In a recent article published in the New University, the official newspaper of UCI, a Zionist writer makes outrageous claims.
She claims that much of the information presented on our Apartheid wall was "propaganda" and that many of the events depicted on the wall "did not even occur or were not the fault of the Israelis."
She claims that much of the information presented on our Apartheid wall was "propaganda" and that many of the events depicted on the wall "did not even occur or were not the fault of the Israelis."
First off, even with our incredible imaginations we would not even come close to being able to produce the amount of massacres and atrocities committed by the apartheid state of Israel. The facts are there, almost every statistic that we used on our display came from the UN.
The first ridiculous claim that she makes is that the Gaza Beach Massacre was not the fault of the Israeli military and that they had proof that they were not responsible for the murder of the Ghaliya family.
The Israeli army did indeed commit an investigation and this report completely cleared the army of responsibility. They blamed Palestinian groups for the deaths, which they claim were due to a mine under the sand.
This is not surprising coming from the Israeli army who would make up anything to clear their name.
Why not have an independent investigation? Not an Israeli or Palestinian one, so that personal agendas do not interfere with the investigation.
Well, actually there was an independent investigation done by the Gaurdian, which completely discredits the Israeli report.
"But the army's account quickly came in for criticism, led by a former Pentagon battlefield analyst, Marc Garlasco, investigating for Human Rights Watch. "You have the crater size, the shrapnel, the types of injuries, their location on the bodies. That all points to a shell dropping from the sky, not explosives under the sand," he said. "I've been to hospital and seen the injuries. The doctors say they are primarily to the head and torso. That is consistent with a shell exploding above the ground, not a mine under it."
Click Here for Full Report
The next claim is that the murder of Muhammad Al-Durra never occured. She says, "this incident never happened. The entire episode was staged and is what spurred the Palestinians into the Second Intifada."
Muhammad Al-Durra, twelve years old, came underfire by an Israeli outpost after spending the day carshopping with his father, Jamal. His father desperately tried to shield him from oncoming Israeli fire, but was not able to and Muhammad died in his arms.
The entire footage was caught by a France 2 cameraman, Talal Abu Rahma, who says...
"I can assert that shooting at the child Mohammed and his father Jamal came from the above-mentioned Israeli military outpost, as it was the only place from which shooting at the child and his father was possible. So, by logic and nature, my long experience in covering hot incidents and violent clashes, and my ability to distinguish sounds of shooting, I can confirm that the child was intentionally and in cold blood shot dead and his father injured by the Israeli army."
Below is the actual footage...
FYI...the second intifada wasn't started with the murder of Muhammad Al-Durra, it began with Ariel Sharon's blatant and provocative visit to the mosque compound of the Temple mount which is sacred to all Muslims.
Her final claim is that the Palestinians staged a fake funeral in Jenin, where many Palestinians were massacred.
We are supposed to believe that Palestinians, while mourning their dead, are going to stage a mock funeral to gain the sympathy of the international community?
When has the sympathy of the international community ever benefited the Palestinian people?
13 comments:
I openly deny this never occured because it didn't. It was staged. And the Gaza Beach incident was not the fault of Israelis. The Palestinians fired shells at the area, perhaps by accident.
As for the episode in Jenin, it is very sad and unfortunate that Palestinians would stage deaths. However, this is not the first time they've done so for propaganda purposes. A few years ago gunshots were fired during a Palestinian funeral. The individual who was "dead" suddenly got up and took off running. Footage was aired on BBC and CNN.
How sad that you guys didn't mention the fact that you had a week openly praising "martyrdom." You had a speaker who defended suicide bombing. That is just sick. There was a Muslim girl during Amir Abdel Malik Ali's speech who started crying simply because she was so offended that Muslims on the UCI campus would openly advocate for terrorism. Administrators had to calm her down.
Anyway, I knew you'd call these "Zionist lies" or whatever. I look forward to reading whatever letter-to-the-editor you submit. Unfortunately you group together anyone who is remotely pro-Israel or Israeli into the category of "Zionist oppressors." That means that you're against the majority of the Jewish population in the world.
The MSU is not looking for solutions to the conflict, for any kind of two-state solution or productive dialogue. This group has lost any legitimacy they may have had a long, long time ago.
