Report: "68 Palestinian women gave birth on Israeli checkpoints, 33 infants and 4 women died"

[Image by Carlos Latuff]

In a not-so-surprising newsreport, the Palestinian Independent Commission for Citizens Rights (PICCR) reported that Israeli occupation soldiers forced 68 pregnant women to give birth on road blocks after barring them from crossing as they were being transferred to hospitals and medical centers.

Quoting Saed Bannoura's report on IMEMC:
http://imemc.org/...

Also, the PICCR said that the Israeli procedures complicated the lives of the Palestinian civilians including pregnant women by enforcing harsh conditions and carrying illegal practices at these checkpoints.

Since the beginning of the Al Aqsa Intifada on September 28 2000 until July 2006, 68 pregnant women had to give birth at checkpoints, and that 34 infants and 4 pregnant women died on these checkpoints.

Nothing can justify this but brutality. It is nothing less than a war crime. Imagine the mother and here newborn infant dying due to deliberate, designed, intentional, intended, purposed, and calculated violation on one of the basic human rights.

One would ask: Do Pregnant Women and Infants Have Rights?

- According to Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
http://www.un.org/...

Article 25.

(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

(2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

The special care here are road blocks and denial of medical service.

- The Right to Reproductive and Sexual Health:
http://www.un.org/...

The 1994 International Conference on Population and Development in Cairo and the 1995 Fourth World Conference on Women held in Beijing defines reproductive health as:

[...] Implicit in this last condition are the right of men and women to be informed and to have access to safe, effective, affordable and acceptable methods of family planning of their choice, as well as other methods of their choice for regulation of fertility which are not against the law, and the right of access to appropriate health-care services that will enable women to go safely through pregnancy and childbirth and provide couples with the best chance of having a healthy infant (para 72).

The Israeli occupation forces should feel ever so proud of itself for this record!

•  Tip Jar

  Thanks for reading.

  by Sabbah on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 01:43:21 PM PDT

  •  Thanks for info!

    by annefrank on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 01:48:58 PM PDT

    •  you sound excited!!!

      by Keith Moon on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 01:51:48 PM PDT

  •  sickening story

    just awful.

    will the story have legs/cred?

    by seesdifferent on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 02:00:37 PM PDT

  •  I would happily tip you and rec this...

    ...diary, were it not for the cartoon from a cartoonist who participated in the Iranian Holocaust cartoon competition. I also see that you have at least one other cartoon by him on your blog. Associating your cause with antisemites hardly furthers it.

    by StupidAsshole on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 03:02:24 PM PDT

    •  I thought that Lafuff was against ...

      ... Israel's Occupation policies and not an anti-Semite. Indeed, the whole cartoon affair was somewhat more complicated than just an evil iranian project, as can be read in the discussion here.

      That said, though, I think that the diarist should be able to reach a larger audience if he could refrain from using Lafuff's art. Latuff's depiction of what is happening in the Occupied territoris is indeed IMO too strong for a 'regular' US audience and, unfortunately, distracts from the content of the diary. I may be wrong.)

      by Freedom on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 03:34:06 PM PDT

      •  Sorry about the typos!

        by Freedom on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 03:35:29 PM PDT

      •  it's possible to be both

        I thought that Lafuff was against Israel's Occupation policies and not an anti-Semite.

        It's possible to be both. As he demonstrates.

        by zemblan on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 03:57:11 PM PDT

        •  Can you link

          to an anti-Semitic cartoon or article by Latuff? If not, then accusing him of anti-Semitism seems pretty uncalled for.

          by heathlander on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 04:39:45 PM PDT

          •  Well, if you were a cartoonist, I doubt...

