[Samirol]

Outraged Israeli human rights organisations have united in challenging the military's decision to invoke only minor penalties against a senior officer over the shooting of a bound and blindfolded Palestinian prisoner by a soldier under his command.

Lt-Col Omri Burberg has been "reassigned" and was indicted yesterday on the limited charge of "unworthy conduct" after the incident last month in which he held the Palestinian as the soldier shot him at close range in the foot with a rubber-coated bullet. The offence does not carry a custodial sentence.

The soldier, a staff sergeant who claims he was ordered to fire by the officer, has been demoted to private but faces the same charge. Lt-Col Burberg claimed he only wanted to intimidate the Palestinian, Ashraf Abu Rahmeh, after he was detained near Ni'ilin, the scene of regular unarmed demonstrations against the military's West Bank separation barrier.

Human rights group B'Tselem, which exposed the incident – shown on Israeli television after being videoed by a Palestinian woman in the village – said yesterday: "The army treats the shooting at point-blank range of a bound man [only] as inappropriate behaviour. It disgraces the values which it pretends to uphold."

And Yesh Din, the legal action group representing Mr Abu Rahmeh's family, pointed out that if the officer had been "caught smoking a joint" he would have suffered the worse penalty of a prison sentence and dishonourable discharge. It added: "This case proves once again that the military judicial system views harming innocent citizens as a public image problem and not as a moral issue."

Both groups have joined with the Association of Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI) in seeking to halt the court martial against the two men long enough for them to mount a high court challenge against the lightness of the indictment. In a letter to the military advocate general, Avichai Mandelblit, ACRI pointed out that the High Court ruled in 1988 that "Harming a bound and helpless person is a shameful and cruel act, and calls for an appropriately severe response".

While acknowledging that the "severe incident" reflected a "moral failure of command that should not have happened", the military said that the Chief of Staff, Gabi Ashkenazi, "recognised the positive manner" in which the officer had commanded his battalion and "commended" his actions after the incident, including his "immediate report" of it. Brigadier Mandelblit said he had taken into account "significant" penalty of reassignment, in framing the indictment.

But the lawyer acting for the victim's family, Michael Sfard, yesterday contrasted the charges with that carrying a maximum penalty of 20 years' detention of "endangering life" levelled "on a daily basis against Palestinian kids who throw stones", even if no one is hit. He added: "Of course they don't get that but they are frequently jailed for months."

Meanwhile an investigation is already underway after a later incident in which a 10-year-old boy, Ahmed Moussa, was shot dead with a live bullet after another demonstration at Ni'ilin.

This is terrible, and I don't expect to see a response from the U.S about a guy getting off with an extremely light punishment.

Why do we continue to fund Israel if they continue to treat Palestinians like rabid dogs that need to be put down?

 

[Silver]

Compared to what the Israelis do on a regular basis, that actually isn't that bad.

I'm shocked he got punished at all...

 

[DaveW]

*Meh* Standard Israeli racist contempt for others human rights.
Probably find he gets promoted in a month or so.

 

[rockwool]

And Yesh Din, the legal action group representing Mr Abu Rahmeh's family, pointed out that if the officer had been "caught smoking a joint" he would have suffered the worse penalty of a prison sentence and dishonourable discharge. It added: "This case proves once again that the military judicial system views harming innocent citizens as a public image problem and not as a moral issue."

Which inevitably raises the question, how many Palestinians is a joint worth?

Why do we continue to fund Israel if they continue to treat Palestinians like rabid dogs that need to be put down?

I showed why in a thread a year or so back, will serach for it.

 

[rockwool]

Here it is, I'll take the liberty of reposting some interesting stuff.

http://www.ridemonkey.com/forums/showthread.php?t=163888&highlight=lieberman

I'm talking about "bribes" from the lobby to the campaign funds of politicians. I know, they are fully legal but I find them very unethical and undemocratic because the rich can afford to "buy" the politicians votes.

In Congressman Paul Findleys book "They Dare To Speak Out" he writes:
"People in institutions confront Israeli lobby that nearly all the US governments leaders, both republican and democrat alike, recieved vast sums of campaign money from the pro zionist Political Action Committees, PAC's, which often have decieving names to hide this fact."

