News -n- Views

27 August 2006

Israeli Airstrike on Reuters Vehicle Injures Two

The BBC reports that an Israeli airstrike during the night on a Reuters press vehicle has seriously injured a camera man and a journalist.

Israeli army spokeswoman, Capt. Noa Meir, confirmed the attack and stated that the military didn’t know that the vehicle was a press vehicle.

She said, “There were no clear TV marks (on the car). At least we didn’t see one.” She added, “It’s unfortunate when journalists get hurt, but that is not the intention.”

However, the Reuter’s vehicle was clearly marked on all sides and the roof with “Reuters”, “Press” and “TV”, as stated both by the BBC and as seen in the photographs here and here .

So, it is clear that the Israeli military is lying when it says that “There were no clear TV marks”, and that this was an intentional attack on the press.

Sources:

[1] BBC: Israeli rocket hits Reuters car
[2] Yahoo News vis Associated Press: Israeli airstrike hits Reuters vehicle












22 April 2005

Sharon vows to defy Bush over expansion of Israeli settlements

I discovered this article over at Signs of the Times, and am including it here due to the excellent commentary by the Signs of the Times editors at the end of the piece.

Sharon vows to defy Bush over expansion of Israeli settlements

By Donald Macintyre in Jerusalem
22 April 2005

Ariel Sharon, the Israeli Prime Minister, vowed to continue expanding Jewish settlements in the West Bank despite his admitted differences with President George Bush on the issue.

In his most uncompromising comments yet on the settler question, Mr Sharon depicted the planned withdrawal from Gaza as the only way of preserving the largest settlement blocks on the Palestinian side of the pre-1967 border with Israel. “I am doing everything I can to preserve as much [of the West Bank settlements] as I can,” he said.

In an interview with The Jerusalem Post, which will be published in full today, Mr Sharon acknowledged that the US and Israel did not, in the paper’s words, “necessarily see eye to eye” on settlement expansion.

But Mr Sharon underlined his determination to go ahead with it in defiance of US exhortations by pointing out that settlement growth had always gone ahead in the past despite formal expressions of US opposition to it. He said hundreds of homes were being built in two West Bank settlements, Ma’ale Adumim and Betar Illit. […]

Mr Sharon, in the interviews, extended his claim on West Bank settlements by declaring that henceforth “Jews will always live in” Hebron.

Although the US President has agreed that the main existing settlement blocks should remain in Israel in any final deal with the Palestinians, no such public endorsement exists in the case of Hebron.

Denying that he would come under pressure after disengagement to start further withdrawals from the West Bank, Mr Sharon repeated to Ha’aretz that talks on this would await fulfilment by the Palestinians of their obligation to dismantle the armed factions.

In terms which will fuel the claims of critics that the route of the separation barrier is intended as a de facto future border, Mr Sharon indicated that demographics - the future proportion of Jews to Arabs in Israel - had been a factor in not locating the barrier further to the east and even deeper into Palestinian territory. The present route has already been widely internationally criticised for cutting into the occupied West Bank. Mr Sharon said that an even more easterly location would have left “hundreds of thousands of Palestinians” on the Israeli side, which would have been a “major problem”.

Comment: Sharon continues to be bluntly honest about his goals. First fence the Palestinians in. That is the purpose of the Wall. Then, make life so miserable for them that they “choose” to leave.

Meanwhile, the international community stands by and nods its collective head at how the Palestinians must fulfill the demands of the “Road Map” as their people are killed in a war of attrition: a few here, a few there, day in , day out, over the decades.

Stealing Palestinian land has been denounced by the international community as contravening international law, several UN resolutions and the Geneva convention, yet the Bush administration continues to sanction it. In 1991, Saddam attempted to steal Kuwaiti land which he claimed rightfully belonged to Iraq. In response, the US attacked and bombed Iraq, killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqi conscripts and thousands of civilians.

Notice how blunt Sharon becomes when he’s giving an interview with the Jerusalem Post. He’s openly saying that it doesn’t matter what protestations GWB makes to the media, Israel will ignore him and continue to expand settlements anyway. The pullout from Gaza is not about peace but legitimizing the border and appropriating more land on the West Bank. Because he is speaking to an Israeli newspaper, intended for an Israeli audience and he lets his real intentions show when he says, “Jews will always live in Hebron.”

Compare this to the media coverage in the States when Sharon visits Crawford Ranch. All about cease-fires, giving concessions, keeping to the roadmap, and praise for each other as men of peace. This is what the American public sees, and is one of the reasons why most remain so ignorant as to the real situation in the Middle East.






27 February 2005

Suicide Bombing Halts Peace Efforts - Again

Yahoo News reported the following today from the Associated Press:

Sharon Threatens to Freeze Peace Efforts, By RAVI NESSMAN, Associated Press Writer

JERUSALEM - Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said Sunday that peace efforts with the Palestinians would be frozen if they do not crack down on militant groups in the wake of a weekend suicide bombing that killed four people outside a Tel Aviv nightclub.

The attack Friday and its aftermath broke two weeks of relative calm and strained recently warming relations between the Israelis and Palestinians following the election of moderate Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas last month. Four Israelis were killed and dozens of others were wounded in the bombing.

I find it exceedingly interesting that these suicide bombings seem to occur with such regular frequency whenever the Israelis and Palestinians are either just about to sit down at the negotiating table, or during a lull in the hostilities. It seems to happen again and again, and I am left wondering - Why? Who is it that would benefit the most if there was no peace? Who would benefit the most if there was peace?

Well, it seems quite clear that those who would benefit most from peace are those who have nothing left to lose after 60 years of struggle - the Palestinians. On the other hand, the Zionists that run the Israeli government (as separated from the Israeli people) - with their imperialistic dreams of a “Greater Israel” - would clearly need continued conflict to justify and eventually implement their plans of further expansion of their territory, or at the very least, the control of territory via continued occupation of land belonging to its neighbors (such as the Gaza Strip, West Bank, Golan Heights and the so-called “security zone” in southern Lebanon.).

So, when Sharon now says that peace efforts with the Palestinians will be “frozen” if the militant groups are not cracked down on, I am not surprised, because Sharon is not a man of peace, and I daresay, is likely quite pleased with this turn of events.

Of course, the intriguing thing about this particular suicide bombing is that Israel doesn’t seem to really know for certain who they should blame. One minute it’s Hezbollah, the next it’s Syria, the next it’s a Palestinian group in Gaza. We’ve got groups claiming responsibility, then saying, “Oops. No. Sorry. We didn’t do it afterall.” Seems like someone has seriously got some of their wires crossed. It’s as though there has been a break in the communication lines somewhere. Serious confusion.

But again, to answer the question of responsibility, one must first ask the question - Who benefits the most?

If you are a nation that needs conflict to justify its existence, clearly such a nation benefits the most from incidents that only serve to create more conflict.

If you are a nation that has been bombed nearly out of existence, clearly such a nation benefits from a final and just peace solution.

Think about it.




















Get free blog up and running in minutes with Blogsome | Theme designs available here