            ...that you would participate in a cartoon contest devoted to mocking and downplaying the Holocaust. Latuff did, and won second prize. I don't know how many of his cartoons contain explicitly antisemitic content (though at least one of them appears to downplay the significance of the Holocaust), but his participation in such an event raises major red flags, IMHO.

            by StupidAsshole on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 05:14:14 PM PDT

            •  I wouldn't

              and it certainly does raise major red flags. However, some hard evidence is surely required before making the serious charge of anti-Semitism, in the form of actual anti-Semitic content he's produced.

              by heathlander on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 05:25:05 PM PDT

•  ...

  

  by MBNYC on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 01:47:45 PM PDT

  •  Were you thinking when you put this up?

    Are you equating babies with dogs or Palestinian babies with dogs?

    I'm embarrassed at this. And six people approved it?

    by tiztiq on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 02:39:29 PM PDT

    •  6 scoundrels recommended it, so far n/t

      by planyourday on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 03:14:12 PM PDT

    •  fwiw...

      ...I'm not sure how this picture says anything at all about babies or Palestinians, but instead says something about the tendency to blame all aspects of many circumstances on Zionism.

      I don't agree with it at all, nor do I think it adds anything of value, but I don't see how it can be read in the manner you suggest.

      by Jay Elias on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 04:25:41 PM PDT

      •  That would

        make more sense if this diary was blaming Israel for something indirect, like US politics or the Iraq war.  But to claim that Israel is responsible for the checkpoints it creates?  That is blaming Zionists for everything?  

        Tiztiq's understanding makes more sense.  That weird post looks like a sarcastic: oh boohoo, what's the problem with a few dead babies?

        by weasel on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 04:36:11 PM PDT

        •  Like I said...

          ...I don't agree with it at all.  That being said, I don't believe for an instant that this diarist is doing anything more than choosing this issue as a method of attack.  There is nothing in the diary itself not intended to be incendiary.

          Meanwhile, unless we read Arabic, we cannot read the report, so I'm also deeply suspicious about taking a report I cannot read from the Palestinian Independent Commission for Citizens' Rights on the word of a poster none of us know.

          So, while I consider the issue of checkpoints, and particularly the treatment of health emergencies (which is a big and ongoing problem) at those checkpoints, to be vital issues, I have not personally gone so far as to feel this diary ought to be discussed on its ostensible subject.

          I see a hit & run diarist posting an inflammatory diary without any means of independently reviewing their sources, and I see a whole bunch of regular posters in these threads taking their usual positions, and a few people who rarely venture into these threads being given more evidence of why they don't.  And I see no reason at all to suggest to me that Tiztiq's reading of one poster's animosity towards the diarist and not the subject is actually addressed to the subject.

          You can't point me to the post where Tiztiq suggests that diaries about any important subject ought to not be begun with cartoon's from the second-place winner in the Iranian contest.  It does not exist.  Because there is a dreadful lack of any intellectual honesty regarding this subject from the overwhelming majority of regular participants.  I find both aspects of it utterly loathsome.

          by Jay Elias on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 04:51:03 PM PDT

          •  It is incendiary.

            I'm incensed. But intended to incendiary? The only way this information could not be incendiary is not to present it. If that's your point, then, well....
            Maybe we should not find out about things like this. Our bucks are helping to make it happen.

            Your post suffers from an assumption that military occupation is okay. Even the cartoonist is a fault for presenting just what that occupation is doing to infants. It too is incendiary. The only question I would ask is, why aren't you incensed over this kind of thing? And not the information, but what the information is saying.

            by tiztiq on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 08:17:27 PM PDT

            •  Well...

              ...if you read that into my post, you could hardly be more mistaken; I object so strongly to the occupation that I was jailed when I refused to serve there, exiled from Israel for five years, and have yet to go back.

              When I suggest that the diary is "incendiary", I am not speaking of its content, but how that content is presented.  In this case, that is in the most confrontational manner possible, intended to inflame and intended to make sure that no person who feels deeply about this issue but does not share the diarists virulent anti-Israel sentiment cannot address their feelings about this particular issue without addressing the issue of simple anti-Israel contempt along with it.

