I guess this is what "bringing about long-term peace and social justice ...

[Loren Pechtel]

... and political justice in the whole region" actually looks like.

Israeli policewoman stabbed to death in Jerusalem

And the families of these three terrorists will be generously compensated by Abbas/PA thanks to billions of dollars PA receives from US and EU.

By the way, why is it that Muslim terrorist attacks always sharply increase during Ramadan?

Terrorism or not, would this have happened if Israel was not occupying East Jerusalem? Unlikely.

Europe isn't occupying "East Jerusalem" (not that there really is such a place anyway. It's simply the part of Jerusalem seized and ethnically cleansed in 1948.)

And it wouldn't make any difference anyway--the Palestinians consider all of Israel to be occupied territory. Pulling back to the 67 borders would make things worse, not better.

 

[Arctish]

No, I should not. It is not social welfare, it's incentivizing Palestinians to commit terrorist acts for promise of payment.

ETA: I got it to load. It's a different article making the same claim, but since the author didn't try to give it a gloss of factual support with actual numbers it reads more like an opinion piece.

There are dozens of articles saying the same basic thing. There is even a wikipedia article, if you prefer that.
 Palestinian Authority Martyr's Fund
There is no excuse to remain willfully ignorant of PA funding terrorism.

The opening paragraph of that article points out the problem.

The payments go to the families of innocent bystanders killed by the IDF, the families of people killed or imprisoned for actively resisting the Occupation, the families of PA police officers killed defending their communities and fellow Palestinians, the families of terrorists killed or captured while carrying out acts of terrorism, and the families of people imprisoned for years on end when they're not even accused of a crime. Some people use the inclusiveness of the program as a means to tar all recipients as terrorists and terrorist sympathizers. It's sloppy thinking.

In fact, it's the same sort of sloppy thinking that causes one to confuse the reason why bringing about long-term peace and social justice and political justice in the whole region is important with what it will look like when it happens.

 

[Jayjay]

Terrorism or not, would this have happened if Israel was not occupying East Jerusalem? Unlikely.

Israel reunited their historic capital in the 1967 war (which just passed 50 year anniversary a week ago). East Jerusalem has a different legal status than West Bank and it's not accurate to describe it as "occupied".
Why do you think an armistice line from 1949 is so sacrosanct?

The religious delusions of fanatics and what they consider their "historical capital" are irrelevant. The 1949 armistice line is of course not sacrosant, but it is the only internationally recognized border Israel has ever had and has hell of a lot more legitimacy than the expansionist fever-dreams of zionists. There is also no peace treaty of any kind whereby Palestinians (or Jordan before it) would have recognized Israel's "reunification" of Jerusalem in any form. And nowadays, civilized people tend to frown at countries who wage war against other countries for land.

East Jerusalem has no difference in terms of legal or ethical status to that of rest of the occupied territories. Israel might think so, but so what? Nazi Germany thought annexation of Poland was perfectly legal too. What matters is that there is no bilateral or multilateral treaty that would recognize it belonging to Israel, and unlike Golan heights for example, Israel has not given its Arab residents an option to become Israeli citizens. Same shit that they do in their settlements.

So, if palestinians want to stab people in their own territory that's fine by me. Israel can always withdraw, or make a peace treaty, if they find the stabbings too annoying.

 

[Jayjay]

Terrorism or not, would this have happened if Israel was not occupying East Jerusalem? Unlikely.

Europe isn't occupying "East Jerusalem" (not that there really is such a place anyway. It's simply the part of Jerusalem seized and ethnically cleansed in 1948.)

And it wouldn't make any difference anyway--the Palestinians consider all of Israel to be occupied territory. Pulling back to the 67 borders would make things worse, not better.

That's Israel's problem. Besides they can always continue the military occupation, that's their right within international law. What is illegal is mass transfer of civilians to the occupied territories and ethnically cleansing them. This is in no way better than the ethnic cleansing of East Jerusalem by Jordan after 1949, and in some ways it's worse.

 

[untermensche]

Palestinians have been brutalizing millions of Israelis for decades.

The oppressed Palestinians in the Apartheid State of Israel have fought back a few times.

But they have not actively brutalized millions like Israel has.

When the oppressed fight back it is called blowback.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

No, I should not. It is not social welfare, it's incentivizing Palestinians to commit terrorist acts for promise of payment.


