Israeli ground invasion of Gaza-What a day!!

[T Town Tommy]

It is not just this post. Like many Americans, it is your conditioned mind set. You actually believe the slogan line in the theme song from the movie Exodus - this land is mine, God gave this land to me. Or, how about this one - oh come, oh come, Emmanuel, and ransom captive Israel! The modern state of Israel was founded on lies, or on premises that cannot be sustained - that Israel is the Promised Land, and that the Jews are God's Chosen People.

I guess I fall under the camp that it's better to believe and be right than not believe and maybe be wrong. So yeah... I guess I am "conditioned" as you say. But that's for the other thread out here... which is a really great thread BTW.

 

[Buster Bluth]

IMO, Isreal wants Hamas gone.

Israel wants to keep Palestine in a grey area where it is not a recognized and functioning country, but not part of Israel either. They are well aware of the instability they are causing, and thus have to be cognizant that by creating power vacuums in the West Bank and Gaza it allows groups like Hamas to gain control. I don't think Israel's leaders have any problem with Hamas being in charge, it allows them to do what they want: keep the status quo. Not all invasions are 100mph. Israel's invasion of the West Bank has been a slow and steady process.

This isn't a defensive war, none of it is. It's just a slow offense, and it's a situation Israel is content with. The Israel-Palestinian conflicts are much more akin to the American Indian Wars or the Boer Wars. A British poet wrote during the Boer Wars:

"Whatever happens, we have got,
the Maxim Gun, and they have not."

Essentially meaning that their technological advantage was soooo superior that in the event of a war with the natives, there wasn't much to worry about. Today, for Israel, it's

"Whatever happens, we have got,
air superiority/precision-guided missiles/stealth/tanks, and they have not."

Ol' Bennie and the Jets will be sure to let 'em have it this time. And next time. And the next. And the next. And they're okay with it. Let's all just recognize that.

There will be no chance for peace as long as Hamas is in Gaza. Why? Hamas wants Isreal gone.

Hamas has only been in charge of Gaza since 2007. Clearly there is a hell of a lot more going on than Hamas.

It could also have something to do with stuff like this: Jewish settlers and Palestinians: Little by little | The Economist

All the talk and links to posts about how Hamas has done this or that to try to reach out for peace is empty and void. It's like they shake your hand and then reach around with the other to steal your wallet. Let's dig tunnels, blow up innocent civilians, kidnap Isreali citizens, build military command centers over hospitals, store rockets in schools and churches, shoot rockets off in the middle of civilian dwellings, and then wait for Isreal to shoot back and kill those civilians. Give me a break.

It's also like they sign a peace treaty and then build settlements wherever the hell they please because there is nothing you can do about it.

Isreal practically gave the Palestinian Authority everything they was asking for in 2008 but Abbas ended up declining the offer of Gaza and 93% of the West Bank. If that offer - while not perfect for everyone but was a show of just how much Isreal wanted lasting peace - was not accepted then what makes anyone think there is a chance for a lasting peace and a dual state existence? There is none. ANd the answer lies in the fact that the overwhelming majority of Palestinians only want one thing... Isreal gone.

I have a rule that I go by, that if someone misspells Israel six or more times in one post they probably aren't read up on whether or not Israel indeed (legitimately) offered "everything they was asking for in 2008," or truly knows if, in fact, the only thing the overwhelming majority of Palestinians want is the destruction of Israel.

Regardless, if I were an Native American in 1870 and the US offered me a deal, I wouldn't have to ask too many friends to see very quickly that the deals they write aren't worth much. And if I were that Native American I'd have a substantial hatred for the "whitemen" the moment I was aware of the atrocities (his opinion) committed against me and my people.

Now with the apparent current cease fire and Isreal saying they are pretty much done what do we have? A cessation of hostilities for maybe one to two years before Hamas starts again. And the cycle will repeat itself over and over. And the US will once again defend the only true ally in the region. And they should. It may not be a perfect relationship but it is much better than dealing with Hamas.

The alternative to giving Israel carte blanche is dealing solely with Hamas? Is that what I am to take away from that?

It's unsettling that the United States would consider a country that was essentially founded (and continues to function) for religious purposes (Jefferson/Madison/Franklin/Adams/Washington, at a minimum, are rolling in their graves) a "true ally." That alone stands against what the United States stands for. I also think it's unsettling that we'd consider the only "western" country in the world that functions as an apartheid state to be a "true ally."