              Beyond that, there is nothing not full of shit in your post.  The cartoonist is not at fault at all for presenting what the occupation is doing to infants; hell, the cartoon here isn't about infants at all.  Meanwhile, it is the cartoonists other actions and cartoons which are what is being objected to by me and others.

              You can pretend that my reaction, as well as that of some others, is due to some tolerance of the occupation or simply disregard for Palestinian infants.  I have no desire to interrupt your fantasy life.  But many of us have demonstrated, not only through many words here and elsewhere, but through deeds, what our actual sentiments are.  In both your ignorance of us, as well as your willful blindness to what actually is being spoken, you demonstrate that you don't give a fuck what we actually think.  You'd rather that even if we do not fit the mold, that we fill the role of a stereotype of your own choosing.

              Pardon me if this is the last time that I indulge you in that.

              by Jay Elias on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 09:20:04 PM PDT

  •  I found this very disturbing

    and really obscene.  

    by Statusquomustgo on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 04:31:41 PM PDT

•  Ugh

  by Wilberforce on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 01:48:35 PM PDT

•  uh uhu

  deliberate, designed, intentional, intended, purposed, and calculated violation

  that's a hell of an inflammatory charge and quite a string of adjectives

  by Keith Moon on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 01:50:34 PM PDT

•  I can't help but to wonder...

  ...is there a nation anywhere on earth which reaches the standard of Article 25 Section 1 of the "Universal Declaration of Human Rights"?

  Not that this has much to do with the issue at hand, of course, but regardless.

  by Jay Elias on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 01:54:03 PM PDT

  •  You are right

    of course, all nations fall short.  But a Nation founded on timeless values?  

    by Eiron on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 04:11:22 PM PDT

    •  Huh?

      "Timeless values"?  I don't get it.

      by Jay Elias on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 04:12:24 PM PDT

•  This is hardly surprising

  considering that Israeli troops routinely shoot at ambulances

  by Value Investor on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 01:57:10 PM PDT

  •  Routinely?

    Eh.  Why do I fucking bother?

    by Jay Elias on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 01:58:36 PM PDT

    •  Personal entertainment value

      If I can't make my head spin a full 360 degrees at least once per day I spend here, it really wasn't a successful day.

      by dennisl on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 02:02:10 PM PDT

    •  How, do you know?

      The construction of Israeli separation wall began on the 16th June 2002. It is 400 miles long with 600+ check points. You have teenagers playing G-d, at the checkpoints an on the Settlements....

      You stated above you, haven't been to Israel during that time-

      exiled from Israel for five years

      My family has defended hundreds of IDF Soldiers, that have had the Courage to Refuse. I am proud to help in any way I can: including, welcoming some of them into my home in the states.

      But there is a hard TRUTH to consider: With so many good Soldiers stepping down, when principled people stop leading...

      Who do you think has taken their place?  

      Look at what has happened here in the US- we got a bunch of yes men willing to do Bush'co Bidding.

      by npbeachfun on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 11:44:03 PM PDT

      •  Again...

        ...I think the difference I mean here is between "routinely" and "regularly".  Certainly, the latter is true.

        "Routine" to me suggests that it is, formally or not, an active policy.  And I don't think that is the case, not from what I remember of the many people I served with who did not refuse (namely, all).

        Of course, putting the many who are not the most principled in that position leads to such events happening repeatedly.  But that is not a policy of its own - it is instead a direct result of the policy of the occupation in general as promoted by the highest levels of government.  And it is as much the inevitable result of those policies as the 'abuses' at Abu Ghraib are the inevitable result of the policies of the Bush administration, or as inevitable an event as the My Lai massacre during the Vietnam War was.

        These are 18, 19, and 20 year old draftees manning these checkpoints.  They are privates and corporals.  And the official policy is to take them and to send them to be prison guards of a population which despises them, with many excellent reasons.  And, I would argue inevitably, some of these events happen.  