It's kind of fun. Hell, I'm a secularist, even without the religious aspect this crap is fantastic. Everything the Palestinian Authority and the other hair brained groups do highlights the fact that they're incompetent to the point of retardation. I have a lot of sympathy for the actual Palestinian people, since their leaders have robbed them of every good thing Israel and the rest of the world has ever tried to help them get.
Hate to burst your bubble Reut, but your inaccuracies are nothing short of amusing.
To begin with, the Palestinians do not possess the type of shells that were fired on the beach. The shells are usually ammunition for tanks and gunships, both of which the Palestinians do not have. They do not have an army, let alone the weapons necessary for one.
If you want to deny that these atrocities ever occurred so that you can sleep better at night, that is your decision, but know that the international community, as well our small UCI community, knows who is really responsible for these crimes.
Second, the girl that you mentioned was not even Muslim, and after the lecture, she approached Amir Abdel Malik and had an enlightening conversation with him.
So far, there isn't an ounce of truth in the claims you make.
Many supporters of the apartheid state like to discuss the two-state solution, but please explain to me how a two-state solution would work at this point.
The West Bank has hundreds of illegal settlements scattered all throughout it. You have an internationally condemned illegal Apartheid wall, which cuts deep into the West Bank annexing the major water supplies, including the largest aquifer in the West Bank.
Let’s pretend that the Palestinians accepted the idea of a two-state solution, and that this solution was implemented. Will this Palestinian state be able to control it's own airspace and waterways like the Israelis do? Will it be able to have its own army like Israel has? Will it be able to possess its own nuclear weapons, just as Israel does?
If you answer yes, Reut, then you’re not being honest with yourself. The two-state solution is simply not possible anymore.
If your true goal is to establish peace in the land, then first justice must be established.
Peace will come with justice.
Thank you so much for this blog and your response to Reut's article that was full of lies all of which you articulately and truthfully discredited.
Hello. Hope you're doing well.
I tried to find the most liberal news organizations to show you that these aren't "Zionist lies."
Here are a couple:
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/05/03/jenin.tape/
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1149572656052&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
Moreover, I know the girl who started crying in the back. She didn't have an "englightening" experience with Malik Ali. She was repulsed by him.
Anyone who is inspired by a man who advocates for terrorism (some call it freedom fighting) has some serious psychological issues, is brainwashed or is simply evil.
Suicide bombing is against Islam. Yet the MSU (a religious organization) brings religious leaders to defend this practice. This is very disturbing.
The MSU cannot start out their events saying that they "greet" us "with peace" and proceed to advocate for martyrdom/terrorism/freedom fighting/suicide bombing. It simply does not make sense.
Ultimately I believe that if the Palestinians would put down their weapons and come to the table honestly to seek peace, they would be surprised at the willingness of Israelis to compromise and would be rewarded.
Listen, I've lived in Israel and have lost close family members to terrorism. Enough is enough. The difference between the Israelis and the Palestinians is that Israelis do not seek out innocent civilians to murder. Palestinian suicide bombers do whatever possible to kill civilians. They will go up to a group of children and detonate.
But AFI and Hillel won't bring any walls to campus with morbid pictures to exploit these deaths. It's unnecessary. We can do exactly what you're doing, but this does not achieve anything.
Palestinians could have their own state (and should have one). But with their current governments (who are more interested in killing Israelis), peace appears to be impossible. It doesn't have to be that way. Also, I think, if the MSU is so concerned with human rights, the group needs to take a very good look at Palestinians living in Lebanon, Iraq and Jordan. They have no rights. The group should also be concerned with the rights of women and children in the Arab world.
As for walls... where is the condemnation of the wall on Saudi Arabia's border which is electrically charged? Who are the Saudis keeping out with an electrically charged wall?
I've already discussed why I believe the wall between Israel and Gaza is necessary on my blog. The wall can be taken down when Palestinians stop threatening the security of Israel.
'Justice,' by the way, should not be achieved through violence.
Have a good night.
Reut,
You claim that "if the Palestinians would put down their weapons and come to the table honestly to seek peace, they would be surprised at the willingness of Israelis to compromise and would be rewarded."