There are dozens of articles saying the same basic thing. There is even a wikipedia article, if you prefer that.
 Palestinian Authority Martyr's Fund
There is no excuse to remain willfully ignorant of PA funding terrorism.

The opening paragraph of that article points out the problem.

The payments go to the families of innocent bystanders killed by the IDF, the families of people killed or imprisoned for actively resisting the Occupation, the families of PA police officers killed defending their communities and fellow Palestinians, the families of terrorists killed or captured while carrying out acts of terrorism, and the families of people imprisoned for years on end when they're not even accused of a crime. Some people use the inclusiveness of the program as a means to tar all recipients as terrorists and terrorist sympathizers. It's sloppy thinking.

You're focusing on the fact that it supposedly gives a small amount to non-political prisoners and ignoring the fact that it gives far larger amounts to terrorist families. One good act redeems a thousand bad ones??

In fact, it's the same sort of sloppy thinking that causes one to confuse the reason why bringing about long-term peace and social justice and political justice in the whole region is important with what it will look like when it happens.

The sloppy thinking I see is you ignoring the primary objective of the fund in order to find some way to pretend it's benign.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

East Jerusalem has no difference in terms of legal or ethical status to that of rest of the occupied territories. Israel might think so, but so what? Nazi Germany thought annexation of Poland was perfectly legal too. What matters is that there is no bilateral or multilateral treaty that would recognize it belonging to Israel, and unlike Golan heights for example, Israel has not given its Arab residents an option to become Israeli citizens. Same shit that they do in their settlements.

So ethnic cleansing is fine so long as it's done by Muslims?

So, if palestinians want to stab people in their own territory that's fine by me. Israel can always withdraw, or make a peace treaty, if they find the stabbings too annoying.

Somehow I think you would be singing a different tune if Israelis started stabbing Muslims in Israel.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Europe isn't occupying "East Jerusalem" (not that there really is such a place anyway. It's simply the part of Jerusalem seized and ethnically cleansed in 1948.)

And it wouldn't make any difference anyway--the Palestinians consider all of Israel to be occupied territory. Pulling back to the 67 borders would make things worse, not better.

That's Israel's problem.

The point is the things you say Israel should do to make peace won't make peace.

Besides they can always continue the military occupation, that's their right within international law. What is illegal is mass transfer of civilians to the occupied territories and ethnically cleansing them. This is in no way better than the ethnic cleansing of East Jerusalem by Jordan after 1949, and in some ways it's worse.

Allowing people to move isn't the same as making them move. Israel engaged in no mass transfer. And how can it be worse than ethnic cleansing?? Because the Jews did it?

 

[Arctish]

The opening paragraph of that article points out the problem.

The payments go to the families of innocent bystanders killed by the IDF, the families of people killed or imprisoned for actively resisting the Occupation, the families of PA police officers killed defending their communities and fellow Palestinians, the families of terrorists killed or captured while carrying out acts of terrorism, and the families of people imprisoned for years on end when they're not even accused of a crime. Some people use the inclusiveness of the program as a means to tar all recipients as terrorists and terrorist sympathizers. It's sloppy thinking.

You're focusing on the fact that it supposedly gives a small amount to non-political prisoners and ignoring the fact that it gives far larger amounts to terrorist families. One good act redeems a thousand bad ones??

I'm focusing on the fact that the allegation the money goes to terrorists is unsupported by evidence. I have no doubt you believe it is true. I have no doubt that some characters I would call terrorists are on the payroll of the PA. But I also have no doubt that the payments going to captured PA fighters and civilians prisoners is no different from the pay that captured IDF soldier's families receive or the social welfare that all impoverished Israelis can collect.

In fact, it's the same sort of sloppy thinking that causes one to confuse the reason why bringing about long-term peace and social justice and political justice in the whole region is important with what it will look like when it happens.

The sloppy thinking I see is you ignoring the primary objective of the fund in order to find some way to pretend it's benign.

I doubt you know the primary function of the fund. I doubt you've ever researched it. I think someone told you it was to reward terrorists for killing Jews, you believed it, and that was that.

 

[iolo]

Terrorism or not, would this have happened if Israel was not occupying East Jerusalem? Unlikely.