The zionist lobby of the US with all its stealth PAC's is the strongest political action committee, or lobby, or any group.
This is a list of some politicians who have recieved over $50,000.00 for supporting Israel:

Frank Murkowski (S), $ 63,000;
Jon Kyl (S), $ 77,000;
Dianne Feinstein (S), 113,000;
Tom Lantos (H), $ 69,000;
Howard Berman (H), $ 55,000;
Jane HArman (H), $ 57,000;
Bob Filner (H), $ 71,000;
Christopher Dodd (S), $ 183,000;
Joseph Lieberman (S), $ 227,000;
Sam Gejdenson (S), $ 335,000;
Bob Graham (S), $ 94,000;
John Lewis (H), $ 64,000;
Daniel Akaka (S), $ 93,500;
Richard Durbin (S), $ 246,000;
John Porter (H), $ 71,000;
Lane Evans (H), $ 74,000;
Dan Burton (H), $ 61,000;
Thomas Harkin (S), $ 424,000;
Mitch McConnell (S), $ 285,000;
Olympia Snowe (S), $ 71,000;
Paul Sarbanes (S), $ 160,000;
Steny Hoyer (H), $ 52,000;
Edward Kennedy (S), $ 66,000;
Carl Levin (S), $ 564,000;
Sander Levin (H), $ 87,000;
Trent Lott (S), $ 67,000;
Richard Gephardt (S), $ 135,000;
Ike Skelton (H), $ 69,000;
Max Baucas (S), $ 262,000;
Conrad Burns (S), $ 165,000;
J. Robert Kerrey (S), $ 199,000;
Harry Reid (S), $ 254,000;
Shelley Berkley (H), $ 100,000;
Robert Torricelli (S), $ 127,000;
H. James Saxton (H), $ 54,000;
Jeff Bingaman (S), $ 261,000;
Eliot Engel (H), $ 99,000;
Nita Lowey (H), $ 84,000;
Benjamin Gilman (H), $ 81,000;
David Price (H), $ 51,000;
Kent Conrad (S), $ 196,000;
Byron Dorgan (S), $ 96,000;
Arlen Specter (S), $ 366,000;
Richard Licht (S), $ 266,000;
Jack Reed (H), $ 75,000;
Claiborne Pell (S), $ 181,000;
Ernest Hollings (S), $ 73,000;
Tim Johnson (S), $ 51,000;
Charles Robb (S), $ 255,000;
Slade Garton (S), $ 180,000;
Russel Feingold (S) $ 57,000;
and
David Obey (H), $ 147,000;

Political action committee money reportedly received by some Senators (S) and members of the House (H) for voting in favor of Israel.
SOURCE: Washington Report on Middle East Affairs

 

[rockwool]

Two more:

" 87 SENATORS, 209 REPRESENTATIVES LETTER TO PRESIDENT BUSH: SUPPORT ISRAEL
House, Senate Call for Reassessment of U.S.-Palestinian Relations April 6, 2001

(SOURCE: American Israeli Public Affairs Committee: AIPAC)

87 members of the Senate and the 209 members of the House sent letters to President Bush urging him to reassess U.S. relations with the Palestinian Authority.

Senate Letter (House Letter is Almost the Same)

Dear Mr. President:

We are writing you out of a deep sense of frustration, anger and concern over recent events in the Middle East....Over the past several months, the Palestinians have initiated on average over 30 "incidents" a day against Israeli soldiers and civilians (note: not a single mention of Palestinian casualties that are 4 times the Israeli casualties or the international condemnation of Israel by the State Department and EVERY International Human Rights Organization.)

/.../ whether US aid to the Palestinians is in fact meetings its goals, and whether it is appropriate for Arafat to be invited to meet with high-level officials in Washington while the violence continues; we also believe that you should reaffirm America's opposition to a unilaterally-declared independent Palestinian state."


"June 11, 2001

The Red Cross retracts description of Israeli settlements as “war crime.” In response to a strongly worded letter from Rep. Eliot Engel (D-NY), Jewish, regarding recent statements emanating from the organization, Dr. Jakob Kellenberger, president of the International Committee of the Red Cross, stated unequivocally that the Red Cross does not consider Israeli settlement activity a “war crime.”"