What weapons are you referring to? The Palestinians have no weapons. It is the Israelis who posess the tanks, the apaches, the nuclear warheads etc. not the Palestinians.
For a period of time the Palestinians did in fact put down their arms (if you can call them arms) and sat down for "peace" negotiations with the Israelis. What did this amount to? Nothing.
Israel is simply not interested in peace.
Reut Cohen:
"Listen, I've lived in Israel and have lost close family members to terrorism. Enough is enough. The difference between the Israelis and the Palestinians is that Israelis do not seek out innocent civilians to murder. Palestinian suicide bombers do whatever possible to kill civilians. They will go up to a group of children and detonate.
But AFI and Hillel won't bring any walls to campus with morbid pictures to exploit these deaths. It's unnecessary. We can do exactly what you're doing, but this does not achieve anything."
I too have lost close family members in Palestine and the store of a relative of mine was bulldozed because of the wall Israelis built that goes deep into Palestinian territory. When I mentioned that to your "Rabbi" and asked him what he thought of that he told me, "why doesn't MSU do anything about Darfur?" completely avoiding my question because he had nothing to say.
Palestinians do not seek out innocent civilians to murder and unless you have proof that they look for 5 year olds to shoot then you can't make that claim. Israelis murder innocent people everyday and they watch as pregnant women die at checkpoints because Israeli soldiers won't allow them to cross over to a hospital. Almost all of the statistics are from the UN so you can look there to check the information. Also, military service in Israel is compulsory for almost every 18 year old male and female so you can't really call them civilians.
Lastly, of course Hillel won't bring "morbid walls to exploit these deaths" because to begin with you woudn't have enough facts and pictures to compose even a full panel, and since all of the claims you make are lies your wall would achieve nothing as you said.
A suicide bomber walked up to a set of stores in the early 90s and blew up my 8 year relative along with two of her friends (the other two girls were 9). These were not soldiers. My father's uncle worked as a security guard in a bank. Palestinians came up to him and stabbed him in the back repeatedly, leaving him to bleed to death. He wasn't a soldier. My brother's friend, at 16, an American, went to a club back in the late 90s. A terrorist blew her up. She wasn't a soldier.
Maybe I should make a wall with pictures of them and the thousands of others that fanatics have killed.
Also, correct me if I am wrong, your defense suggests that it's okay to kill Israelis because they all serve in the military (even if they aren't on duty). By your definition, it is okay to kill every last Israeli. This is justice for you? Sir/Madam, you are a very twisted person.
I suggest that you watch Pierre Rehov's "Suicide Killers."
AFI and Hillel could easily post pictures of people who died at the hands of Islamic extremism. It would be quite easy.
But we aren't like you. We do not condemn an entire group of people (or call for their destruction).
It was only a few months ago that an MSU leader said, "Israel will soon be wiped off the map."
Your fixation with Israel, I believe, is not political.
But even if your fascination were merely political, you are advocating for the destruction of an entire country. You are advocating for violence against them. You are condoning the destruction of Israel, a country filled with six million Jews.
This entire discussion with you is pointless. I don't think you really care about Arab rights. You just hate Israel and the Jews living there.
The MSU hasn't had one event to express the lack of rights of Arab women and children. Nor have they had events expressing the fact that Saudi Arabia is an apartheid country (different highway routes for Muslims and non-Muslims-- this year a French couple were killed for accidently driving on the wrong route). There is a war going on in Lebanon. Today the Lebanese army killed a handful of Palestinians. Are you guys going to put up pictures about that? Arabs are killing Arabs in the Middle East, but you guys still put up walls filled with false information and pictures of Ariel Sharon with a huge nose (inspired by anti-Semitic cartoons).
In short, you aren't doing a single thing that is productive.
Reut:
In regards to killing innocent children, Islam is NOT associated with the people that do that. There are plenty of examples in the history of the companions of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) that were taken prisoners and could of gone free if they threatened to kill the children that carelessly visited them. However, they did not kill these children because Muslims keep themselves to a higher standard.
In regards to the Saudi road incidient, i dont know what happened, but i could tell you that there are not seperate roads for different religions throughout the country. In the roads that are close to Mecca (and maybe Medina), there are checkpoints to ensure no non-Muslims can get through due to Islamic resrictions that only Muslims can be allowed to visit.