Israel reunited their historic capital in the 1967 war (which just passed 50 year anniversary a week ago). East Jerusalem has a different legal status than West Bank and it's not accurate to describe it as "occupied".
Why do you think an armistice line from 1949 is so sacrosanct?

As you know, the whole Country is Palestine, and the Nazis have no claim to it whatever.

- - - Updated - - -

Your anti-semitism is only very thinly veiled by using dog-whistle language like "Zionist".

So talking about Palestinian terrorists murdering Israelis is "Zionist rhetoric"?
And who are these "new Republicans" you believe are on your, anti-semitic, side re Israel?

So make like New York and get with the time, square!

What?

As you know, the Resistance in occupied countries takes what action it sees fit to remove Nazi killers.

 

[LordKiran]

So ethnic cleansing is fine so long as it's done by Muslims?

So, if palestinians want to stab people in their own territory that's fine by me. Israel can always withdraw, or make a peace treaty, if they find the stabbings too annoying.

Somehow I think you would be singing a different tune if Israelis started stabbing Muslims in Israel.

Killing the unlawful invaders of your sovereign territory is fine, yes. Odd that you'd have a problem with that.

 

[Jayjay]

So ethnic cleansing is fine so long as it's done by Muslims?

No, but the ethnic cleansing of East Jerusalem in 1949 is A) almost 70 years in the past, B) now reversed and undone, and C) orders of magnitude less significant in scope than the current ethnic cleansing of Palestinians in West Bank by Israel. Two wrongs don't make a right, especially if one of the wrongs is wronger.

So, if palestinians want to stab people in their own territory that's fine by me. Israel can always withdraw, or make a peace treaty, if they find the stabbings too annoying.

Somehow I think you would be singing a different tune if Israelis started stabbing Muslims in Israel.

There is no part of Israel that is occupied by a muslim country (or even a non-governmental entity). Note that I would also be singing a different tune if muslims were stabbing jews in West Jerusalem. Or anywhere else in Israel for that matter. Only place where stabbings can be considered legitimate resistance is within the occupied territory itself.

 

[Jayjay]

That's Israel's problem.

The point is the things you say Israel should do to make peace won't make peace.

Again, that's Israel's problem. And it need not even have peace, it could continue state of defensive war indefinitely as it has done with Gaza and Lebanon. But as long as Israel wants Lebensraum more than it wants peace, there is not going to be peace regardless of what Palestinians want (unless of course, they want to surrender, which is okay too). Stabbing a single policeman is hardly going to turn the scales, but at least it makes Israel's illegal occupation just a tiny bit less profitable, and hence furthers possibility of an eventual peace deal by some nigh-infinitesimal amount.

Besides they can always continue the military occupation, that's their right within international law. What is illegal is mass transfer of civilians to the occupied territories and ethnically cleansing them. This is in no way better than the ethnic cleansing of East Jerusalem by Jordan after 1949, and in some ways it's worse.

Allowing people to move isn't the same as making them move. Israel engaged in no mass transfer. And how can it be worse than ethnic cleansing?? Because the Jews did it?

The intent of why it was put down in Geneva Convention as a war crime was very much about not changing the ethnic makeup of occupied territories. Whether the mass transfer of civilians is "voluntary" or not is irrelevant, because Israel actively supports it with its policies, including but not limited to financial aid, military protection for settlers, and building walls between Jewish and Palestinian areas. As for ethnic cleansing, that's exactly what it is. How many palestinian residents are there in the Israeli settlements in West Bank? I'm pretty sure it's zero.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You're focusing on the fact that it supposedly gives a small amount to non-political prisoners and ignoring the fact that it gives far larger amounts to terrorist families. One good act redeems a thousand bad ones??

I'm focusing on the fact that the allegation the money goes to terrorists is unsupported by evidence. I have no doubt you believe it is true. I have no doubt that some characters I would call terrorists are on the payroll of the PA. But I also have no doubt that the payments going to captured PA fighters and civilians prisoners is no different from the pay that captured IDF soldier's families receive or the social welfare that all impoverished Israelis can collect.

Lets look at some more numbers, then:

First, Wikipedia. They're very biased towards the Palestinians so if their numbers are wrong it will be on the side of being too low:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_prisoners_of_Israel

As of May 2011, the Palestinian Authority spent $4.5 million per month paying Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails, including prisoners convicted of murdering civilians, and $6.5 million to the families of suicide bombers.

