tore half Ziad Jilani’s brain away in a cold blooded execution. Seems to me your sensitivities are misplaced.

        • Bob Mann July 1, 2012, 7:34 AM

          If the comment was directed simply at Maxim Viongradov (i.e. that he was a “Shithead”), I would not have raised an objection. The comment, however, seemed directed at “arriving Jews” in general – that is to say, anyone who makes alliyah. That’s where I found it to be insulting.

          • Richard Silverstein July 2, 2012, 1:22 AM

            “Seemed” to you aimed at all Israeli immigrants. It didn’t “seem” that way to me at all. It seemed aimed specifically at Maxim Vinogradov.

    • Davey July 1, 2012, 11:13 AM

      DY: today

      Earlier generations of in-coming Jewish settlers in Palestine “hebracized” their names often adopting heroic Hebrew words for “lion” or “eagle” or what not to characterize their being in the land. In view of history and the accumulation of heinous crimes over the decades of such heroism, my suggestions for new appellations is appropriate. Of course, I leave it to the individual Russian or whatever to find the handle with which he/she are most comfortable.

      Bob shouldn’t be insulted by me: He should be outraged at the stewards of the Israeli state.

      • Davey July 2, 2012, 12:58 PM

        1. I don’t understand the nitpicking either. An innocent man was killed in a brutal and forthright manner by a notorious Israeli cop and this cop got off free. That’s enough reason to be outraged with Israeli “justice.”

        2. I intended to suggest via the “shitface” remark that anyone cooperating with the policies and practices of the State of Israel is, in my estimate, a “shitface.” I am sympathizing here with all those who are incensed by this affair and I don’t moderate or withdraw my angry characterization. Rather, it has led me to consider the possibility that the new Hebracized heroic names might more aptly celebrate the Israel that in fact exists. Such newly adopted names might be Hebrew equivalents for “Lie”, “Racist”, “Brute”, “Thief” or “Killer.” These are the new heroes, as everyone knows.

  • shmuel July 1, 2012, 12:59 AM

    Do u have a link to the full official decision of the AG? Your embedded link gives a blank black screen.

    • Richard Silverstein July 1, 2012, 3:26 AM

      It’s a tif. file. I wonder if your browser isn’t displaying it properly. That’s the file format I was sent. I can try to convert it to a jpg. If you want to read it I can send it to you directly via e mail. Let me know.

  • Ahad Haadam July 1, 2012, 7:36 AM

    Even if he did prosecute, what would the result be when the Jewish judge has to decide between a Jewish soldier and an Arab? Nothing too serious, and we have precedents that in Israel Arab blood is cheap: just google Kfar kassem and see what the value of the blood is of 49 innocent Arab civilians (“citizens” of Israel) were murdered in cold blood by the same Border Patrol unit.

    • Bob Mann July 1, 2012, 7:46 AM

      The officer who initially shot Jilani in the back was himself an Israeli Arab.

      • Ahad Haadam July 1, 2012, 8:04 AM

        One is a Druze the other is Russian Jew. Either way, nobody expects justice in Israel when the perpetrator of murder is Israeli security forces and the victim is Arab. If you do, you might as well join the flat earth society.

        • Bob Mann July 1, 2012, 2:39 PM

          There are Bedouin and Arab officers serving in the Israeli police. How do you know that Khir Al-Din Shadi is Druze?

          • Richard Silverstein July 2, 2012, 1:16 AM

            He is.

          • Deïr Yassin July 2, 2012, 1:23 AM

            @ Bob Man
            For God’s sake ! Why don’t you stop asking stupid insignificant questions ? Ahad Haadam is an Israeli, former IDF officer, he knows Hebrew, has probably read more about this case that you, and probably knows about the Druze vs the “Bedouin” position in the Israeli army, i.e. the-divide-and-rule hierarchy.
            Your ethnic-religious classification is strange ! Here you write “There are Bedouin and Arab officers ….” (Israel is the only place in the world where this distinction is made ! Bedouins ARE Arabs, they are even the Weberian Arab ideal type ! ) but when it came to Wahid Taysir Hayb, you knew he was a Muslim.
            Why don’t you google yourself ? His name is more likely transcribed ‘Khayr’ or ‘Kheir’ than Khir.