        The reason I would question the "routinely" aspect of that comment, and as well suggest that even if I think I should question it, I can't see why I would bother, is because of how I perceive that.  While those they shoot are maimed or killed, I consider those soldiers are victims as well.  They are victims of the Israeli government, who puts their desire to implement this policy above what it means to do that to those boys.  They are victims because of a policy that makes certain that the people who you and I believe are most needed morally in that service to refuse, including in one famous incident thirteen members including five officers from Sayeret Matkal, the most elite and dedicated commando unit in the Israeli Military and possibly in the world.  They will go to prison for far longer than I did if they lack my background if they refuse, and are far less equipped in variety of experience to do so.

        To me, this matters a lot.  I have said it far too many times, but I'll say it again: there is nothing less Jewish in this world that standing guard outside people trapped behind fences and barbed wire.  And this policy doesn't care about that, and forces it upon young Jewish men and women regardless.  And that policy takes away something precious from them, as well as from those whom that power is imposed.

        by Jay Elias on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 12:02:10 AM PDT

        •  I hadn’t gotten ...

          To the debate on Semantics below: I personally see little difference between the two words: I care about Account Ability and a far as I know, Not One Solider has been held accountable. IMHO if shooting an Ambulance or Doctor had happened Once- it would be an isolated incident if it becomes a Regularly assurance, there is no way to know what the policy is.  

          I agree with your post and I feel sorry for all the IDF out there in the Settlements. I wish I had been on the other diary: I would have stood up for you. No one has the Right to question someone service.

          by npbeachfun on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 01:24:18 AM PDT

  •  Uprated because, according to...

    ...Human Rights Watch, your comment is accurate:

    "Human Rights Watch's interviews with doctors, emergency medical technicians, and other eyewitnesses establish a disturbing pattern of serious violations of medical neutrality by the IDF, including the repeated use of lethal force against Palestinian ambulances, medical personnel, field hospitals and clinics engaged in treating or evacuating injured civilians. The use of live fire against medical personnel interferes with the prompt treatment of wounded, and may in some instances have resulted in additional deaths.

    Between September 29 and October 16, one Palestinian Red Crescent Society (PRCS) emergency medical technician has been killed and at least ten wounded by IDF live fire while evacuating Palestinians wounded in clashes. At least twenty PRCS ambulances have also been damaged by IDF live fire and plastic-coated steel bullets."

    http://www.hrw.org/...

    It appears that Daily Kos's Occupation apologists are using the troll-rating system to suppress information they would prefer we not know about.

    by StupidAsshole on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 02:29:36 PM PDT

    •  Well I should have used the word "frequently"

      rather than "routinely" but the point still stands.

      by Value Investor on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 02:32:42 PM PDT

      •  Well...

        ...it is a very different point; "routinely" suggests that it is a matter of policy.

        Of course, I also didn't think that you're comment ought to have been troll-rated in the first place.

        by Jay Elias on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 02:37:48 PM PDT

        •  Tell that to

          the slanderer MBNYC and the ghost rater dvo...

          by litho on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 03:29:22 PM PDT

          •  I tell it to everyone...

            ...hell, litho, I just wrote my second diary about it.

            That being said, I'm not going to go to each and every person who troll-rates something and tell them to stop every time they do it.  I'm not the ratings police, and I think I do quite a bit to try and plead for people to be reasonable and to allow people who disagree to talk.

            by Jay Elias on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 04:09:20 PM PDT

          •  Slanderer?

            From the person who uprated the statement "Israeli troops routinely shoot at ambulances"?

            Here, have a donut. Unacceptable personal attack.

            by MBNYC on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 08:34:14 PM PDT

      •  Now, is that more or less "routinely"

        than Palestinians using ambulances to transport weapons.

        by jhecht on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 03:06:03 PM PDT

    •  Tell me about it!

      It appears that Daily Kos's Occupation apologists are using the troll-rating system to suppress information they would prefer we not know about.

