Whoops somebody got the PR Spin all fucked up on this one

[plural]

Apparently it wasnt a massacre,
but a glorious victory of the palestinian resistance

Jenin 'massacre' reduced to death toll of 56

JENIN, West Bank
Palestinian officials yesterday put the death toll at 56 in the two-week Israeli assault on Jenin, dropping claims of a massacre of 500 that had sparked demands for a U.N. investigation.

The official Palestinian body count, which is not disproportionate to the 33 Israeli soldiers killed in the incursion, was disclosed by Kadoura Mousa Kadoura, the director of Yasser Arafat's Fatah movement for the northern West Bank, after a team of four Palestinian-appointed investigators reported to him in his Jenin office.

[Two weeks ago, when European and particularly London newspapers were reporting estimates of "hundreds" massacred, Israeli sources in Washington said they expected the Palestinian toll to reach "45 to 55."]

Click here for the complete text

Paul Martin - Washington Times

thanks to ikilled007 for the link

Comments

[plural.livejournal.com]

darling,
if you only had
the slightest idea
of how obfuscating the words
and antique the mannerisms
used in international diplomacy
are
you would be amazed that
any two countries could agree
on the color of the sky
[for the record]
[it was established]
[as cerulian blue]
[by the Augustine treaty of 1658]
[but only twenty-two countries ratified it]

I can see how
it could be read such
and it is possible
that the author even believes it

i feel two ways about it

on one hand, i view all human life
as valued and any loss saddens me

but on the other hand, i understand
human nature, and our preoccupation with
killing each other. as such I look at it
like this. One a battlefield, combatants lives are equal, and civilians lives are equal, the combatants volunteer to risk their lives in the attempt to take the lives of their enemies, civilians merely attempt to live and not get killed by either side.

When we are talking about civilian deaths, it is always tragic, whether israeli or palestinian.

I will admit, my bias here, I do feel that the lives of the palestinian combatants (and only combatants, not civilians) are worth less than those of Israeli Combatants.

How can I make sure a moral judgement?
Because from my experience in this matter, which is substantial, I feel very strongly that the palestinians are the aggressor and that the israeli are engaged in an intense war of self-defense.

I really and value the differences in views that we both hold. and make this statement not to reopen the larger arguement of who own has the right to the land, or who

[city-glitter.livejournal.com]

So. Why don't we just cut the crap and acknowledge that all human beings were created equal and that the only appropriate action is to make sure everyone gets what they need...and as much of what they want as possible. We can start by ensuring that the weaker people in a given area aren't oppressed.

[plural.livejournal.com]

that sounds like an excellent idea

however, Israel has offered extremely generous terms on multiple occasion, all of which give the palestinians a state and more importantly a lot more than they currently have.

If the palestinians were willing to accept that they might be better off not getting 100% of their demands, and settling for 90% of them, this situation would have been over long ago.

Instead they choose to slaughter innocent people in the streets. This is a choice.

You can look at the situation, see israeli tanks, soldiers and helocopters, and say that the palestinians are the weaker people. Indeed militarily they are weaker. But that doesnt mean that they are right.

Osma ben Ladin, was a militarily weaker opponent, who felt that his people were oppressed by the American Imperialism. Does the fact that he was weaker, justify his act of aggression and murder?

The core of the matter, relates to aggresion. If the palestinians people, ceased acting in an agressive manner, and chose to negotiate honestly, this situation would again, have been long ago resolved peacefully (i define honest negotiation as attempting to find a compromise where one gets as much as one can but realizes that you have to give up something to get what you want).

[city-glitter.livejournal.com]

"however, Israel has offered extremely generous terms on multiple occasion, all of which give the palestinians a state and more importantly a lot more than they currently have."

I missed that. Please supply evidence.

[plural.livejournal.com]

by evidence do you mean further information or direct links.

In the last meeting between Barak and Arafat. Israel offered over 90% of the west bank land, much of east Jerusalem and the rights of statehood. They also offered in exchange for cooperation fighting terrorism, aid and assistance to the palestinian state.

While the right of return was not granted, nor was all of the land offered to be returned. You can not argue that what was offered would not be a significant improvement to the condition of the palestinian people

[city-glitter.livejournal.com]

I can also argue that ten dollars a month is an improvement over the current Absolute Jack Shit given to Natives in this country, but who would be comforted?

[plural.livejournal.com]

yes you could and you would be correct.

but you distort the issue. To correspond the israeli offer which concedes to the palestinians the vast majority of their demands, with offering an american native ten dollars a month, is pure showboating and rhetoric.

If we offered the Native Americans, 90% of their land back, a soveriegn government, and assistance to organize and run their governement, would that not be a considerable improvement over their current situation? Yes.

To say otherwise would be foolish. What you are saying, is that it is perfectly acceptible for a group of people to slaughter innocents as long as every one of their demands is not met in full.

This betrays the very concept of justice. Justice would not be served by evicting every american, and turning the land back to the Native Americans. This would be just another injustice, an injustice to the people who are innocently attempting to live their lives and had nothing to do with the original sin. Two injustices do not make justice.

Absolute freedom mocks justice, Absolute justice denies freedom. There must be a compromise somewhere in between.