            You’re simply trying – as always – to pick up some details to take the attention away from the main story: after Davey’s “Shitface”, now it’s Ahad Haadam’s “Druze”. Maybe you should move on to another tactic. The Hasbarafellowship has a new course starting out in July: ‘Intermediate Level’, maybe you could follow by Skype.
            Finally I have an ‘insignificant’ question for you: why do YOU think Vinogradov killed Ziad Jilani ?

        • David July 1, 2012, 8:28 PM

          Ahad — I wouldn’t provide any non-public information. Maybe you’ve figured that out!

      • Richard Silverstein July 2, 2012, 1:21 AM

        This is a perfect example of why terms like “Israeli Arab” are so misplaced. What does “Arab” mean here? Druze, Bedouin, Christian, Muslim, Palestinian? Each different ethnic group has a distinctive set of interests, history, culture, etc. In fact, the commander was Druze, a group which has largely been extremely supportive of the State and served in the IDF. Calling him Israeli Arab seems to imply that an Arab killed an Arab, as if that lessens the crime. It doesn’t.

        Anyone who uses the term again here will be blasted & rightfully so. You’ve (not just Bob, but all future abusers of the term) been warned.

        • Bob Mann July 2, 2012, 1:58 AM

          Have you yourself not noted in earlier posts that the only Israeli police officers who have ever been convicted in such situations have been non-Jewish? I am quite confident you have made that point in the past.

          • Richard Silverstein July 2, 2012, 2:11 AM

            I think that’s probably true. But not sure what your point is.

          • Deïr Yassin July 2, 2012, 2:32 AM

            There IS no point in Bob’s comment. In fact it seems to be a pathology ! I just read the comment thread in a row and this is clearly trolling !
            Bob is trying to nitpick on the ethnic-religious origin of the soldiers when what is important is that they are NON-Jewish. And NON-Jewish is not automatically “Israeli Arab” according to Israel’s own divide-and-rule classification. In fact concerning military matters it seldom is as “Israeli Arabs” rarely do military service contrary to “Druze” or “Bedouins”.

  • Deïr Yassin July 2, 2012, 12:38 PM

    Two of Vinogradov’s colleagues in the Border Police harassing and kicking a nine-years old Palestinian boy in Hebron on Friday, just for the fun of it before Shabbath…. while he’s crying for his Mum.
    The aggression starts at 1:15. One of the hasbaristas mentions in the comments: “it’s nothing compared to Syria”, but it’s every day and it’s been going on for 45/64 years !
    link to maannews.net

    • Davey July 2, 2012, 1:27 PM

      Israel claims to be a “Western” styled state in the ME, so comparisons with Syria are irrelevant in any case. But it is typical that the Zionists would want it both ways at once: Israel is a beacon of the West in the ME for some purposes and just another ME regime for other purposes.

  • Piotr Berman July 2, 2012, 6:15 PM

    Bob Mann July 1, 2012 at 7:46 AM

    The officer who initially shot Jilani in the back was himself an Israeli Arab.

    The unitial shot cannot be realistically prosecuted as murder. However, the “shot of mercy” that killed Jilani is. Witnesses described that Jilani was in prone position and already gravely wounded when he was shot point blank in the head. Competent autopsy would refute the witnesses or confirm. Approaching a person who lies on the pavement bleeding and shooting in the head can hardly be attributed to panic.

    Passengers of Mavi Marmara were also killed with shots of mercy. And the killers were not prosecuted either. State of Israel apparently views this practice as reasonable and proper.