I want to consider Israel a friend, and I believe they could be a positive influence in the Middle East, even a paragon of a nation state for neighboring countries to befriend. But that simply isn't going to be the case as long as Israel functions as an apartheid state that doesn't have any true wishes to promote coexistence within Israel. Because if they were actually very good as creating a culture than embraced diversity, poor Palestinians would have been lining up ages ago for the economic opportunities. But when they view them as second-class citizens and/or scum to be removed from Israel's path (read: Manifest Destiny), you're going to inherently have problems.

Does the term 'apartheid' fit Israel? Of course it does. - LA Times

 

[T Town Tommy]

I have a rule that I go by, that if someone misspells Israel six or more times in one post they probably aren't read up on whether or not Israel indeed (legitimately) offered "everything they was asking for in 2008," or truly knows if, in fact, the only thing the overwhelming majority of Palestinians want is the destruction of Israel.
.

I have a rule too but I broke it this time. I actually read your BS. Won't do that again. Enjoy.

 

[Ndaccountant]

It's unsettling that the United States would consider a country that was essentially founded (and continues to function) for religious purposes (Jefferson/Madison/Franklin/Adams/Washington, at a minimum, are rolling in their graves) a "true ally." That alone stands against what the United States stands for. I also think it's unsettling that we'd consider the only "western" country in the world that functions as an apartheid state to be a "true ally."

The US acts in the self-interest of the US. We may project ourselves to be in support of certain liberal ideals or behaviors or even moral superiority. But in the grand scheme of things, the US will only support something if there is a benefit in the end.

For example, was supporting Saddam and his regime in 1988 after he gassed thousands of Kurds "what America stands for", both morally and liberally? Of course not, but the US was more interested in defeating Iran. In fact, Dwight Eisenhower, Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush supported repressive, undemocratic regimes in the third world in support of a favorable balance of power against the Soviet Union

 

[Buster Bluth]

The US acts in the self-interest of the US. We may project ourselves to be in support of certain liberal ideals or behaviors or even moral superiority. But in the grand scheme of things, the US will only support something if there is a benefit in the end.

For example, was supporting Saddam and his regime in 1988 after he gassed thousands of Kurds "what America stands for", both morally and liberally? Of course not, but the US was more interested in defeating Iran. In fact, Dwight Eisenhower, Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush supported repressive, undemocratic regimes in the third world in support of a favorable balance of power against the Soviet Union

I have no problem accepting the hypocritical nature of geopolitics. They're playing for keeps there.

I have a problem with considering them a "true ally." In fact I would say most Americans would say that they are among our closest allies, along with United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and Japan. Four thriving liberal democracies, and a religiously-founded apartheid state.

I mean Christ we have been saber-rattling with Iran for more than a decade in part because of an alliance with Israel. That sorta backing, one for solely friendship, shouldn't happen with countries that are acting as Israel does.

 

[AvesEvo]

The Charter of Hamas seems fairly clear to me - they're not looking to make a deal.





I can't imagine anyone can argue against Israel eliminating these tunnels (could be wrong, though). Under the circumstances, how do they get this done while keeping their response "proportional"?

Well, I would say that since these tunnels go from Gaza to Israel that they simply destroy them on the Israeli side. That's what Egypt did when Abdel Fattah el-Sisi took power.

 

[Redbar]

The US acts in the self-interest of the US. We may project ourselves to be in support of certain liberal ideals or behaviors or even moral superiority. But in the grand scheme of things, the US will only support something if there is a benefit in the end.

For example, was supporting Saddam and his regime in 1988 after he gassed thousands of Kurds "what America stands for", both morally and liberally? Of course not, but the US was more interested in defeating Iran. In fact, Dwight Eisenhower, Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush supported repressive, undemocratic regimes in the third world in support of a favorable balance of power against the Soviet Union

I wish I could accept that as stated. Unfortunately, often politicians will do what is in THEIR best interest, and their best interest is frequently in line with the special interests that write big checks, shape narratives, define candidates, and get them re-elected. AIPAC registers as one such lobby that can do all of those things. Frequently, their interests line up with some other powerful interests in the political background of this country and their will is done. Not sure that is the same thing as what is in the US in general or our, as citizens interests.