We are also not proud of the "Muslim" governments that abuse their own brethern, and we do actually speak out against many of their policies, but there is a special week dedicated to educating college students about the Israeli aparteid.
We did everything for the sake of Allah, and success is only in His hands.
Reut:
"But we aren't like you. We do not condemn an entire group of people (or call for their destruction)."
No, instead you bring your religious leaders to make a fool of themselves and support FORMER Terrorist to come on campus!
PS. Reut you might want to add Occupation 101 to your movie list!
reut: How can you call Saudi Arabia an apartheid country for refusing to allow non-Muslims into the holy cities?
The people you're talking about are FOREIGNERS (i.e. people who are not residents of the land). A country can decide to limit the activities of foreigners on its land for all you care. If it builds two highways, one for Muslims and the other for non-Muslims (foreigners, since non-Muslims are not citizens of the land), that is its business.
These non-Muslims are not being deprived of any right to move around simply because it's not their land or country to begin with! Heck, the Saudis could deny these guys visas in the first place. Would you consider that apartheid as well?
Your beloved country "Israel" discriminates against RESIDENTS of the land and yet you fail to condemn this as apartheid. It has forecfully displaced residents of the land, stolen their properties, and brought in FOREIGNERS (whether Arab Jews or European, does not matter) to occupy the land. It constructs highway systems for Jews and leave alone constructing highways for Palestinians, actually destroys their existing infrastructure in order to make life unbearable for them.
This is apartheid in its most brutal form.
Reut:
You're arguing in circles.
Since Palestinians were kicked out of their land and prevented from returning, they are not citizens of Israel. Thus, Israel can continue to do what it wants with them: cut up their land, remove them from the land, bring in settlements on occupied land, the whole gamut. It can construct highways for Jews only and at the same time destroy the roadwork of non-Jews living in the Occupied Territories.
Despite all this, this is not apartheid.
Yet, when Saudi Arabia deals with people who do not have any right to the land in the first place (it is not like non-Muslims were living there and Saudis came, kicked them off their land, and refused to allow them back) in a preferential manner based on their religion you call that apartheid.
The right of no non-Muslim is injured if he is not allowed to go certain places in Saudi Arabia; he has no claim to the land in the first place.
Non-Muslims are not allowed to take up permanent residence there for religious reasons. But it's not that they are imprisoned in barbed wire and concrete walls, blockaded by economic sanctions, and forced into hunger and poverty.
That is unique to Israel's treatment of Palestinians. Again you refuse to call it apartheid.
To clarify, I am not here to defend the Saudi government, which I consider a puppet government. Yet, I consider the analogy between Israel's treatment of the original residents of the land and Saudi Arabia's treatment of non-Muslim foreigners most absurd and illogical.
By the way, non-Muslims have existed within the Arab world for hundreds of years. When Muslims ruled Palestine, Jews and Christians lived in harmony with Muslims. In Palestine, the Zionist project changed this harmony into hostility. You have only yourself to blame.
P.S. Continue to support Rabbi Yonah. His shallow religiosity was utterly exposed two weeks ago. A "man of God" running around dressed as a clown, pointing his behind in the face of someone who popped a baloon -- this is moral uprightness and superiority? It all served to confirm what Rabbi Weiss was saying: generally the less religious (and non-religious) Jews are the strongest supporters of Zionism.
Reut, again you refused to address the main issue. The Palestinians whose rights are denied so blatantly by the state you love are simply ignored in your entire post.
May I venture to say that if Israel had not conducted such barbaric policies with regards to Palestinians and actually allowed them to return to their homeland, there would be no need for any attacks by Palestinians?
Of course, you will bring out all your fairy tales of murderous Arab hate of Jews. Somehow Jews got along with Arabs before before the 20th century. What happened afterwards?
Again, most of the the checkpoints have little to do with protecting Israel. They exist between Palestinian communities and block Palestinians from traveling from one part of their community to another. They are there simply to harass Palestinians trying to live ordinary lives.
As far as the Saudi road incident with the French is concerned, I do not know the details. The government does not appear to be involved; some individuals did the killing. I do not condone any such thing.
But it hardly resembles apartheid.
Post a Comment