• news
  • MONDAY JUNE 27 2005 6:00 PM

Israeli Soldier Convicted in Activist's Death

Submitted by Ukko

Edited by MissTyrios

An Israeli soldier has been convicted by a military tribunal of the manslaughter of a British peace worker in the Occupied Territories on the West Bank (Palestine) in January 2003.

Taysir Hayb was found guilty of shooting Tom Hurndall, 22, a member of the pro-Palestinian International Solidarity Movement. Hurndall died in a London hospital in January 2004 after lying in a coma for nine months.

Human rights groups maintain that Israel has used excessive force to quell Palestinian unrest, and very few cases in which Palestinian civilians have been shot have led to convictions.

Hayb, who the army initially said was a private, shot Hurndall while the activist was helping Palestinian children cross a street to avoid gunfire in the southern Gaza town of Rafah, a hotbed of a Palestinian revolt in territory Israel has occupied since the 1967 Middle East War.


Perhaps most tragic is the fact that Tom's death is being reported internationally, while human rights have reported that at least hundreds of ordinary Palestinians have been killed by the Israeli government's occupying forces - yet their stories are rarely brought to light.

Tom's family have a website - take a look.

In this writer's opinion, the justifiably scared Israeli government is going too far to apply collective punishment to all Palestinians for the crimes of a few extremists. The media is not helping either - but this conviction is welcome, if only for raising awareness of the terrible human rights abuses being committed by the government of a nation that aspires to be a big player in international politics.

  • PERMALINK
  • PRINT
  • Digg This
  • Email To A Friend
 

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3

Next

Comments
stockula

stockula

Anchorage, AK
May 2003

JUN 27, 2005 06:12 PM

Ukko said:
In this writer's opinion, the justifiably scared Israeli government is going too far to apply collective punishment to all Palestinians for the crimes of a few extremists. The media is not helping either - but this conviction is welcome, if only for raising awareness of the terrible human rights abuses being committed by the government of a nation that aspires to be a big player in international politics.




Dont make me fucking laugh. Almost all Palestinians support the terror campaign against Israel and want to see it destroyed. If they had a problem with the "few extremists" (AKA, their provisional government) they'd do something to stop them, or make entreaties to Israel to let them know Hamas and al-aqsa do not speak for them.

Problem is, they DO speak for the Palestinians. And most Arabs in general in how to deal with Israel.

When was the last time the Palestinians ever held manslaughter or murder trials for civilians murdered by their militias? Never has happened, and it never will.

[Edited on Jun 27, 2005 by stockula]

skeptik

skeptik

New Orleans, LA
February 2004

JUN 27, 2005 06:18 PM

How'd I guess stockula would have the first response to this story?

Chriztian

Chriztian

Tallahassee, FL
September 2004

JUN 27, 2005 06:55 PM

Ok, have a UN resolution saying that the Native Americans can coexist with you where you live now. Even though they are an amalgamyzed grouping of many different tribes, and some have absolutely no claim over that land, they kick you, all your friends, and all their families out of their homes, then expand over the land which no one is in, so that they can basically keep you from going back to it. Then the UN puts out another resolution saying that they have to allow you back into your homes, which the Native Americans entirely ignore and arrest/shoot those who try. Backing these Indians is the most powerful, richest nation in the world, whereas your country is very poor and doesn't really have much in the way of technology.
Yeah, I'm sure you'd still try and fight a nice clean war, all sides being fair and all like they are.
PS I really don't mean to offend any Native Americans, but it was the only analogy I could think of that might get the point across.

stockula

stockula

Anchorage, AK
May 2003

JUN 27, 2005 08:47 PM

Chriztian said:
Ok, have a UN resolution saying that the Native Americans can coexist with you where you live now. Even though they are an amalgamyzed grouping of many different tribes, and some have absolutely no claim over that land, they kick you, all your friends, and all their families out of their homes, then expand over the land which no one is in, so that they can basically keep you from going back to it. Then the UN puts out another resolution saying that they have to allow you back into your homes, which the Native Americans entirely ignore and arrest/shoot those who try. Backing these Indians is the most powerful, richest nation in the world, whereas your country is very poor and doesn't really have much in the way of technology.
Yeah, I'm sure you'd still try and fight a nice clean war, all sides being fair and all like they are.
PS I really don't mean to offend any Native Americans, but it was the only analogy I could think of that might get the point across.




