Thursday, December 13, 2012


Several days ago, a Palestinian youth turned 17 years old; he died on his birthday.  While at the Occupier's Checkpoint in ElKhalil, Palestine, the Occupying Soldiers shot him dead with numerous bullets. They then spewed the propaganda that the Palestinian youth had a toy gun and pointed it at them.  How implausible is this story by the occupiers? 

First, where is this toy gun? Wouldn't the occupiers show the toy gun with the story to make their case believable? Second, how can a Palestinian youth, born and raised with fear in his heart from the occupying soldiers, be that unsophisticated to allegedly brandish a toy gun against an occupying soldier?  The toy gun was conjured up by the occupiers as they stated he got it because of his birthday.  Now, had the occupiers said he brandished a real gun,  that may be more acceptable. Years of built up frustration against the occupying soldiers could lead a Palestinian youth to try to kill his occupiers. That I can believe, but to say he had a toy gun--that's crazy. 

Now in a discussions with various Occupying soldier supporters, I raised the hypocrisy of how the recent Oregon Mall shooting was not labeled a terrorist act but would have been so if that same act occurred in a Tel Aviv mall. The definition that was offered by the Israeli supporters for terrorism was "intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of intimidating a population or compelling a government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act."  I suspect that this was copied from some authoritative source.

Using this definition, I raised the question can you agree that the purpose of the Israeli soldier is to instill fear in the civilian Palestinians?  Then I asked, given this definition, whether the Israeli occupying soldier that killed the Palestinian youth in ElKhalil, Palestine would be considered a “terrorist?” 

It is undisputed that in the 45 years of occupation of the West Bank and Gaza (I consider Gaza still under occupation) the Israeli occupying soldiers (and the Uzi taunting illegal settlers) have caused “death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants,” i.e. the Palestinian population. I challenge anyone to argue otherwise.

What is then the purpose of the Israeli soldier?

Before I answer this question, let me say that if Israel could have morally annexed the West Bank into Israel, they would have enacted such legislation decades ago. They have not because they have no legal standing to do so.   They want to annex the West Bank into Israel and have employed the systematic illegal policy of confiscation of Palestinian land, claiming that the land is “disputed.”  But no one is buying this argument.  

Another tactic that Israel is employing, and this is where the Israeli occupying soldier comes in, is to force the Palestinians to leave the West Bank—at least as many as possible.

What tactic does the occupier employ?


The intent of the Israeli occupying soldier of the West Bank is to instill fear, i.e. intimidating a population or compelling…to do or abstain from doing any act." The intent is to instill fear into Palestinians to control them and to make their lives so miserable that they would do an act that they would not normally do, i.e. leave the land.

Therefore, it is logical, given the definition of terrorist given to me by Israeli supporters, that the Israeli occupying soldier is a terrorist.  He/she is there to do one thing:  to control the Palestinian population, to intimidate them, to make their lives miserable. 

How is this accomplished?

The West Bank is dotted with hindering and dehumanizing military checkpoints manned by occupying soldiers that purposefully subject Palestinians to harassment and demoralization.  It is a systematic daily policy that is carried out 24/7, 365 days a year.  At any given time, even in the middle of night, Israeli occupying soldiers can knock down the front door of any Palestinian and search and seize whatever they want and haul away any Palestinian to jail under the pretext of administrative detention.  If this is not fear, a constant fear every second of every day of a Palestinian’s life, I do not know what fear is.

Thus, if fear is the purpose of the presence of the Israeli soldier in the West Bank, he must be a terrorist.  

Wednesday, December 12, 2012

Thinking Out Loud: A Conversation About What is Terrorism?

I posted the following comment on my Facebook page and a discussion on what is terrorism ensued:

Thinking out loud. If the Oregon Mall killings yesterday would have happened in Israel, the suspect would have been labeled a "terrorist" by the media. Now what is the difference between this senseless shooting here in the US and any other senseless shooting anywhere else except for geographic locations. Isn't this incident a terrorist, a domestic terrorist incident. And why is the media not using this term? Is it because, the American media does not want to think we are terrorists or that terrorists live in our neighborhoods? Actually, the Palestinian freedom fighter has a cause, fighting for his freedom. What is this random murderous Oregon thug fighting for? Isn't he more of a terrorist than say a Palestinian who attacks his occupiers? I am not condoning terror attacks in the least bit, just trying to obtain internal clarification as to what is and what is not a terror attack and why one is labeled a terrorist and the other is not?
Like ·  ·  · 
  • Yarden Mariuma Actually, Fadi, it's specifically the fact that the Palestinian "freedom fighter" has a cause that makes him a terrorist, and not a deranged lunatic. And while you can claim that a lunatic is beyond our understanding, we expect a discipline from people...See More
    5 hours ago · Like · 1
  • Fadi Zanayed I understand the definition Yarden... but you haven't explained why the media does not call the Oregon shooter a terrorist, as well or are you saying that you have to have a cause to be called a terrorist. Incidentally, the House of Representative voted to remove the word "lunatic" from the public record.
    3 hours ago · Like · 2
  • Kyle O'Laughlin A Palestinian broke into a woman's house in the occupied West Bank with a knife and a pipe - he was called a "terrorist." Not an intruder, or a burglar, or whatever - a TERRORIST.

    Everything is terrorism if Arabs do it.
    3 hours ago via mobile · Like · 1
  • Kyle O'Laughlin A terrorist is "anyone we don't like" from the Big Three - the USA, the UK, and Israel.
    2 hours ago via mobile · Like
  • Fadi Zanayed Exactly my point Kyle, there is a double standard when it comes to the Palestinians. Israeli supporters have monopolized the terms "terrorist" and "anti-Semite" to the point that it is becoming annoying--not with just Palestinians but with the average American that understands current events.
    2 hours ago · Like · 2
  • Kyle O'Laughlin It's Boy Who Cried Wolf Syndrome. They've overused both terms so frivolously that they don't mean anything anymore.
    2 hours ago via mobile · Like
  • Linda Wahed what about a female Israeli soldier that shot a 17-year-old Muhammad Al Salaymeh tonight in the occupied West Bank and he had just finished celebrating his 17th birthday and was on his way to the bakery to buy a cake to take home to celebrate with his family. why cant we call the soldier terrorist for shooting innocent unarmed boy for no reason? is that also because she has caused to kill? what a pathetic excuses!
    2 hours ago · Like · 1
  • Fadi Zanayed One man's/woman's terrorist is another man's/woman's freedom fighter.
    2 hours ago · Like · 1
  • Yarden Mariuma I'll leave you and Kyle to agree with each other. It seems you are both perfectly happy in a circle of mutual congratulations.
  • Kyle O'Laughlin Being right tends to yield such results.
    2 hours ago via mobile · Like · 1
  • Yarden Mariuma No, Kyle, being closed minded does.
  • Kyle O'Laughlin "Only error needs the help of government. Truth can stand alone."

