The concern Israel demonstrates for the fate of one Palestinian boy touches the heart: Again, note what a fuss is being made about the case of the killing of Mohammed al-Dura. Our heart is impervious to the fate of other children who have been killed. Just little Mohammed continues to haunt us. But the question of who killed al-Dura is not important. And maybe he is even alive, as some eccentrics claim. Perhaps he committed suicide, as the strange investigations are liable to suggest. All of these are tasteless questions designed to divert attention from the truly important issues: According to data collected by human rights group B'Tselem, Israel is responsible for killing more than 850 Palestinian children and teenagers since al-Dura was killed, including 92 in the past year alone. Last October, we killed 31 children in Gaza. This is what should have raised a storm and not the measurements by the former head of the Israel Defense Forces' Southern Command, Yom Tov Samiyeh, aimed at proving that his soldiers did not kill al-Dura, or the "investigations" by the physicist Nahum Shahaf. In an eccentric obsession, Shahaf has devoted the past years to this affair, after previously having also obtained "amazing material" on the murder of Yitzhak Rabin. Al-Dura refuses to step down from the stage because he has become an icon of the Palestinian struggle and a symbol of Israeli brutality. A thousand Nahum Shahafs will not succeed in blurring the unequivocal fact that a scandalous killing of children is taking place in the territories.
Advertisement
Even if the director of the Government Press Office, Danny Seaman, is right in determining that the film made by the reliable and experienced French journalist Charles Enderlin was "staged," and even if he succeeds in clearing Israel from responsibility for this killing, what will we say about the other children who have been killed? That their killing was also "staged?" That the IDF did not kill them through carelessness and contempt for their lives; by being trigger-happy and even acting with premeditation? If Israel were really interested in improving its "public relations," it would embrace the al-Dura family instead of all the foolish investigations. It would provide compensation to the family and show the world that it is truly and sincerely sorry about the death of one child. The question of who killed al-Dura is like the question of what Joseph Trumpeldor mumbled before his death. The myth in both cases is already stronger than any investigation. Al-Dura became a symbol because his killing was documented on videotape. All the other hundreds of children were killed without cameras present, so no one is interested in their fate. If there had been a camera in Bushara Barjis' room in the Jenin refugee camp while she was studying for a pre-matriculation test, we would have a film showing an IDF sniper firing a bullet at her head. If there had been a photographer near Jamal Jabaji from the Askar camp, we would see soldiers emerging from an armored jeep and aiming their weapons at the head of a child who threw stones at them. But these children did not become symbols; there are no stamps bearing their portraits, no streets named after them and no songs composed for them as with al-Dura because they were not filmed at the time of their deaths.'
Lees verder: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/909972.html
Advertisement
Even if the director of the Government Press Office, Danny Seaman, is right in determining that the film made by the reliable and experienced French journalist Charles Enderlin was "staged," and even if he succeeds in clearing Israel from responsibility for this killing, what will we say about the other children who have been killed? That their killing was also "staged?" That the IDF did not kill them through carelessness and contempt for their lives; by being trigger-happy and even acting with premeditation? If Israel were really interested in improving its "public relations," it would embrace the al-Dura family instead of all the foolish investigations. It would provide compensation to the family and show the world that it is truly and sincerely sorry about the death of one child. The question of who killed al-Dura is like the question of what Joseph Trumpeldor mumbled before his death. The myth in both cases is already stronger than any investigation. Al-Dura became a symbol because his killing was documented on videotape. All the other hundreds of children were killed without cameras present, so no one is interested in their fate. If there had been a camera in Bushara Barjis' room in the Jenin refugee camp while she was studying for a pre-matriculation test, we would have a film showing an IDF sniper firing a bullet at her head. If there had been a photographer near Jamal Jabaji from the Askar camp, we would see soldiers emerging from an armored jeep and aiming their weapons at the head of a child who threw stones at them. But these children did not become symbols; there are no stamps bearing their portraits, no streets named after them and no songs composed for them as with al-Dura because they were not filmed at the time of their deaths.'
Lees verder: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/909972.html
8 opmerkingen:
Wat een smakeloos gebeuren is het daar toch allemaal. Waarom gooien ze de wapens niet gewoon neer en leven ze samen verder. Dat kan toch niet zo moeilijk zijn. Maar dat zal wel te naief zijn gedacht. Waardeloze bende. Waardeloze, wáárdeloze bende.