In other words, the majority of the money is going to terrorists.

And note that this number is way low:

http://english.wafa.ps/page.aspx?id=2sfUdLa91103700666a2sfUdL

It's now $280 million/year by the Palestinian's own numbers.

In fact, it's the same sort of sloppy thinking that causes one to confuse the reason why bringing about long-term peace and social justice and political justice in the whole region is important with what it will look like when it happens.

The sloppy thinking I see is you ignoring the primary objective of the fund in order to find some way to pretend it's benign.

I doubt you know the primary function of the fund. I doubt you've ever researched it. I think someone told you it was to reward terrorists for killing Jews, you believed it, and that was that.

You read the paragraph that said it gave money to terrorists. You discounted that and focused on the line that said it also gave money to prisoners in general.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Israel reunited their historic capital in the 1967 war (which just passed 50 year anniversary a week ago). East Jerusalem has a different legal status than West Bank and it's not accurate to describe it as "occupied".
Why do you think an armistice line from 1949 is so sacrosanct?

As you know, the whole Country is Palestine, and the Nazis have no claim to it whatever.

Lets hop in the time machine and have a look. "Palestine" used to refer to the Jewish people there.

- - - Updated - - -

So ethnic cleansing is fine so long as it's done by Muslims?



Somehow I think you would be singing a different tune if Israelis started stabbing Muslims in Israel.

Killing the unlawful invaders of your sovereign territory is fine, yes. Odd that you'd have a problem with that.

Then go kill yourself--you're an invader of the Native American territory.

The Jews, however, bought their land, they are not invaders.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

No, but the ethnic cleansing of East Jerusalem in 1949 is A) almost 70 years in the past, B) now reversed and undone, and C) orders of magnitude less significant in scope than the current ethnic cleansing of Palestinians in West Bank by Israel. Two wrongs don't make a right, especially if one of the wrongs is wronger.

1) Your side always picks convenient dates as to what matters and what doesn't.

2) While it has been undone your side is acting as if undoing it was an evil act--justifying murdering Jews in East Jerusalem.

3) Israel is not ethnically cleansing anything. The Muslim population has been increasing rapidly--that's hardly what happens when you cleanse an area!

There is no part of Israel that is occupied by a muslim country (or even a non-governmental entity). Note that I would also be singing a different tune if muslims were stabbing jews in West Jerusalem. Or anywhere else in Israel for that matter. Only place where stabbings can be considered legitimate resistance is within the occupied territory itself.

There are areas where Jews are liable to be attacked if they go there. That certainly sounds like non-governmental occupation to me.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The point is the things you say Israel should do to make peace won't make peace.

Again, that's Israel's problem. And it need not even have peace, it could continue state of defensive war indefinitely as it has done with Gaza and Lebanon. But as long as Israel wants Lebensraum more than it wants peace, there is not going to be peace regardless of what Palestinians want (unless of course, they want to surrender, which is okay too). Stabbing a single policeman is hardly going to turn the scales, but at least it makes Israel's illegal occupation just a tiny bit less profitable, and hence furthers possibility of an eventual peace deal by some nigh-infinitesimal amount.

Correction: Israel wants survival more than it wants peace. Your idea of peace means the extirpation of the Jews.

The intent of why it was put down in Geneva Convention as a war crime was very much about not changing the ethnic makeup of occupied territories. Whether the mass transfer of civilians is "voluntary" or not is irrelevant, because Israel actively supports it with its policies, including but not limited to financial aid, military protection for settlers, and building walls between Jewish and Palestinian areas. As for ethnic cleansing, that's exactly what it is. How many palestinian residents are there in the Israeli settlements in West Bank? I'm pretty sure it's zero.

Except the Geneva convention doesn't apply here--that refers to government actions. The government didn't move them. This wasn't a mass transfer, it was simply a migration. Government protection for those who do doesn't make it a government action.

As for Palestinian residents--why would you expect there to be any? The settlements were on either vacant land or on land they bought from it's owners.

 

[Jayjay]

1) Your side always picks convenient dates as to what matters and what doesn't.

2) While it has been undone your side is acting as if undoing it was an evil act--justifying murdering Jews in East Jerusalem.