 

[AvesEvo]

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/iPWi6x8HshM" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[ulukinatme]

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/iPWi6x8HshM" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

These people, including the former politician, are extremists and not examples of the population as a whole.

 

[ProdiGOL5ON]

I hope this video isn't real and that there is a lot of misinformation, because even if it is just one group, it is the group in charge of the country. It would be like saying "Oh, that's only the democrat (or republican) viewpoint, not everyone believes that..." Scary that this is a political party with a large following.

 

[T Town Tommy]

I hope this video isn't real and that there is a lot of misinformation, because even if it is just one group, it is the group in charge of the country. It would be like saying "Oh, that's only the democrat (or republican) viewpoint, not everyone believes that..." Scary that this is a political party with a large following.

Not much different in our country. I don't think Nancy Pelosi represents the majority of Democrats nor do I think Ted Cruz represents a majority of Republicans. Always gonna have wackos in any "party."

 

[Whiskeyjack]

The New Republic recently published an incredibly detailed account of the most recent round of Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, and how they ultimately broke down. It's long, but well worth your time if this subject interests you.

The Week's Damon Linker just published an article titled "The 3 Big Lies Supporting Israel's War in Gaza":

Three weeks ago, I declared Israel's latest war to be "morally justified — and eminently stupid."

That was a mistake.

I still consider the bombing and invasion of the Gaza Strip to be strategically foolish. But I regret giving Israel a moral pass.

My reasoning was straightforward: a nation under attack is justified in defending itself. Hamas was firing missiles at Israeli cities from Gaza, and that called for a military response. No nation on Earth would fail to respond to such a provocation, and the response in every case would be morally justified.

If only it were so simple.

The problem is not just the absurdly lopsided death toll from the fighting (approximately 1,800 Palestinians to 69 Israelis). Or Israel's repeated bombing of schools and other locations housing refugees. Or its use of weapons that may be unsuitable for use in densely populated urban areas.

The bigger, more decisive problem is the broader moral context in which the killing is taking place — and the lies that the Israeli government and its American defenders have been telling to obscure that context.

Lie #1: "The settlements are just a distraction."
Like Jonathan Chait, whose moral evaluation of the Jewish state has been undergoing its own evolution in recent weeks, I was greatly impressed with Ben Birnbaum and Amir Tibon's account in The New Republic of the breakdown in the latest round of peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians. And like Chait, I found especially striking (and disturbing) Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's refusal to halt settlement construction in the West Bank during negotiations. That refusal led the Palestinian delegation to demand, instead, that Israel release a group of prisoners, including more than 100 murderers. To this Netanyahu agreed, though a miscommunication about the details with U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry contributed to the ultimate collapse of the talks.

This is just the latest indication that the settlements are not the distraction the Netanyahu government and its American defenders insist they are. On the contrary, they are by this point the biggest obstacle to reaching a lasting and just peace (a two-state solution) in the region. Yes, even bigger than putative Palestinian hostility to the existence of a Jewish state in their midst.

How can that be? Because Israel's refusal to halt settlement construction in occupied territory, even during negotiations, demonstrates that a substantial, electorally powerful, and demographically growing bloc of Israeli citizens has no intention of ever leaving that territory. And by this point, 47 long years after Israel first occupied the West Bank, it's impossible to separate Palestinian fury about the prospect of interminable life under an Israeli boot heel from a more generalized rejection of Israel's existence.

Lie #2: "But we ended the occupation of Gaza!"
In response to the claim that Israel will never uproot Israeli citizens who currently make their home behind separation barriers, barbed wire, and armed checkpoints surrounded by impoverished and disenfranchised Palestinians, Jewish leaders in Israel and the U.S. usually respond by pointing to Israel's unilateral withdrawal from Gaza in August 2005, which included the forcible evacuation of 9,000 settlers, as evidence that they could and would do the same thing in the West Bank for the right deal. But that, too, is a lie.