Hadden wij samen verder kunnen of willen leven met onze bezetters Lia?
Doen we dat nu dan niet Sonja?
Wie is jouw bezetter Lia?
Beste Sonja, je stelt de verkeerde vragen. Israel heeft recht op haar eigen verhaal. Iedere Israeli heeft recht op zijn/haar eigen verhaal. Er kan geen twijfel over bestaan dat Israel zich onmiddelijk terugtrekt uit de bezette gebieden. Palestina heeft recht op haar eigen verhaal. Iedere Palestijn heeft recht op zijn/haar eigen verhaal. Als iedereen de wapens neerlegt, dan valt er niet veel te vechten. Bij de huidige wetgeving worden mensen die soldaten zijn veroordeeld als ze de wapens neerleggen. De verantwoordelijkheid moet dus terug naar het niveau waar het hoort, dat van de Israelische en Palestijnse regering. In ons land werd de vrede in 45 getekend. Sindsdien leven wij naast en met elkaar. Je denkt toch hoop ik niet dat door dat ene papiertje en de bijbehorende intenties de pijn ook meteen verdwenen was. Je moet érgens beginnen Sonja.
Ik ben ook een groot voorstander van vrede Lia. Maar mijn grootmoeder zei altijd : A(l)s is verbrande turf. Daarnaast marcheer je kalmpjes over het gegeven heen dat dat internationaal is afgesproken dat een volk het recht heeft om zich (gewapend) te verzetten tegen haar bezetter. Daarnaast vergeet je ook kalmpjes hoeveel Duitse burgers er nodeloos zijn omgebracht om 'naast elkaar te kunnen leven'. Daarnaast vergeet je bijvoorbeeld ook de internationale afspraken die er na de oorlog zijn gemaakt zodát 'we naast elkaar kunnen leven'. Laten dat nu dezelfde wetten zijn die Israël aan haar laars lapt. Nee Lia, die open deur van jou gaat niet op. Er is namelijk maar één bezetter in dit geval.
Maar uit jouw verhaal begrijp ik dat we die net zo moeten behandelen als Nazi-Duitsland, omdat dat volgens jou allemaal zo goed is verlopen. Maar in Israël zijn geen Hannovers of Dresdens. Of Hiroshimas en Nagasakis, twee plaatsen die het ook mogelijk hebben gemaakt om met de Japanners in vrede te leven.
Ja, ik ben tegen geweld en voor vrede. Alleen de internationale gemeenschap niet. Dus gaat je vredesverhaal gewoonweg niet op.
Zo is dat Sonja, blame de internationale gemeenschap in plaats van de verantwoordelijke leiders tot de orde te roepen. Heb jij dat artikel eigenlijk wel gelézen, of sla je gewoon wat in de rondte door op iedereens reactie te reageren. Zoietsigs als Pavlov zeg maar: actie-reactie. Of reactie-actie. Sorry, maar wat het punt is dat je maken wilt, ontgaat mij volledig.
The concern Israel demonstrates for the fate of one Palestinian boy touches the heart: Again, note what a fuss is being made about the case of the killing of Mohammed al-Dura. Our heart is impervious to the fate of other children who have been killed. (...)
Last October, we killed 31 children in Gaza. This is what should have raised a storm and not the measurements by the former head of the Israel Defense Forces' Southern Command, Yom Tov Samiyeh, aimed at proving that his soldiers did not kill al-Dura, or the "investigations" by the physicist Nahum Shahaf.
(...)
If Israel were really interested in improving its "public relations," it would embrace the al-Dura family instead of all the foolish investigations. It would provide compensation to the family and show the world that it is truly and sincerely sorry about the death of one child.
(...)
Al-Dura became a symbol because his killing was documented on videotape. All the other hundreds of children were killed without cameras present, so no one is interested in their fate.
(...)
But these children did not become symbols; there are no stamps bearing their portraits, no streets named after them and no songs composed for them as with al-Dura because they were not filmed at the time of their deaths.'
Ach jee, ik wist niet dat u een psycholoog was. Zit u misschien op het verkeerde weblog.
Een reactie posten