It's a valid analogy. But if anything, the Jews have a more valid claim on their land in Israel than the Anglos did in North America.

Thistle

Thistle

SUICIDEGIRL

California, USA

JUN 27, 2005 08:49 PM

stockula said:

Chriztian said:
Ok, have a UN resolution saying that the Native Americans can coexist with you where you live now. Even though they are an amalgamyzed grouping of many different tribes, and some have absolutely no claim over that land, they kick you, all your friends, and all their families out of their homes, then expand over the land which no one is in, so that they can basically keep you from going back to it. Then the UN puts out another resolution saying that they have to allow you back into your homes, which the Native Americans entirely ignore and arrest/shoot those who try. Backing these Indians is the most powerful, richest nation in the world, whereas your country is very poor and doesn't really have much in the way of technology.
Yeah, I'm sure you'd still try and fight a nice clean war, all sides being fair and all like they are.
PS I really don't mean to offend any Native Americans, but it was the only analogy I could think of that might get the point across.




It's a valid analogy. But if anything, the Jews have a more valid claim on their land in Israel than the Anglos did in North America.



Actually the Jews correspond to the Native Americans in this analogy.

stockula

stockula

Anchorage, AK
May 2003

JUN 27, 2005 08:55 PM

Thistle said:

stockula said:

Chriztian said:
Ok, have a UN resolution saying that the Native Americans can coexist with you where you live now. Even though they are an amalgamyzed grouping of many different tribes, and some have absolutely no claim over that land, they kick you, all your friends, and all their families out of their homes, then expand over the land which no one is in, so that they can basically keep you from going back to it. Then the UN puts out another resolution saying that they have to allow you back into your homes, which the Native Americans entirely ignore and arrest/shoot those who try. Backing these Indians is the most powerful, richest nation in the world, whereas your country is very poor and doesn't really have much in the way of technology.
Yeah, I'm sure you'd still try and fight a nice clean war, all sides being fair and all like they are.
PS I really don't mean to offend any Native Americans, but it was the only analogy I could think of that might get the point across.




It's a valid analogy. But if anything, the Jews have a more valid claim on their land in Israel than the Anglos did in North America.



Actually the Jews correspond to the Native Americans in this analogy.



Realistically, in the world today, no. The Jews are considered by their enemies as interlopers into a region dominated by another culture and religion, which is the prime motive in destroying them and their presence with no possible consideration of tolerance or co-existence. Even though the Jews, unlike the Anglos in colonial America, have no expansionist ambitions. They just want a country of their own where they dont have to worry about other groups scapegoating, persecuting, and killing them due to their identity. For once. In their 5000 year history.




[Edited on Jun 27, 2005 by stockula]

skeptik

skeptik

New Orleans, LA
February 2004

JUN 27, 2005 08:57 PM

Went right over your head, didn't it?

[Edited on Jun 27, 2005 by skeptik]

stockula

stockula

Anchorage, AK
May 2003

JUN 27, 2005 08:58 PM

skeptik said:
Went right over your head, didn't it?

[Edited on Jun 27, 2005 by skeptik]



I suppose.

Thistle

Thistle

SUICIDEGIRL

California, USA

JUN 27, 2005 09:12 PM

Native Americans being given back the land that was rightfully theirs corresponds to Jews being given back the land that was historically theirs. If you actually read the analogy, that is what was going on. The analogy is trying to explain why the Palestinians are viewing the Jews as interlopers by comparing their situation to a fictional one.

stockula

stockula

Anchorage, AK
May 2003

JUN 27, 2005 10:11 PM

Thistle said:
Native Americans being given back the land that was rightfully theirs corresponds to Jews being given back the land that was historically theirs. If you actually read the analogy, that is what was going on. The analogy is trying to explain why the Palestinians are viewing the Jews as interlopers by comparing their situation to a fictional one.



