Girl, 4, injured in Palestinian stone-throwing attack laid to rest in West Bank
10 replies, posted
[QUOTE]Hundreds of mourners gathered in the northern West Bank settlement of Yakir for the funeral of four-year-old Adele Biton, the young girl who succumbed to her injuries on Tuesday after falling into a coma.
Biton suffered serious injuries when a Palestinian assailant threw a stone that smashed into the windshield of a car driven by her mother along the Trans-Samaria Highway (Route 5).
The young girl was released from hospital, as doctors were hopeful that she would be able to make a full recovery. Her mother, however, said that the neurological damage suffered in the attack and the recent onset of pneumonia set in motion a series of events that eventually led to a serious deterioration in her condition.
Speakers at the funeral used the occasion to call on the government and army to react more forcefully against Palestinian attacks.
[/QUOTE]
[URL="http://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Girl-4-injured-in-Palestinian-stone-throwing-attack-laid-to-rest-in-West-Bank-391406"]source[/URL]
I love how Israel's colonization efforts in the West Bank are regarded as neutral; that blowback from Palestinians is to be "reacted to forcefully."
[QUOTE=Prismatex;47183201]I love how Israel's colonization efforts in the West Bank are regarded as neutral; that blowback from Palestinians is to be "reacted to forcefully."[/QUOTE]
Israel has essentially revitalized 19th century American Manifest Destiny. From their perspective, they are colonizing the 'wilderness' for their society to expand. To them, the Palestinians are savages resisting their rightful pursuit of territory, much like how early Americans saw the indigenous populations during that time period.
Because of their alliance with America and our 'rooting for the underdog that is actually more well-armed than the surrounding nations combined' mentality, they get a lot of pull at international talks in support of their cause.
[quote]Speakers at the funeral used the occasion[/quote]
What are funerals for again? Oh, honoring the dead?
God dammit.
[QUOTE=FreakyMe;47183232]Israel has essentially revitalized 19th century American Manifest Destiny. From their perspective, they are colonizing the 'wilderness' for their society to expand. To them, the Palestinians are savages resisting their rightful pursuit of territory, much like how early Americans saw the indigenous populations during that time period.
Because of their alliance with America and our 'rooting for the underdog that is actually more well-armed than the surrounding nations combined' mentality, they get a lot of pull at international talks in support of their cause.[/QUOTE]
That's... wrong on so many levels I don't even know where to start.
There is a small (albeit vocal and influential beyond its size) minority of religious Israelis who consider the entirety of "Greater Israel" their ancestral homeland, granted to them by God to have an settle.
As far as they're concerned, the West Bank and Gaza always belonged to the Jews, and they're simply reclaiming the land as its rightful owners.
For the rest of Israel, and especially the governments who supported the settlements so far its mostly a strategic decision. Initially as a form of creeping annexation, then (when it became obvious that's never going to work) as a defensive buffer zone between the Palestinians and Israel proper, and nowadays mostly as a punitive measure against the Palestinians and something Israel has to maintain and support simply because it's already there and is impossible to remove and has too many voters.
In both cases it was never about colonizing any "wilderness", and never about expansion. Israel has a problem with the cost of living, but so far did not had an issue with not enough land to build on, certainly not as a national narrative. We're in there for a lot of reasons, but none of them is leibensraum.
And in a similar fashion, as far as the national narrative is concerned the Palestinians aren't our Indians, some indigenous savages standing between ourselves and expansion. They're the enemy. Or rather, The Enemy. The people that fled Israel proper when they failed to wipe us out in '48, than settled on our borders to wait for our inevitable destruction so they can reclaim the land as they're own.
For the average Israeli, if they had any faith removing the settlements from the equation would end the conflict they would end the occupation and the settlements in a heartbeat. The majority of Israelis supported Rabin's peace process, Barak's offer to Arafat (which even included parts of Jerusalem) and Sharon's pullout from Gaza.
And even now when too many Israelis lost hope for peace in our time, whenever anyone bothers to do a survey Israelis still say the only solution to the conflict is the two state solution. They just don't see it happening.
Meaning Israelis don't need the occupied territories, and don't need the settlements. Everyone that supports them or doesn't objects to them right now simply wants them there to put some distance between angry, armed Palestinians and Tel Aviv because having hostiles on the West Bank fence like we have in Gaza ever since the settlements there were torn down is a scary, scary thought.
Ugh, I didn't think this will be another wall of text.
[QUOTE=Sega Saturn;47183283][quote]Speakers at the funeral used the occasion[/quote]
What are funerals for again? Oh, honoring the dead?
God dammit.[/QUOTE]
I am no fan of Israel but this is just irksome logic that I see a lot.
Think back to Sandy Hook. A lot of kids died, and the event would certainly be a very useful example for the proponent of gun control in a debate. But suddenly there's this mysterious air of "kids died there!" and anyone who wished to use it as an example is silenced.
If kids dying provides a damn good reason to make a change, then let kids dying be a damn good reason to make a change.
[QUOTE=Tone Float;47186471]I am no fan of Israel but this is just irksome logic that I see a lot.
Think back to Sandy Hook. A lot of kids died, and the event would certainly be a very useful example for the proponent of gun control in a debate. But suddenly there's this mysterious air of "kids died there!" and anyone who wished to use it as an example is silenced.
If kids dying provides a damn good reason to make a change, then let kids dying be a damn good reason to make a change.[/QUOTE]
Nice job missing the point entirely. Just because a child's death is convenient to your political motives doesn't give you the right to stump at her funeral. Do it on the nightly news, or on the street where she died. I don't give a shit. A funeral is no place for politics.