      And it's "disappeared" from your comments list as well. Before, whenever you logged in, you could at least see ALL of your comments & the responses to them. Now, when one of your comments is "disappeared", there is NO WAY that you as a registered user can retrieve it or see the reaction to it. Talk about censure! I tremble just thinking about it.

      by Freedom on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 02:38:39 PM PDT

      •  I'm lost

        what are u saying....what censure.

        by Keith Moon on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 02:56:09 PM PDT

        •  Ah! You didn't know?

          There had been something between me and MBNYC. The related comments are nowhere to be seen in my pages! Indeed I did a diary about the whole affair, which I deleted once I realized that the comments were getting out of hand. I did not think it fair to Markos to allow such a thing to happen on Daily Kos, a project that he obviously worked hard to set up. Anyway, that's that! I'm moving on!

          by Freedom on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 03:11:03 PM PDT

          •  if you were TU you could see them

            no comments are deleted at least almost none.  I found 2 hidden comments with mbnyc in the subject line those the ones you're looking for?

            by buddabelly on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 03:46:29 PM PDT

            •  Don't know what TU means ...

              but thanks, buddabelly!

              I know now that comments are not 'deleted'. When I first used it, it was wrong. I should have used the more appropriate word 'disappeared'. I don't think it makes sense semantically but that seems to be the concept used for such happenings. Anyway, it does not matter any more. Kos and the need to defeat the neocons are so much more important than a petty fight between two members.

              Cheers!

              by Freedom on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 05:26:41 PM PDT

              •  Trusted user

                when a comment garners enough troll ratings that it's numerical value drops below 1 it goes to hidden comments. Only trusted users can view hidden comments. To become a trusted user there is a arcane secret formula that is based on frequency and ratings of comments. The only thing TU's can do that everyone else can not is to troll rate and read hidden comments.

                hope that helps

                by buddabelly on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 05:36:33 PM PDT

                •  Absolutely!

                  Thank you!

                  As the little girl said: "I want one of those!" :-)

                  No, not really! I would hate to trollrate. But it feels good to understand how 'the system' works. It seems that we humans simply cannot go without some sort of 'system'. Even as we rant about 'the system', we turn around and invent one of our own. Funny, don't you think?

                  See you around buddabelly!

                  by Freedom on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 06:07:26 PM PDT

          •  Freedom....

            You may have something for me, I certainly do not give a flying fuck about you. You tried to justify Ben Heine. I troll-rated you for that and forgot about it, until you started stalking me. That's cute. And I'm troll-rating you now for stalking and personal attacks. End of story.

            Your diary, coincidentally, resulted in a beautiful cascade of contempt directed at you, and you alone; it's considered very bad form on DKos to call out another user by name. It's also considered worthy of derision for some drive-by to lecture Markos on how he really needs to run his site.

            I suppose the result of that is what you considered 'getting out of hand'. You were being called out by a large number of people for being an utter fucking moron. It didn't help that you continued to defend Heine, or that you admitted to posting my handle on a hate site.

            How did I find out about your diary, you ask? Easy: a friend of mine called me and, between bursts of laughter, said that some douchebag had written a diary about me. Here is my initial response, here and here and here and here are some other gems.

            Now, you still haven't - obviously - grasped the way DKos treats comments. And you have the utter presumptuousness to think I have a thing for you?

            Mary, please. I have taste.

            by MBNYC on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 09:06:56 PM PDT

•  OK

  Six years times twelve months is 72.

  That's once per month.

  How many checkpoints are there? We need to know that in order to have a clear sense of how frequent this sort of event really is, and what it reflects.

  No, this is not good. But there is a difference between blaming Israeli Occupation Policy and Israeli Occupation soldiers.