3) Israel is not ethnically cleansing anything. The Muslim population has been increasing rapidly--that's hardly what happens when you cleanse an area!

1) I put more weight on events that are happening now, than events in past. Especially if said past events are so remote that hardly anyone is still alive who remembers them.

2) Fair point. But Jerusalem before 1949 was not part of Israel, it was part of Palestine. So technically the undoing of the ethnic cleansing of Jews would mean also that Jews relinquish the control of the entire city. Not doing basically the same thing what Jordan did in 1949.

3) As I said, there are zero muslims in Israeli settlements. Those areas have been cleansed, and as the settlements grow the cleansing continues as well. The fact that the population of whatever bantustans Israel deems shitty enough for Palestinians to live on is irrelevant.

There is no part of Israel that is occupied by a muslim country (or even a non-governmental entity). Note that I would also be singing a different tune if muslims were stabbing jews in West Jerusalem. Or anywhere else in Israel for that matter. Only place where stabbings can be considered legitimate resistance is within the occupied territory itself.

There are areas where Jews are liable to be attacked if they go there. That certainly sounds like non-governmental occupation to me.

Israel maintains police and military control even in these areas. They are no different from high-crime areas in any major cities in US or Europe.

 

[Jayjay]

Again, that's Israel's problem. And it need not even have peace, it could continue state of defensive war indefinitely as it has done with Gaza and Lebanon. But as long as Israel wants Lebensraum more than it wants peace, there is not going to be peace regardless of what Palestinians want (unless of course, they want to surrender, which is okay too). Stabbing a single policeman is hardly going to turn the scales, but at least it makes Israel's illegal occupation just a tiny bit less profitable, and hence furthers possibility of an eventual peace deal by some nigh-infinitesimal amount.

Correction: Israel wants survival more than it wants peace. Your idea of peace means the extirpation of the Jews.

Extirpation of Jews in West Bank, where those fanatics had no business of being in the first place. But all that means is that they would pack their bags and move a few miles to the east. This is not a matter of survival for the illegal settlers, and it is certainly not a matter of survival for the country of Israel.

The intent of why it was put down in Geneva Convention as a war crime was very much about not changing the ethnic makeup of occupied territories. Whether the mass transfer of civilians is "voluntary" or not is irrelevant, because Israel actively supports it with its policies, including but not limited to financial aid, military protection for settlers, and building walls between Jewish and Palestinian areas. As for ethnic cleansing, that's exactly what it is. How many palestinian residents are there in the Israeli settlements in West Bank? I'm pretty sure it's zero.

Except the Geneva convention doesn't apply here--that refers to government actions. The government didn't move them. This wasn't a mass transfer, it was simply a migration. Government protection for those who do doesn't make it a government action.

Israel is the occupying power, and it's responsible for what its citizens do in the occupied territory, especially since it's providing them with financial aid, security, and even stealing land for them. It's Israel's legal and moral responsibility to actively prevent its citizens from transferring en mass to the occupied territory, and failure to do so is a war crime.

As for Palestinian residents--why would you expect there to be any? The settlements were on either vacant land or on land they bought from it's owners.

"Vacant land" excuse is bullshit. If some Palestinian were to find vacant land on Israeli side of the border, he could hardly claim and annex it to the Palestinian state. Borders are legal agreements, and there is practically no "vacant land" anywhere on Earth at this time in history. Besides, if the land is vacant because it was ethnically cleansed and walled off to Palestinians, that's hardly legitimate. Same with "buying" the land from their owners. As a foreigner, I can buy a plot of land in America, but doing so does not make that land not being outside the sovereign jurisdiction of U.S. government.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Oh, get off it! These terrorist twerps hadn't even been alive "for decades".


Not just tragic, but criminal, and expected because PA is incentivizing terrorist attacks by paying surviving terrorists and families of dead/imprisoned terrorists "salaries" significantly higher than the average salary in Palestinian areas. PA is complicit in this murder; it's really no different than murder for hire, just with less specificity regarding the identity of the victim.
The Palestinian Incentive Program for Killing Jews

Israel has been brutalizing millions of Palestinians for decades.

This is called blowback.

[YOUTUBE]https://youtu.be/gVIvA5Exs28[/YOUTUBE]