[QUOTE=FreakyMe;47183232]Israel has essentially revitalized 19th century American Manifest Destiny. From their perspective, they are colonizing the 'wilderness' for their society to expand. To them, the Palestinians are savages resisting their rightful pursuit of territory, much like how early Americans saw the indigenous populations during that time period.
Because of their alliance with America and our 'rooting for the underdog that is actually more well-armed than the surrounding nations combined' mentality, they get a lot of pull at international talks in support of their cause.[/QUOTE]
I have been to various Arabic countries including Palestine and also to Israel. Yes, not all Arabs are bad, but my experience with people living in Arabic country and Israel brought me into conclusion that, I would rather chose Israelis invade whole Arabia and live there, then Arabs if it was in my hands.
I know it is not in my hands, and this statement sounds really edgy/stupid, but this is just my personal opinion.
[QUOTE=ScumBunny;47186438]That's... wrong on so many levels I don't even know where to start.
There is a small (albeit vocal and influential beyond its size) minority of religious Israelis who consider the entirety of "Greater Israel" their ancestral homeland, granted to them by God to have an settle.
As far as they're concerned, the West Bank and Gaza always belonged to the Jews, and they're simply reclaiming the land as its rightful owners.
For the rest of Israel, and especially the governments who supported the settlements so far its mostly a strategic decision. Initially as a form of creeping annexation, then (when it became obvious that's never going to work) as a defensive buffer zone between the Palestinians and Israel proper, and nowadays mostly as a punitive measure against the Palestinians and something Israel has to maintain and support simply because it's already there and is impossible to remove and has too many voters.
In both cases it was never about colonizing any "wilderness", and never about expansion. Israel has a problem with the cost of living, but so far did not had an issue with not enough land to build on, certainly not as a national narrative. We're in there for a lot of reasons, but none of them is leibensraum.
And in a similar fashion, as far as the national narrative is concerned the Palestinians aren't our Indians, some indigenous savages standing between ourselves and expansion. They're the enemy. Or rather, The Enemy. The people that fled Israel proper when they failed to wipe us out in '48, than settled on our borders to wait for our inevitable destruction so they can reclaim the land as they're own.
For the average Israeli, if they had any faith removing the settlements from the equation would end the conflict they would end the occupation and the settlements in a heartbeat. The majority of Israelis supported Rabin's peace process, Barak's offer to Arafat (which even included parts of Jerusalem) and Sharon's pullout from Gaza.
And even now when too many Israelis lost hope for peace in our time, whenever anyone bothers to do a survey Israelis still say the only solution to the conflict is the two state solution. They just don't see it happening.
Meaning Israelis don't need the occupied territories, and don't need the settlements. Everyone that supports them or doesn't objects to them right now simply wants them there to put some distance between angry, armed Palestinians and Tel Aviv because having hostiles on the West Bank fence like we have in Gaza ever since the settlements there were torn down is a scary, scary thought.
Ugh, I didn't think this will be another wall of text.[/QUOTE]
I didn't intend to offend.
I was speaking in general terms, largely in metaphor for the actions of the government and the beliefs of the conservative groups.
I understand that it is a complex issue that has a lot more going on than any simple metaphor can cover, much like the concept of Manifest Destiny. Not everybody supported it, but enough did - especially those with power.
There were a percentage of colonists from the start who wrote throughout history in advocacy of the plight of the indigenous people, but many early Americans feared for their security due to the history of violence over territory and resources with the Native Americans. The world outside of each settlement was seen as a sort of 'wilderness' because they had little to no control over the outcome of their interactions with the Native Americans, who were avid hunters who had lived their entire lives on a continent that was entirely new to the explorers, who often struggled to cultivate and locate resources.
Though there were many instances of trading between the colonists and Native Americans, they were often executed with little respect to the indigenous peoples' customs, which were at best strange and at worst heretical to the colonists. This sentiment was often mutual. This did little to help relations, coupled with the devastating results of the weaponry they brought to the many skirmishes that had occurred.
Eventually, thanks to some particularly influential articles, the common consensus became that they could never have security while living on land in which the Native Americans roamed free. Though this was never a long standing 'official' doctrine, it accurately describes what would become their relationship as the newly founded American colonies began to spread westward.
That was my intention in the metaphor - I'm not sure f I made it more clear, or perhaps offended you more. Also - now I have my own wall of text to match.
[QUOTE=FreakyMe;47189850]I didn't intend to offend.
I was speaking in general terms, largely in metaphor for the actions of the government and the beliefs of the conservative groups.
I understand that it is a complex issue that has a lot more going on than any simple metaphor can cover, much like the concept of Manifest Destiny. Not everybody supported it, but enough did - especially those with power.
There were a percentage of colonists from the start who wrote throughout history in advocacy of the plight of the indigenous people, but many early Americans feared for their security due to the history of violence over territory and resources with the Native Americans. The world outside of each settlement was seen as a sort of 'wilderness' because they had little to no control over the outcome of their interactions with the Native Americans, who were avid hunters who had lived their entire lives on a continent that was entirely new to the explorers, who often struggled to cultivate and locate resources.
Though there were many instances of trading between the colonists and Native Americans, they were often executed with little respect to the indigenous peoples' customs, which were at best strange and at worst heretical to the colonists. This sentiment was often mutual. This did little to help relations, coupled with the devastating results of the weaponry they brought to the many skirmishes that had occurred.
Eventually, thanks to some particularly influential articles, the common consensus became that they could never have security while living on land in which the Native Americans roamed free. Though this was never a long standing 'official' doctrine, it accurately describes what would become their relationship as the newly founded American colonies began to spread westward.
That was my intention in the metaphor - I'm not sure f I made it more clear, or perhaps offended you more. Also - now I have my own wall of text to match.[/QUOTE]
No worries. I was not at all offended.
I just try to provide my POV on things when its relevant.
Thanks for the clarification though.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.