This is how he finishes the article:

"At the beginning we supported Israel to be our client state in the oil deserts of Arabia, now its us who've become the client state for Israel. Israel is committing atrocities with our money and weapons---killing in our name. This has more to do with our national pride, identity, and role in the world than it does with Muslims, Palestinians, or Afghanistan. Is this our country, is this "our?" Congress, is Bush our President, and is Colin Powell our Secretary of State."




Compared to what the Israeli lobby groups are giving your politicians they are getting a lot in return; ~ 6 billion dollars every year of your taxes..

 

[rockwool]

and the last:

" 87 SENATORS, 209 REPRESENTATIVES LETTER TO PRESIDENT BUSH: SUPPORT ISRAEL
House, Senate Call for Reassessment of U.S.-Palestinian Relations April 6, 2001

(SOURCE: American Israeli Public Affairs Committee: AIPAC)

87 members of the Senate and the 209 members of the House sent letters to President Bush urging him to reassess U.S. relations with the Palestinian Authority.

Senate Letter (House Letter is Almost the Same)

Dear Mr. President:

We are writing you out of a deep sense of frustration, anger and concern over recent events in the Middle East....Over the past several months, the Palestinians have initiated on average over 30 "incidents" a day against Israeli soldiers and civilians (note: not a single mention of Palestinian casualties that are 4 times the Israeli casualties or the international condemnation of Israel by the State Department and EVERY International Human Rights Organization.)

/.../ whether US aid to the Palestinians is in fact meetings its goals, and whether it is appropriate for Arafat to be invited to meet with high-level officials in Washington while the violence continues; we also believe that you should reaffirm America's opposition to a unilaterally-declared independent Palestinian state."


"June 11, 2001

The Red Cross retracts description of Israeli settlements as “war crime.” In response to a strongly worded letter from Rep. Eliot Engel (D-NY), Jewish, regarding recent statements emanating from the organization, Dr. Jakob Kellenberger, president of the International Committee of the Red Cross, stated unequivocally that the Red Cross does not consider Israeli settlement activity a “war crime.”"




This is how he finishes the article:

"At the beginning we supported Israel to be our client state in the oil deserts of Arabia, now its us who've become the client state for Israel. Israel is committing atrocities with our money and weapons---killing in our name. This has more to do with our national pride, identity, and role in the world than it does with Muslims, Palestinians, or Afghanistan. Is this our country, is this "our?" Congress, is Bush our President, and is Colin Powell our Secretary of State."




Compared to what the Israeli lobby groups are giving your politicians they are getting a lot in return; ~ 6 billion dollars every year of your taxes..

Although the most amazing thing is how the Fatah now is working against it's own peoples interests only not to lose power to Hamas, leading to more malnutrition of their people due to non chritisized closed borders and frozen funds, continuous peace negotiations with the US as a part knowing that they won't lead to anything better.

 

[Samirol]

oh, I know why, I was lamenting about how ****ty our situation of blind support is

 

[drkenan]

Our unquestioned support of Isreal is definitely a touchy subject.

If any of you guys ever have the time, I HIGHLY recommend watching an amazing documentary called The Fourth World War.

The entire film is up on Google video. One of the most moving segments was filmed in Palestine and is near the end IIRC. When they screened it here in 2004 there was hardly a dry eye in the room.

76 minutes long...
http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=4th+world+war&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7&rlz=1I7GGIT&um=1&sa=N&tab=wv&oi=property_suggestions&resnum=0&ct=property-revision&cd=1#

 

[Defenestrated]

http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=4th+world+war&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7&rlz=1I7GGIT&um=1&sa=N&tab=wv&oi=property_suggestions&resnum=0&ct=property-revision&cd=1#

ruined my day, im super sad now

 

[drkenan]

ruined my day, im super sad now

I hear ya man...sometimes you just gotta take the red pill though.

 

[Defenestrated]

The Bush speeches in the background at about the 1hr mark make you wonder...