  If the number of checkpoints is anything like I think it is, a numerical analysis suggests strongly that the vast majority of the Israeli soldiers are interpreting the Israeli policy in a way that doesn't lead to checkpoint deliveries, which is strangely reassuring.

  by greenskeeper on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 01:58:05 PM PDT

  •  This is one of the strangest replies

    I have ever seen to a diary post on Kos. So, there is a statistically acceptable number of women or babies to die because they were delayed at a checkpoint? How does that compute?

    The checkpoints are mostly between Palestinian towns, not between Palestine and Israel. There isn't any justification for most checkpoints at all. Some have theorized that their purpose is, in fact, to destroy Palestinian life to encourage the Palestinians to leave.

    by Taketheredpill on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 02:03:55 PM PDT

    •  Since when...

      ...is the realization that something is bound to happen under lousy circumstances the suggestion that it is "acceptable"?

      I have yet to talk to a single member of this community who supports the occupation.  Not one.  None of us believes that Israel should be occupying the West Bank.  That being said, many of us are forced into countering ridiculous, laughably stupid notions like the the notion that the purpose of the checkpoints is to "destroy Palestinian life", and by that alone, do we end up getting stuck not simply saying that the occupation is a disaster (my preferred expression that I use here often is "abomination") and instead countering your ridiculous claims.

      You might as well ask greenskeeper if he has stopped beating his kids and raping his dog.  Take whatever pill will allow you to stop shoving strawmen at the rest of us already.

      by Jay Elias on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 02:09:56 PM PDT

      •  Infant Mortality Rate Newark New Jersey

        http://www.state.nj.us/...

        Infant mortality rate in Essex County New Jersey is three times the rates for blacks than it is for whites.

        As you've said, no Country meets UN Resolution 25.

        But there's only one person I can imagine making the same kinds of callous remarks about blacks in Newark New Jersey that I see supporters of Israel making about Palestinians here.

        And his name is Don Imus.

        by notanamerican on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 02:19:19 PM PDT

        •  Nice convergence

          of hot diaries.

          Now try to link the Rovian missing emails into the I/P thing, then I will be really impressed.

          by 1918 on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 02:21:30 PM PDT

        •  I'm sure you and I both...

          ...can name people who say worse shit that Don Imus.

          Of course, I haven't recommended a single post saying anything at all negative about Palestinians in this diary.  That being said, I do think that the problem is the policy and not the soldiers in the field, and I also think that this complaint would ring a lot more true if it wasn't acceptable to say anything at all about Israelis for the opposing numbers of what you are saying here.

          Put more specifically: I make a point of standing up for the role that many anti-Israel posters such as jon the antizionist jew play here at dKos.  But in the last week, I was hit with an ad hominem attack in one of these threads suggesting that I enjoyed pointing guns at pregnant women at checkpoints (which is certainly untrue, considering that I refused to even serve at them) so spurious that the poster in question emailed me to apologize.  Not one anti-Israel poster said a word in my defense, or recommended my defense of myself.

          So you'll pardon me if I think the notion that any one group is the one making bullshit prejudiced statements and not getting called on it.

          by Jay Elias on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 02:25:49 PM PDT

          •  I think these I/P Diaries would be better

            If people did two things:

            1.) Talked about policy, not morality. What do you want to see the Democratic Party do in terms of American policy towards Israel and the Palestinians.

            2.) Stopped dumping articles from other sources into diaries that are more cut and paste jobs than articles someone actually took the time to write.

            That would eliminate the flaming quotient.

            by notanamerican on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 02:43:22 PM PDT

            •  Well...

              ...I tend to think that both points you just made were excellent ones.

              If we could refrain from the troll-rating and name-calling, we'd be making a lot of progress too.

              by Jay Elias on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 02:45:44 PM PDT

              •  What Is the Democratic Party's Position on I/P?

                I doubt 90% of the people on both sides of these flame wars could tell you much about it.

                But that's the problem. Since 2000, the Democratic Party really hasn't had a policy towards the Occupied Territories.