    • Deïr Yassin July 2, 2012, 11:54 PM

      The officer who shot Jilani in the back was NOT an “Israeli Arab” but a Druze – as mentioned in at least 3-4 other comments.The Israeli ethnocracy has divided the indigenous population into sub-categories: 1. “Arabs” 2. Druze 3. Bedouins 4. Circassians. They don’t have the same obligations concerning military service.
      If you don’t agree with the Israeli divide-and-rule classification, at least don’t use their “Israeli Arab” – another post-independence invention to deny the link between the indigenous Palestinians who managed to stay in ’48-Palestine, their native land, Palestine, and their brothers in exile. It of course also servs to deny the specificity of the Palestinians, calling them simply Arabs – which they are – makes it easier to claim their transfer to another “Arab” country.
      I have noticed that when one of the “non-Arabs” categories – in the Israeli classification – are accused of criminal behaviour, they often become “Arabs”, this also happened during the fire on the Mount Carmel when young Druze suddenly became “Arabs”.

      • Piotr Berman July 3, 2012, 8:20 AM

        The shooters could be Deobandis and the victim a Religious Zionist, this is a distraction. The question is what constitutes a justification of shooting with live ammunition in Israel. What powers the State of Israel gives to itself.

        In Latin America, in “good old days” there was “ley fuga”, if someone flees from police, soldiers, guards etc. then a fatal shot is justified. This is pretty barbaric, but in practice reluctantly prosecuted. “Shot of mercy” is another story, clearly Jilani was not running anywhere when he was killed. Even semi-civilized countries should prosecute it: a relatively standard procedure is to prosecute, but ineptly.

  • Sanych July 3, 2012, 5:16 PM

    “… executed East Jerusalem Palestinian Ziad Jilani in 2010, after a minor traffic accident …”

    H swearved into a group of policemen and gravely wounded five of them. Yes, it was “minor”…

    • Richard Silverstein July 4, 2012, 2:46 AM

      Liar. Prove it. The injuries were minor. Either you can’t read Hebrew, don’t read the newspaper, get all your news from Rotter.net or are a nitwit. Which one is it?

      • Sanych July 5, 2012, 1:25 PM

        You trying to insult me proves that I am doing something right.

        This is an account of what happened from one ultra-right publication – link to haaretz.com. Of course, you have to read it through the prism of their bias.

        As far as “proving” it to you – how about letting me run you over by car, break your bones and then you will call it a “minor traffic accident”.

        • Richard Silverstein July 5, 2012, 8:02 PM

          Don’t be an idiot. He ran over no one, broke no bones. There were a few cuts & minor lacerations. I’ve read everything written about this incident. Nowhere does anyone credible say he broke bones or ran over anyone. The police account speaks of officers flying through the air. But everyone but you & the Israeli Border Police know this was fiction, just as the police version of the execution was fiction. Not very good fiction either. But apparently you like trashy novels.

          As for causing me grievous bodily injury, now that I believe you would enjoy given your views.

    • David July 5, 2012, 7:34 PM

      What is your point, anyway? Do you say that accidental injuries (of any size!) justify the execution of this man? For reasons pointed out herein, such a consideration doesn’t even go to the “mind” (legally speaking) of the executioner. So, what’s the point anyway?

      • Sanych July 5, 2012, 9:05 PM

        My point is that there are many sides in this story, but Silverstein’s claim that it was a “minor traffic accident” proves that he is unable to be an objective judge of the facts.

        This is what is known. A group of Israeli border policemen were being pelted with stones. Jilani drove his car at high speed into the group severely injuring many. He did not stop and tried to get away. After his car was disabled he tried to run away on foot. He was shot and fell to the ground. Was shot again at close range in the head.

        Now, his family claims that his car was hit by a rock and that he lost control. That him driving into the policemen was an accident. He tried to drive/run away because he was scared. Maybe, it is a plausable explanation.

        Policemen claimed that it was not an accident, that he drove into them intentionally. They claim that it is confirmed by him trying to drive/run away. They claimed that he acted like a terrorist and that it appeared that he wanted to explode a bomb, so a policeman shot him. It is also a plausable explanation.