Leaving aside the exponentially greater scale of West Bank settlements (as of a year ago there were 541,000 Israelis living in disputed territory) and the far more emotionally potent (biblically rooted) claims to land in the West Bank, there is the fact that Israel never really ended its occupation of Gaza. As Peter Beinart pointed out in a column for Ha'aretz (unfortunately behind a paywall):

[E]ven before the election of Hamas [in January 2006], Israel controlled whether Gazans could enter or exit the Strip (in conjunction with Egypt, which controlled the Rafah checkpoint in Gaza's south). Israel controlled the population registry through which Gazans were issued identification cards. Upon evacuating its settlers and soldiers from Gaza, Israel even created a security perimeter inside the Strip from which Gazans were barred from entry. (Unfortunately for Gazans, this perimeter included some of the Strip's best farmland.) [Haaretz]

Add in the naval blockage that has strangled the Strip since Hamas took power, and you begin to see that in August 2005 the Palestinians of Gaza went from living in a prison ruled from inside and outside to one ruled mostly from the outside — with periodic punitive bombings and invasions by the prison guards. Or as Beinart put it, "Israel — according to the United States government — has been occupying Gaza without interruption since 1967."

Lie #3: "All Israel wants is peace."
And that brings me to Israel's third and most decisive lie — or at best, cynical half-truth. As Noah Millman has pointed out in his blog at The American Conservative, the Israelis appear to be pursuing two objectives in Gaza — one military, the other political. The military goal is to eliminate Hamas' capacity to strike Israel with missiles. The political goal is to convince Palestinians in Gaza that resistance to Israeli occupation (as expressed in their support for Hamas) is futile.

Though the high rate of Palestinian casualties casts doubt on whether Israel's military aim can be achieved using proportionate force, that aim is at least potentially just.

The same cannot be said of the political goal, and not only because it's very likely to backfire by increasing popular support for Hamas. The political goal is morally despicable, because it seeks the spiritual defeat of the Gaza Palestinians, leaving them so demoralized that they will passively accept their fate as inmates in an Israeli prison, with no possibility of parole. (See Lies #1 and #2.)

This is in part what Netanyahu means when he speaks about restoring "peace" on Israel's southern border. And I'm afraid it threatens to render the entire war a moral travesty.

American friends of Israel and supporters of the Zionist project — I have always been both — need to stop believing and repeating lies conjured up to justify unjustifiable policies. The endless occupation and slow-motion expropriation of Palestinian land, punctuated by the periodic infliction of punishment by military assault when the prisoners resist their captivity, is taking Israel in a deeply disturbing direction.

Whitewashing Israeli injustices, changing the subject, and encouraging American Jews to rally uncritically around the Israeli flag — these simply aren't serious responses.

 

[Ndaccountant]

I have no problem accepting the hypocritical nature of geopolitics. They're playing for keeps there.

I have a problem with considering them a "true ally." In fact I would say most Americans would say that they are among our closest allies, along with United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and Japan. Four thriving liberal democracies, and a religiously-founded apartheid state.

I mean Christ we have been saber-rattling with Iran for more than a decade in part because of an alliance with Israel. That sorta backing, one for solely friendship, shouldn't happen with countries that are acting as Israel does.

I am not sure that is completely accurate.

Here are some of the benefits the US is getting today from the partnership:

- Israel remains a counterweight against radical forces in the Middle East, including political Islam and violent extremism

- The two governments work together to develop sophisticated military technology, such as the David’s Sling counter-rocket and Arrow missile defense systems

- Dozens of leading U.S. companies have set up technology incubators in Israel to take advantage of the country’s penchant for new ideas, which is why Bill Gates observed in 2006 that the “innovation going on in Israel is critical to the future of the technology business.”

- U.S.-Israeli alliance has at times helped spur closer U.S.-Arab relations, on the theory that only the United States could convince Israel to make concessions in negotiations; this was part of the logic behind Egypt’s shift away from the Soviet Union and toward the United States in the 1970s


Friends With Benefits | Foreign Affairs

 

[AvesEvo]

A new chant of the racists in Tel Aviv tonight: "Tomorrow there's no school in Gaza, they don't have any children left" (rhymes in Hebrew)

There are lynch mobs all over Israel that are hunting for Palestinians and screaming "death to Arabs."

Racists Are Rampaging Through Israel | VICE United States

Merciless Israeli mobs are hunting Palestinians | The Electronic Intifada

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/nzpfTBBsYCU" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/LBdRFWAYkBk" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[itchyBEAR]

A new chant of the racists in Tel Aviv tonight: "Tomorrow there's no school in Gaza, they don't have any children left" (rhymes in Hebrew)

There are lynch mobs all over Israel that are hunting for Palestinians and screaming "death to Arabs."