                The fish rots from the head down. No leadership on the issue means "discussions" like this.

                by notanamerican on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 02:50:18 PM PDT

                •  They have a position....

                  ...they support Israel and oppose terrorism.

                  It is not a good or nuanced position, but it is their position.

                  by Jay Elias on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 02:51:41 PM PDT

                  •  The Problem With These Non Positions

                    they support Israel and oppose terrorism.

                    Or these positions that are so general they are in effect non positions is that history changes in very jagged breaks, not smoothly.

                    The Democrats comes across weak on this issue. Both sides hate them.

                    They're slightly more pro Palestinian than the Republicans.

                    http://www.vote-smart.org/...

                    And yet the most radically pro-Palestinian people hate them.

                    And yet as much as they pander to AIPC, the most radically pro-Israel people hate them too.

                    If they actually developed a coherent post Bill Clinton policy on the issue, people would have specifics to debate about and Markos would merely ban anybody who didn't fall into a set of guidelines that forwarded the debate.

                    But they've fallen into the worse of all possible worlds. These diaries are just a bad reflection of their paralysis.

                    by notanamerican on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 03:03:54 PM PDT

                    •  it sucks

                      when there are no clear guidelines on who to ban. Sheeet I hear ya bro.

                      by EnderRS on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 03:19:42 PM PDT

                  •  A contradiction, no?

                    At least if left unclarified. Unfortunately, the Democrat position on Israel is to support it almost unquestioningly, including when it commits terrorist actions.

                    by heathlander on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 04:48:32 PM PDT

                    •  Well...

                      ...the tendency, at the least at the government level, is to limit their definition of "terrorism" to violence by non-state actors.

                      For better or worse, when nations behave that way, they don't call it terrorism, whether we as a nation support or oppose the government or nation in question.

                      by Jay Elias on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 04:54:57 PM PDT

                      •  Well, no

                        most definitions of terrorism do not specify whether the actor has to be either state or non-state.

                        Which makes sense - terrorism is a tactic, and it is one that can be employed by both states and non-states. In fact, it is employed overhwelmingly by states.

                        So for example, the U.S. DoD definition is:

                        "calculated use of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or intimidate governments or societies in pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological."

                        (source)

                        It doesn't specify between state or non-state. That politicians and the media primarily use the term to mean non-state terrorism is just a propaganda technique to reinforce the idea that terrorism is what "they" do to "us", and not the other way around.

                        by heathlander on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 05:23:07 PM PDT

          •  It is

            a polarizing issue.  Some here treat it as a zero-sum equation.  But it need not be that way.

            by Eiron on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 04:15:33 PM PDT

            •  AMEN! n/t

              by Jay Elias on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 04:18:36 PM PDT

        •  nothelpful

          and nottrue notanam

          by Keith Moon on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 02:33:04 PM PDT

        •  It Would Appear

          You don't know any nurses who have devoted their professional lives to delivering family planning services along with prenatal and neonatal care to at-risk populations, in Northern New Jersey or anywhere else.

          by greenskeeper on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 03:01:55 PM PDT

    •  Numeracy is a Good Thing

      I would also be willing to bet that a fair number of those deaths had nothing to do with the delay at a checkpoint, but had to do with other ill-effects of the occupation related to other issues of pre-natal care and nutrition.

      It's certainly lower than the number of non-violent drug offenders who contracted HIV as a result of prison rape in the United States, prison rapes that they suffered as a direct result of Joe Biden's RAVE Act.

      Not that I'd mind seeing several diaries a day about how Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton support prison rape.....