        To sum it up – it is a war over there, and sh*t happens during the war much more frequently than in Seattle.

        • Davey July 5, 2012, 11:55 PM

          Exactly wrong. Precisely wrong. It is not a war over there as that image suggests two sides, two armed camps going at each other, you know, the Palestinian Air Force against the IAF etc. There is only one side with power and with power comes responsibility for its application. If “shit happens,” it is the responsibility of the powerful who control what happens.

          I am reminded of all those who suggest that the I-P thing is a “dispute”, again the two sided image! What dispute? People with arms and power come and take over the land, demolish your home, and make it difficult to live any more in your homeland: Who in their right mind would characterize that uproar produced from that as a “dispute?”

          You can fabricate any story line you like here, but the final “shit” was murder at the hands of a known, unsavory Israeli cop. If there were any real Jews in Israel, or occupying the WB, they would understand and not let this go by. Apparently, there aren’t any.

          • Sanych July 6, 2012, 7:01 AM

            As von Clausewitz said – “war is a continuation of diplomacy by other means”.

            It is a war going on there and people on both sides are being killed. It is a low intensity conflict, typical for asymmetrical warfare, but it is one side against another.

            I would even say that this country is under attack and is in the middle of a war. I would even venture to say that a war of ideas is being fought on these pages (Tokyo Rose multiplied by a hundred), and its outcome will affect many, many people.

          • Richard Silverstein July 6, 2012, 6:02 PM

            No, people mostly are being killed on one side by people on the other. Your country is fighting its own war on other nations in the region, most of whom are suffering your attacks without fighting back in any meaningful way.

            I think you just equated this blog with Tokyo Rose. That’ll earn you immediate moderation. And thanks for coming up with one of the more bizarre comment rule violations to earn moderation!

        • Richard Silverstein July 6, 2012, 2:34 AM

          This is what is known: there was a claim by the Border Police that Palestinian youth were throwing stones which may or may not have been true. Jilani was driving in Friday afternoon traffic which is severely clogged at that hour. He was in a long line of cars and could not have driven his car at “high speed.” He did not severely injure anyone nor have you offered any proof of it. Further, you’re simply repeating your earlier argument w/o offering any proof there or here that you are correct. Repetition is a big no-no here. For that you’ve earned comment moderation.

          The only truth to anything you wrote above is that he did not stop and drove away. From the very beginning (not “now” as you claim) there was a claim that he either momentarily lost control of his car and accidentally swerved or that a rock hit his windshield. In fact, no one has ever proven that what happened was anything other than an accident. The policemen never “claimed” he drove into them intentionally. In fact, the AG’s lying bunch of crap statement doesn’t even make this claim. No proof has ever been adduced by the police or you that he did this deliberately. Any claim by you to that effect would be an unproven, unsupported lie.

          The murderers claim not that he “acted like a terrorist,” but that at the time they were afraid he might have been a terrorist and might have a weapon (all of which proved to be false as did virtually everything they said). Even the AG, who is no friend of Jilani’s implies that he believes they were both liars. Read the document. You know what it says.

          Yeah, it’s a war over there and shit happens. But the shit overwhelmingly happens to the Palestinians and your friends in the IDF and Border Police are the one’s who’re dumping the shit. Now you’re shoveling it here & I’m sick & tired of it.

          • Sanych July 6, 2012, 6:50 AM

            “… there was a claim by the Border Police that Palestinian youth were throwing stones which may or may not have been true”.

            It is Jilanis’ position that his car was hit by a rock and that had caused him to loose control. You are contradicting yourself by stating this fact later in your own message. Where did this rock come from? (On the side note, do people who throw stones in the street that “severely clogged at that hour” bear any responsibility?)

            Look, it is obviously useless to argue with a blind person in whose opinion Israel is always guilty. You can’t logically construct even one argument.

            “Logic” is in the eye of he beholder. None of us find any in virtually any of the hasbara you offer here.

