Please let us “right wingers” stop fighting against the slanderous terms. We should throw our spiritual, emotional, mental, and physical energy behind an Israeli victory.

The SJP, MSA, and various Pacifica pundits will compare us to wonded souls perpetuating the Nazi occupation on indigenous Arabs that occupied the non-Jordanian side of the British Mandate of Palestine.

In the end the only peace will come after a complete Israeli victory.

I propose a non-novel policy, land for violence. When an act of violence is commited on the Israeli occupiers, they take more land. When an act of peace is sustained towards the Israeli occupiers respond with release a of (non-violent) prisoners and land concessions.

http://www.dailycal.org/article/101233

You can see the post here: http://www.globalvoicesonline.org/2008/03/07/syria-we-stand-against-occupation/

Your fellow Berkeley student,
Cindy

we usually do not stage a die-in when one palestinian, or two are killed. The die-in was held due to the excessive loss of life. If over a hundred israelis were killed, do not assume that we would not stage a die-in.

Also, do NOT ASSUME that we support ANY LOSS OF LIFE. Regardless of ethnicity, gender, age, sexuality, we do not support the loss of life due to violence. You peg us as being pleased with Israeli deaths, nothing could be further from the truth. We were not out there because we were happy israelis have died, we were out there because we are pained that there is death!

Nothing will ever move forward if you can not expand your mindset to think in the place of the one you oppose. Think, really think, if a palestinian or an israeli die, is it because of some hatred of the other, or is it because they are both living in a situation where they are both oppressed into using violence.

You do not get to decide why were staging a die-in, but if you are angered by it, you have an obligation to find out why were there and should listen to our voices. You may just find we want the same thing as you. We both want an end to violence, yes? Then ask us why we did it. Learn what we mean when I say the Occupation causes all Palestinian and Isreali deaths that are associated with the “conflict.”

And now, I ask you, why does the die-in upset you so? In what way do you understand the photo to be the source of the conflict, because we morn? Explain to me as to where you are coming from.

And if they are truly representative of the flag they carry, they would be handing out candy and dancing in the streets right about now.

This is a blatantly nationalistic, chauvinistic propaganda photo. This is the source of the conflict.

Objectivity requires that writers silence their own opinions — not only to transmit facts in an unbiased way, but also to cover the opinions and biases of the people they are reporting about, thereby giving readers the information they need to think critically about the world around them.

Journalists are responsible for covering news in a way that is both accurate and informative, and this caption falls short. Sure, it’s vague enough that it’s difficult to contest on factual grounds, but it provides the reader with almost no useful information. Something along the lines of Yaman’s suggestion does this much more effectively. (Maybe: Students stage a die-in in solidarity with the 116 Palestinians killed last week by the Israeli Army)

This actually conveys the substance of the protest, yet the language is still indisputably neutral and factual. You could just as easily write, “Student stages a die-in in solidarity with the one Israeli killed last week by Hamas.”

My verdict? Great picture, lousy cutline.

Wow, you are really pushing the limits on your justification for an Israeli military presence in the West Bank. Please address, because you view these territories as part of Israel, won defensively in 67′, does that mean that Israel has a blank check to use any form and degree of force it chooses?

And, when does Israel cross the line from being sovereign over a piece of land to occupation? In your opinion, what nefarious act would the Israeli government have to engage in before it looses it sovereignity?
House demolitions, air strikes, controlling boarders, limiting freedom of movement, denying citizenship, cutting electricity, building a wall that splits villages in half, mass arrest, and excessive civilian death?
Does any of this limit Israel’s soverignity?

Last comment:

They way you jump to conclusions, calling Yaman an anti-Semite and assuming he finds Haifa and Tel Aviv to be occupied is really low. There is nothing in what he has written that would suggest those were the things he was thinking or intending. If so he would have been involved in a great big “free occupied haifa and tel aviv” demonstration where he would announce himself as a Jew-hater. The reality is that the demonstration was to recognize the loss of life that has occurred due to the excessive, unequal use of force by Israel, on Palestinians. You only jump to those conclusions as an attempt to discredit him and show him to have violent intentions. Those are your words, not his, he is talking about a government sanctioned military occupation over a civilian population, not irrationally hating or wishing harm to Jews.

116 people died in the past few days and that pains us; we lay on the ground to grieve, we lay on the ground out of compassion for human life. None of which is anti-semetic.