Loren Pechtel

It doesn't matter--the reality is that they *ARE* there. Trying to fix the problem by saying they shouldn't be there won't work.

They aren't going to leave unless they see that as a positive thing. As it currently stands, pulling out would be bad for Israel.

Loren Pechtel

Originally posted by Sauron
Stupid response. REALLY stupid response.

1. You're saying that the lack of soldiers proves that snipers were there? Sorry; you're going to have to substantiate that - especially when all the eyewitnesses say otherwise (i.e., that no such sniping had been done in that area).

Whether there were snipers about that day is unknown. All we know is they didn't shoot. That could mean there were none or it could mean they never had a target.
Since they are often facing sniper fire, anti-sniper precautions are part of their normal operations.

2. Then, you can explain why the Israelis would allow a bulldozer driver to enter that area and start demolition totally vulnerable and unguarded. I mean, the bulldozer driver would also have been a valid target for these mysterious "Palestinian snipers" you're talking about.

Who says it was a target? Ever hear of armor?

Ion

So, bulldozing Rachel Corrie is then "...part of their normal operations."?
So, the bulldozer is an "...armor...".

Bulldozing a protester without armor and weapon.

The world is quite different than this Israel business.

Sauron

So what do you think of American Red Cross workers going to Guatemala or Bosnia, I wonder.

Sauron

Thus the Israeli position is one of force, not one of moral or legal right.

Just wanted to be clear about that.

One wonders why you spent so many pages trying to convince us that their actions were sane and moral, when in the end your argument boiled down to nothing more than brute, Aryan-style force.

Anyhow....in other similarly hypocritical news, Sharon declares that the settlements will go on. Any of you who thought this zionist butcher was serious about the "roadmap to peace" were severely deluded:

http://msnbc.com/news/801833.asp?0cv=CA01

Sauron

Not to you it isn't. You just indicated that the were indeed snipers there, and that's why we didn't see any Israeli soldiers.

Now, when confronted with the ultimate conclusions of such a position, you've changed your story.

Of course, you still haven't explained why none of the eyewitnesses report anything like snipers in the area.


Who, the alleged snipers?

Nonsense. If there really were any Palestinian snipers there, without any Israeli soldiers overseeing the bulldozer demolition, do you really think they would have tolerated the destruction of a Palestinian home? Especially when they could have killed the driver and gotten away with it - due to the lack of any Israeli soliders to return fire?

Besides, you still haven't explained why the Israelis would have sent in a bulldozer to do work, but not included an armed escort - if the situation was as dangerous as you *claim* it was, Loren.

Face it. There were no snipers there that day. Which means, of course, that the Israelis could have handled any such demolition with the same level of respect and velvet-glove decorum, that they showed to the ultra-rightist Jewish settlers on the West Bank. They simply failed to do so. Which, as the title of this thread brings us all back to, only illustrates the hypocrisy of Israel in these matters.

Except here, where you said that there were no snipers and no Israeli soldiers to guard this bulldozer.

Sheesh, you really are grasping at straws.

It's a bulldozer, Loren. It's not a tank.

If you check the pictures, the driver's seat is high up on the dozer and he would make a very good target, since he's not encased in any such "armor".
http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article1248.shtml

Ion

They are heroes.

Rachel Corrie is a hero too.

Loren Pechtel

Ever hear of bulletproof glass?

Evangelion

*ahem*

• DAVID PELEG (Israel), speaking in exercise of the right of reply, said that several previous speakers had referred to resolution 181 of 29 November 1947. However, the meaning and context of that resolution had been misrepresented.
  
  Forty-nine years ago, the Assembly adopted a resolution favouring the establishment of two States in British Mandatory Palestine -- the State of Israel and an Arab State. The Jews living under the British mandate accepted that resolution and established the State of Israel on 14 May 1948. The Palestinians, with the support of all Arab countries, rejected the resolution and launched a war against the State of Israel.
  
  He said that fact was clearly recorded in the United Nations Special Report to the Security Council of 16 February 1948, which stated: "Powerful Arab interests, both inside and outside Palestine, are defying the resolution of the General Assembly and are engaged in a deliberate effort to alter by force the settlement envisaged therein."
  
  Continuing, he said the representative of the Palestine Arab High Committee, addressing the Security Council on 23 April 1948, had stated, "We have never concealed the fact that we began the fighting ... the Arabs did not want to submit to a truce which would have brought shame upon them as they rather preferred to abandon their homes, their belongings and everything they possessed in this world, and leave... ."
  
  When the war ended a year later, some Palestinians became citizens of Israel, others became citizens of Jordan, some became subjects of Egypt, and some became refugees in Arab countries, he said. Israel's position was that any solution to the refugee problem should include their integration into the countries in which they resided, as Israel did with the Jewish refugees from Arab States.
  
  It was one of the ironies of history that 29 November had been selected as "Palestine Day" and the date for the traditional opening of debate on the question of Palestine, he said. It was the Palestinians who had rejected the resolution passed on 29 November 1947 and initiated, with the help of Arab States, hostilities against the State of Israel. By doing so, they brought tragedy upon themselves and the region, imposing a great obstacle to the peaceful resolution of the conflict.
  
  The Palestinians misrepresented the conflict by suggesting it began only in 1967 when Israel came into possession of the West Bank and Gaza following a war of self-defence, he said. The Palestinians, with the assistance of the Arab States, had begun an open war with Israel 19 years earlier, in violation of United Nations resolutions.
  
  It was hoped that the words of the Palestinian representative before the Assembly did not reflect the position of the Palestinian leadership which signed the Declaration of Principles and the Interim Agreement, or that of the Palestinian people, who had demonstrated their support for the peace process during the recent elections to the Palestinian Council.
  
  "I trust that an agrement on Hebron will be reached soon, and I call again upon Chairman Arafat not to delay its signature any further", he said. "Peace will only come through direct negotiations without preconditions, free from external pressures."
  
  Issues relating to permanent status should be negotiated between the parties; the United Nations should not predetermine their outcome. Israel concurred with the position expressed for the European Union, that measures to prejudge the outcome of the permanent status negotiations must be avoided.
  
  Source.

That's from a United Nations press release (December the 2nd, 1996.)

Sauron

If you have evidence that it was bulletproof glass, then by all means, present that evidence.

Otherwise, you're just throwing shovels of bullshit into the air, and hoping no one will notice that you've run out of excuses.

And, of course, when the driver stopped the dozer to get out and look at Rachel Correy, he was exposed then and could have been shot.

Had there been any snipers in the first place, that is.