Racists Are Rampaging Through Israel | VICE United States

Merciless Israeli mobs are hunting Palestinians | The Electronic Intifada

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/nzpfTBBsYCU" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/LBdRFWAYkBk" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

your source is vice?

 

[MJ12666]

I don't particularly care for either party in this conflict. However, if given a choice I would have to refer to what happened after 9/11. When Muslims flew airplanes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon killing American citizens, the Palestinians celebrate and the Israelis offer support. I think I will support the Israelis.

***MUST SEE Muslims "Palestinians" Celebrating 9/11 (CNN - Fox) September 11 ARABS twin towers 911 - YouTube

 

[T Town Tommy]

I don't particularly care for either party in this conflict. However, if given a choice I would have to refer to what happened after 9/11. When Muslims flew airplanes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon killing American citizens, the Palestinians celebrate and the Israelis offer support. I think I will support the Israelis.

***MUST SEE Muslims "Palestinians" Celebrating 9/11 (CNN - Fox) September 11 ARABS twin towers 911 - YouTube

I thought about posting that as well, but thought what's the use. Celebrating any death due to conflict is horrendous in its self. No matter who is right and who is wrong.

 

[enrico514]

.

 

[MJ12666]

Speaking of 911 I'm surprise no one has mentioned this:

Congressman Massie: There Will Be ‘Anger, Frustration and Embarrassment’ When Redacted Pages of 9/11 Report Come Out.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ItE28oeMnas

I would also add that no Palestinians that I know celebrated this tragic event... their reaction was quite the opposite...

Look at the link and you will see plenty of Palestinians celebrating the 911 event. It was one big party. This was also on the news so unless you had your head in the sand you cannot plead ignorance. No sympathy here.

 

[enrico514]

.

 

[AvesEvo]

your source is vice?

So you're discrediting everything I posted because 1 of the 3 sources I offered is VICE? Did you investigate the substance of the articles, watch the videos or are you writing it all of because one of the articles is on VICE's website? If you need more, there are many, many others.

 

[MJ12666]

I never disputed some were celebrating but simply stated that the Palestinian that I knew had the exact opposite reaction. I would also add that you should probably take what you see on the news with a grain of salt and that the news often exaggerates or propagates bullshit.

True but there is no dispute regarding the celebrations. Sometimes what goes around comes around.

 

[enrico514]

.

 

[BobbyMac]

You can't possibly be holding the children and other innocent civilians that have been killed in the last few weeks accountable for the celebrating some Palestinians did after 911 ?

Please provide a link to where you are posting on behalf of Christian girls who're being abducted, raped and murdered by the THOUSANDS in Africa or where Assyrians are being murdered by theofascists in Iraq.

 

[enrico514]

.

 

[itchyBEAR]

So you're discrediting everything I posted because 1 of the 3 sources I offered is VICE? Did you investigate the substance of the articles, watch the videos or are you writing it all of because one of the articles is on VICE's website? If you need more, there are many, many others.

easy big fella. just thought it was interesting that one of your sources was a magazine I used to read at punk shows like 10 years ago. the magazine was founded and predominantly built around publishing completely fabricated interviews with made up people about made up events. founding author Gavin McInnes has covered this many times over. I say this not knowing anything about how they report stories now. It may be a legit news source now, I have no idea...

your other reputable and unbiased source is the electronic intifada. clearly both an accurate and neutral news site that offers far more objectivity on this issue than any reputable American media source. please tell me you will be siting westburo Baptist's website on any future discussions about gay marriage.

regarding the videos, the soldier is an asshole and the crowd if full of wild right wingers that obviously don't represent most Jews.

 

[AvesEvo]

easy big fella. just thought it was interesting that one of your sources was a magazine I used to read at punk shows like 10 years ago. the magazine was founded and predominantly built around publishing completely fabricated interviews with made up people about made up events. founding author Gavin McInnes has covered this many times over. I say this not knowing anything about how they report stories now. It may be a legit news source now, I have no idea...

your other reputable and unbiased source is the electronic intifada. clearly both an accurate and neutral news site that offers far more objectivity on this issue than any reputable American media source. please tell me you will be siting westburo Baptist's website on any future discussions about gay marriage.

regarding the videos, the soldier is an asshole and the crowd if full of wild right wingers that obviously don't represent most Jews.