    - Thomas Jefferson
    2 hours ago via mobile · Like · 1
  • Yarden Mariuma Fadi Zanayed to try to stay on point, yes, a terrorist is someone who kills for some cause. A person who kills for gain or love or whatever is just a murderer, and a person like the Oregon shooter is insane. You can argue that one is worse or better than the other, but that's the definition. Kyle, I crown thee king of Non Sequitor.
  • Fadi Zanayed Yarden, can you see that the Israel soldier is there to "terrorize" the Palestinians?
    2 hours ago · Like · 2
  • Yarden Mariuma Fadi, any deliberate killing of civilians is terrorists. If an Israeli solider kills civilians purposefully, it is an act of state terrorism. I think people argue about whether the IDF does no, not whether it would be terrorism if it did.
  • Kyle O'Laughlin Well the fact is that she did, and it was. What needs to be examined is why his murder isn't being called what it is, a terrorist attack.
    2 hours ago via mobile · Like · 1
  • Yarden Mariuma In the recent Hebron case, for instance, the IDF is claiming that Al Salaymah pulled out a gun, which turned out to be a toy gun. If that's true, the case is puzzling. If she shot him just because he was Palestinian, yes, that would be state terrorism....See More
  • Fadi Zanayed by your defintion, then are the shoppers in the Oregon mall civilians?
  • Yarden Mariuma Fadi, the Oregon Mall is a different story, it's the act of a madman, there are no "civilians" or soliders when you're not fighting.
  • Fadi Zanayed someone give me the cite of the Israeli soldier....
  • Yarden Mariuma You mean of the IDF position or the solider?
  • Yarden Mariuma,7340,L-4319188,00.html
    News: Security forces engage man wielding gun near one of West Bank city's checkpoints; riot ensues
  • Fadi Zanayed So what do you call the "people" in a cafe when a suicide bomber kills them?
    2 hours ago · Like · 1
  • Yarden Mariuma Why are you putting people in quotes?
  • Yarden Mariuma They are civilians, of course.
  • Fadi Zanayed what is your definition of civilians?
  • Yarden Mariuma Fadi, part of the definition of terrorism has to do with the intention of the person carrying it out. Terrorism is the attempt to achieve a political or religious goal through the use of force against non-combatants. It's simple. If it's an issue of insanity, greed, personal agenda, etc. it's not terrorism.
  • Fadi Zanayed I read the story and find it hard to believe that a 17 year old would carry a "toy gun"
    2 hours ago · Like · 2
  • Yarden Mariuma Fadi, if you are going to tell me that everyone in Israel is not a civilian because they are in the IDF or the reserve, that's bullshit.
  • Yarden Mariuma I find the whole story very puzzling as well.
  • Yarden Mariuma The IDF version does not seem to make sense, I am waiting for their full press conference tomorrow. And why anyone would waive a toy gun at an Israeli soldier is beyond me too.
  • Fadi Zanayed What do you think the "full press conference" is going to tell you?
    2 hours ago · Like · 1
  • Yarden Mariuma Probaly nothing.
  • Vickie Mansour-Hasan Only what the public wants to hear.,
    2 hours ago · Like · 1
  • Fadi Zanayed Therefore, Yarden would you call the actions of the Israeli soldier a terrorist act?
  • Yarden Mariuma It depends on whether you believe the IDF. If you don't believe them, yes, it would be.
  • Yarden Mariuma I can understand why you and Vickie would automatically not believe them,, I am going to wait until I hear their statement and make up my mind afterwards.
  • Linda Wahed toy gun that is really funny :))) why would he carried a toy gun on the way to buy cake at the bakery and he is 17 years old not a 3 or 5 years children! what a lies, they never stop lying!
  • Fadi Zanayed If you are going to have a discussion with me Yarden, you have to fair and logical. You stated that it is unlikely that a 17 year old would carry a toy gun... 17 year olds in American do not carry a toy gun.... why in the f&%$ would a 17 year old Pale...See More
    2 hours ago · Like · 1
  • Fadi Zanayed I would probably believe that the Palestinian had a real gun.... more believable! but a toy gun.... no way.. totally unbelievable.
  • Fadi Zanayed but the story is a toy gun.... that is what makes the story put out by the Israelis so unbelievable... they had no other plausible story for their terrorist act
  • Vickie Mansour-Hasan Yarden, my position isn't based solely on being Palestinian. I was raised on the south side of Chicago. I taught on the south side of Chicago I know when kids are ghettoized, they taunt and thwart authority in stupid ways. They wave fake guns or BB ...See More
  • Fadi Zanayed I have to go see a client, I will probably be back in about 40 minutes
  • Yarden Mariuma Vickie, the whole story seems to have come out and is not really disputed by anyone. He had a toy gun - a water pistol I think - and he got it as a birthday gift. Because of that, he was holding it - not pointing it at anyone. The Israeli solider who saw it was trigger happy and shot. This seems like the current undisputed account of events, which is appearing on Palestinian pages as well.
  • Yarden Mariuma Before YOU go all ghetto on me, I think the real problem in this case is the fact that we are in Hebron in the first place.
  • Vickie Mansour-Hasan LOL... I don't go "ghetto".
    2 hours ago · Like · 1
  • Yarden Mariuma Anyway, it's an absolute tragedy, and as someone posted elsewhere, under other circumstances, those two young people might well have been friends. This is, Vickie, one of the reasons I think it is beyond stupid that we have the settlements at all, although, as I said, if the solider saw what she had good reason to believe was a pistol I don't blame her specifically -but I do blame the settlement movement and their political enablers in the Likud. On that last part, I suppose the two of us agree. The ironic part is that Hebron is exactly the city where the tombs of our legendary common ancestors are to be found...
  • Fadi Zanayed The bottom line is words are manipulated to one's advantage and every time one reads, listens and observes the many bewildering stories coming from all over this globle one has to analyze from what vantage point the reporter, the newscaster or writer is telling the story. Then one has to use logic and prudence to decipher the human aspect of the story--being true to one self and one's ideals.