          • Richard Silverstein July 6, 2012, 6:06 PM

            So you’re claiming that a Palestinian youth who may or may not have hit Jilani’s car with a stone is responsible for executing him? That’s rich.

          • Davey July 6, 2012, 11:39 AM

            No San8ych, it is :”useless to argue” when you are undone.

            Nobody really thinks there is any actual war in the ME except if you dilute Clausewitz to nothing. There is invasion, aggrandizement, appropriation and systematic dispossession and strangulation of a people, but not “war.” Show me the Palestinian bulldozer demolishing a home in Tel Aviv or the Palestinian F-16 dropping phosphorus bombs on civilians there. That would be war. At least now I know that their are people who prefer to see this reality as a “dispute.”

            Tokyo Rose potentiated is not a good picture of the impact of modern discourse and blogs in our times. The sheer multiplicity of voices has damaged the medium and devalued words as portrayals of the world. as never before. So you can multiply the voices but the words are much less dear, so the total value of the discourse is not enlarged. Same old.

          • Sanych July 6, 2012, 12:06 PM

            By you logic, Davey, 9-11 was not real because the attackers did not use military equipment, but commercial airlines.

            The history shows that Palestinians use various means to attack Israelis, and even stones can kill. Since you seems to have a bulldozer fetish (possibly connected to the failed Presbyterian BDS campaign) – exactly four years ago a Palestinian used a bulldozer to kill three people – link to ynetnews.com

          • Richard Silverstein July 6, 2012, 5:46 PM

            When was the last time a Palestinian stone killed an Israeli? Try never.

            9/11 is OFF TOPIC. Stay on topic & read the comment rules…carefully.

          • Sanych July 6, 2012, 7:53 PM

            September 2011

            link to maannews.net
            link to ynetnews.com
            link to theblaze.com

            You are way too easy, Silverstein, and because you cannot have an honest debate you resort to “moderation”.

          • Richard Silverstein July 7, 2012, 1:33 AM

            You said rocks kill. They don’t. They may cause someone’s car to swerve (possibly in the case of Jilani as well) and an accident, but the rock itself doesn’t kill. The car is what kills. That’s what I meant and you know it.

            I’m getting tired of your sophistry.

  • Davey July 6, 2012, 6:52 PM

    (Sanych — my fetish is conscience. BDS will work. We know this because Israel and its agents in the US are very very worried. With the Presbyterian initiative, these agents pulled no punches, invested very heavily and still came very close to losing the whole game. We will get there. We will get there as long as Israel continues its policies, practices and high crimes.)

    • Davey July 7, 2012, 7:42 PM

      Sanych — You complain that RS (and others on this blog) are prepared to see everything Israeli as evil and bad. Do you have any idea WHY participants may be so disposed in the first place? Have you any sense of the underlying reality of Israeli practices that could draw such ire, automatic or prudently considered? I am just curious about nitpicking nonsense in the face of real and ugly policies and practices of the Israeli State. You don’t “win” anything by rummaging around at the periphery of the discourse while Rome burns to the ground, so to speak. Or do you think that Israel has been UNFAIRLY adjudged (though by much of the world, it appears, a global delusion of some kind?)

      BTW — good news from PCUSA after all — a boycott of WB settlement products! And only two little votes short in the main divestment item! All of these things, including this blog, keep a-going and going…The boycott may be financial small potatoes but it is huge historically!

  • Davey July 6, 2012, 7:01 PM

    Yeah, there was a certain poetic justice in the bulldozer episode however unacceptable the action considering the thousands of Palestinian homes wrecked by Israeli military bulldozers. So Palestinians have stones, moral right, and the sympathy of people of conscience everywhere on their side and Israel has F-16’s, nuclear weapons, tanks, bulldozers, doublethink and US politicians on its side. I guess this is the “war” in which happenstance “shit happens.” What a joke.
    Can you understand how a Palestinian might be a little ticked with Israel? Can you see that at all, even just a glimmer?

Leave a Comment