Three soldiers pounce on a shepherd sitting outside his sheep pen. They knock him over and then one of them shoots him to death at point-blank range. Fakher Jaber, a father of four, was suspected of involvement in an incident that probably never happened
On the last day of his life, two and a half weeks ago, the shepherd and his wife got up at 5:30 A.M., as usual, and immediately went out together to milk the ewes. With their flock of 120 sheep, their work is never done. Maryam recalls now that they didn’t manage to eat breakfast before the daily Ramadan fast began. After about two hours they finished milking. Fakher took the sheep out to graze and she began to make cheese from the milk, which they sell in Nablus to help make their living.
After he returned the sheep to their pen, Fakher sat down near it, removed the Quran from his pocket and began to read from it. Maryam finished making dinner. She remembers that everything was normal and relatively peaceful that afternoon, in this beleaguered community, living under the constant threat of invasions by settlers. Suddenly Maryam heard shouting. She rushed outside and saw three Israelis in uniform yelling at and wrestling with her husband. One of the men was masked, which led her to believe that they were settlers – of the type that frequently assault the shepherding communities, graze their livestock on the residents’ lands and water their flocks from their wells.
In a witness vs witness situation I doubt everything, yes. How should we know who is saying the truth? Because of the heart warming story about how they life their live I should route for the shepherd? I do not. I usually doubt everything, always, regardless who says it or what it is about. To me, this is hearsay. The other side was not even asked to tell us their side.
You’re right. We should make sure that there is a thorough investigation by some kind of neutral third party to reveal the truth. I propose as a first step to establishing all the evidence that the Israelis should get the fuck out of the West Bank. They are obviously a biased party with a vested interest in this. So they should not have any fucking authority in the area just in case they try any shenanigans.
Ah yes, because that strategy worked so wonderfully in 2005 with Gaza.
You know what, that tired bullshit argument has a point. Yes, to avoid a repeat of what happened after the Gaza pullout, the Israelis should take some additional corrective steps: do not intentionally prop up extremists to undermine the PA, like they did with Hamas, formally recognize Palestine, sign a treaty, pay reparations, give refugees the right to return, and commit to a policy of non intervention while the Palestinians fight out whatever internal civil war will inevitably follow the establishment of their newly liberated society (like the Irish civil war of 1922-23). That should probably do it. But there might be other concessions that they might have to accept, ultimately fair game in the name of establishing a lasting and just peace after 70 years of oppression of the Palestinians.
That’s great in fairy land. In reality that’s going to cause more terrorist attacks directed at Israel, as said terrorists can now operate freely in the area.
As for reparations, how about Israel work out a plan to ween the West Bank off the Israeli provided resources they’re already heavily reliant on instead?
On the right to return, you’re even more confused. They can return to he west bank all they want. What they actually want is to return to where Israel is and for it to stop existing.
Idealistic bullshit is great online. It gets you plenty of up votes, when applied to reality, you’ll find it quite lacking.
Ok buddy. Tell me what you imagine is the basis for a realistic long term peaceful solution. Because the “idealistic bullshit” that I’m proposing is the stuff that actually brought peace in Europe after two fucking word wars and in places like Ireland after many decades of troubles. I.e., if tried and tested solutions are not realistic, tell me what is. Here’s the catch though: you’re not allowed to argue for ethnic cleansing.
Hmm, last I checked Europe wasn’t a bunch of countries hell bent on wiping one other one off the map. Have you considered that different situations require different solutions?
Why do you think that is? Because where Israel is was their home that was stolen. They have stolen more and more territory, even just in recent days they have annexed land that is according to all treaties supposed to be Palestinian land.
Where Israel is was the homes of plenty of Jews that was also stolen from them. Btw, those treaties were only honored by Israel to begin with. Israel had to fight to maintain any land while the surrounding countries tried wiping it off the map, then neglecting the refugees from the wars they started.