Go back to the Old Testament, Thistle-izzle. The Jews overran Canaan with god's blessing waaaaaay back in the day, yo.


[Edited on Jun 27, 2005 by stockula]

Dead_Ringer

Dead_Ringer

I'm lost
September 2004

JUN 27, 2005 10:16 PM

skeptik said:
How'd I guess stockula would have the first response to this story?


And to lie about it.

bean

bean

STAFF

Los Angeles, CA

JUN 27, 2005 10:19 PM

stockula said:

Thistle said:
Native Americans being given back the land that was rightfully theirs corresponds to Jews being given back the land that was historically theirs. If you actually read the analogy, that is what was going on. The analogy is trying to explain why the Palestinians are viewing the Jews as interlopers by comparing their situation to a fictional one.



Go back to the Old Testament, Thistle-izzle. The Jews overran Canaan with god's blessing waaaaaay back in the day, yo.


How, exactly, does that illuminate the position they hold in the analogy in question? Since they did it "waaaaaay back in the day" that would seem to strengthen Thistle's point that the land historically belongs to the Jews (since no modern day group directly associates themselves with the Canaanites, and so you can't say any other modern day group has a greater historical claim on the land). I don't quite understand your point with this statement.

Thistle

Thistle

SUICIDEGIRL

California, USA

JUN 27, 2005 10:19 PM

stockula said:

Thistle said:
Native Americans being given back the land that was rightfully theirs corresponds to Jews being given back the land that was historically theirs. If you actually read the analogy, that is what was going on. The analogy is trying to explain why the Palestinians are viewing the Jews as interlopers by comparing their situation to a fictional one.



Go back to the Old Testament, Thistle-izzle. The Jews overran Canaan with god's blessing waaaaaay back in the day, yo.


[Edited on Jun 27, 2005 by stockula]




so basically you're saying you don't care what the point of the analogy was?

stockula

stockula

Anchorage, AK
May 2003

JUN 27, 2005 10:24 PM

Thistle said:

stockula said:

Thistle said:
Native Americans being given back the land that was rightfully theirs corresponds to Jews being given back the land that was historically theirs. If you actually read the analogy, that is what was going on. The analogy is trying to explain why the Palestinians are viewing the Jews as interlopers by comparing their situation to a fictional one.



Go back to the Old Testament, Thistle-izzle. The Jews overran Canaan with god's blessing waaaaaay back in the day, yo.


[Edited on Jun 27, 2005 by stockula]




so basically you're saying you don't care what the point of the analogy was?



Just saying if the US has a claim on the land it's on, the Jews do much more.

Of course, in reality, it doesn't matter. What matters is who win wars, and woe to those who lose.

Dead_Ringer

Dead_Ringer

I'm lost
September 2004

JUN 27, 2005 10:25 PM

stockula said:

Thistle said:
Native Americans being given back the land that was rightfully theirs corresponds to Jews being given back the land that was historically theirs. If you actually read the analogy, that is what was going on. The analogy is trying to explain why the Palestinians are viewing the Jews as interlopers by comparing their situation to a fictional one.



Go back to the Old Testament, Thistle-izzle. The Jews overran Canaan with god's blessing waaaaaay back in the day, yo.


Ooh, Bible story hour! Here are my fave passages:

Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: but I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already is his heart (Matthew 5:27-28).


and

And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbor's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death (Leviticus 20:10).


I wonder if that applies to looking at nekkid girlies on web sites. Well, the word is the word after all.


[Edited on Jun 28, 2005 by Dead_Ringer]

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3

Next

featured interviews