No one should be neutral in this conflict and neutrality does not equate to accuracy.

 

[itchyBEAR]

No one should be neutral in this conflict and neutrality does not equate to accuracy.

what exactly is your solution?

 

[itchyBEAR]

No one should be neutral in this conflict and neutrality does not equate to accuracy.

for an "accurate" view of the immigration debate to you cut to videos of kkk members holding a rally or a youtube clip of some racist with a stupid bumper sticker? do you google search to find an article about a group of skinheads beating up a Mexican who was just walking home from school.

how does posting an incendiary youtube clip of extremists in any group, in an effort to demonize the entire group of people and their position, strike you as accurate?

 

[AvesEvo]

for an "accurate" view of the immigration debate to you cut to videos of kkk members holding a rally or a youtube clip of some racist with a stupid bumper sticker? do you google search to find an article about a group of skinheads beating up a Mexican who was just walking home from school.

how does posting an incendiary youtube clip of extremists in any group, in an effort to demonize the entire group of people and their position, strike you as accurate?

It is not as rare as you think. Israel is a fascist regime. Did you know that Israel has put the people of Gaza "on a diet?" Have you ever heard of "mowing the grass?"

"We must use terror, assassination, intimidation, land confiscation, and the cutting of all social services to rid the Galilee of its Arab population." David Ben-Gurion, May 1948, to the General Staff.

"When we have settled the land, all the Arabs will be able to do about it will be to scurry around like drugged cockroaches in a bottle." Raphael Eitan, Chief of Staff of the Israeli Occupation Forces, New York Times, 14 April 1983.

"The Palestinians" would be crushed like grasshoppers ... heads smashed against the boulders and walls." Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin in a speech to Jewish squatters New York Times April 1, 1988.

"It is the duty of Israeli leaders to explain to public opinion, clearly and courageously, a certain number of facts that are forgotten with time. The first of these is that there is no Zionism, colonialization, or Jewish State without the eviction of the Arabs and the expropriation of their lands." Ariel Sharon, Israeli Foreign Minister, addressing a meeting of militants from the extreme right-wing Tsomet Party

In his speech, Netanyahu referred to the cuts in child pensions, saying that since they were implemented “two positive things happened: members of the Haredi public seriously joined the workforce. And on the national level, the unexpected result was the demographic effect on the non-Jewish public, where there was a dramatic drop in the birth rate.”

"If there is a demographic problem, and there is, it is with the Israeli Arabs who will remain Israeli citizens." Netanyahu

I'm sure you noticed that these quotes by Israel's leader are sequentially ordered by year showing that this is nothing new and not uncommon.

And here is a piece from an interview concerning those riots from Democracy Now since my sources aren't reputable enough.

We welcome you both to Democracy Now! Let’s start in Haifa. I want to start by asking you, Rann Bar-On, what happened in this peace demonstration?

RANN BAR-ON: Hi, Amy. We were about three or four hundred left-wing activists demonstrating against the war, for peace between Arabs and Jews, refusing to be enemies. As we arrived, my partner and I saw well over a thousand activists from—militant activists from the right, surrounded by police and others, screaming, "Death to Arabs! Death to leftists!" As we were protesting, they moved towards us. The police allowed them to move towards us. The police allowed them to attack us, to throw stones at us. Later on, as we were trying to leave, the police took—the police did not attempt to allow us to leave. They took over an hour to evacuate us while we were under heavy attack by stones and other missiles. Many were injured. We’ve had over 30 injured. Two women are still in hospital. There were gangs roaming the streets, beating up anyone they thought was an Arab or member of our demonstration. The police were—

AMY GOODMAN: Rann Bar-On, can you explain why you went out into the streets to protest?

RANN BAR-ON: Absolutely. I believe that what Israel is doing in Gaza is a racist attack. It is not self-defense in any way. And it is a continuation of Israeli policy that has always discriminated against the Arab population. What happened to us at the protest is not new. This is something that is a trend that has been continuing for many years. There has been much incitement from the political class that has allowed even so-called moderate right-wingers to join cries saying, "Death to Arabs! Death to leftists!" and attacking activists and Arabs in the street.