      And in that case too, yes, I would be more likely to blame Biden and Clinton than the prison guards, just as I am more likely to blame the Israeli Knesset and the PM than the draftees on the checkpoints, which was my objection to the diarists framing.

      by greenskeeper on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 02:13:41 PM PDT

      •  Data without corresponding facts

        I'm sure 97.8% of these cases would have survived with proper pre-natal care.

        by Dcoronata on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 03:36:38 PM PDT

        •  That's a very specific number, Mr. Spock

          I'm curious as to its source.

          by greenskeeper on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 06:37:44 PM PDT

          •  Yesterday's nonsense I/P diary. n/t

            by Dcoronata on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 06:38:52 PM PDT

            •  Then I Didn't Miss Anything n/t

              by greenskeeper on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 07:09:10 PM PDT

•  good info

  And why would we be surprised that some individuals attempt to counter your diary with their usual tactics: Change the subject, attack the messenger. In this case, those tactics look particularly reprehensible, yet also ludicrous.

  by Taketheredpill on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 01:58:16 PM PDT

  •  this story has been posted before

    this is news to you generally?

    and how does this bridge the divide between the two parties here on dKos or there on the ground?

    of course, had there been no insane suicide bombings coming from the Palestinians, there would'ne be all these check points....not that I agree/disagree with them all, I don't have enuf info to say whether they're all justified or not, I certainly don't want pregnant women to be held up.

    by Keith Moon on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 02:06:54 PM PDT

•  Now for some World Health Organization facts.

  Palestine country profile

  Infant mortality rate (per 1000 live births) 20.5

  Maternal mortality ratio (per 10000 live births) 11.0
  

  Jordan

  Infant mortality rate (per 1000 live births) 22.0

  Maternal mortality ratio (per 10000 live births) 40.3
  
  

  Egypt

  Infant mortality rate (per 1000 live births)  20.5

  Maternal mortality ratio (per 10000 live births) 62.7
  
  

  Syria

  Infant mortality rate (per 1000 live births) 17.1

  Maternal mortality ratio (per 10000 live births) 58.0

  by another American on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 02:01:15 PM PDT

  •  You're missing out a crucial piece of information

    ...which says a lot about Israel.

    As you point out, the Palestinian infant mortality rate is 20.5 per 1,000 live births

    Guess what the Israeli infant mortality rate is: 6.89 per 1,000 live births. There, folks, you have apartheid in action.

    http://www.indexmundi.com/...

    by StupidAsshole on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 02:15:42 PM PDT

    •  Israelis

      should be delivering Palestinian babies?

      by EnderRS on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 03:20:46 PM PDT

      •  Well, Israel does in fact

        exercise state power over the Occupied Territories...

        by litho on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 03:35:24 PM PDT

    •  Wrong comparison

      Israel and the Palestinian Territories are distinct jurisdictions and societies. The comparison you need is between Israeli Jews and Israeli Palestinian Arabs. IIRC, there are differences, as there arein the US among whites, blacks, and Latinos. Perfect equality? No. Apartheid? Not on your life.

      by another American on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 03:22:24 PM PDT

      •  Right

        if you ignore the fact that Israel exercises effective power over the Occupied Territories.

        And has for the past forty years...

        by litho on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 03:36:06 PM PDT

        •  Maybe if the Arab nations

          Hadn't amassed their troops on the border, and told the UN's troops to leave, or else be destroyed, those Palestinians wouldn't be in occupied land right now?

          Maybe if the former landlords of Gaza and the West Bank had committed themselves to peace, instead of trying to destroy Israel, this situation would never have happened in the first place?

          by Dcoronata on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 04:10:44 PM PDT

          •  The Palestinian leadership committed...

            ...itself to peace with the Oslo Accords. Unfortunately, Israel showed its true colors by not only continuing to build settlements in the occupied territories on the land that would be used for a Palestinian state, but by actually increasing the rate at which it built those settlements. By continuing to steal the land on which a Palestinian state would exist, Israel demonstrates that it is not really interested in a two-state solution.

            by StupidAsshole on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 04:29:17 PM PDT

        •  Just an observation..

          The statistics aA has referenced in his posts in this diary are from 2004 and 2005 (wow, what a surprise, he didn't mention that!) Obviously things have gotten much worse since then with the international imbargo,  Israeli military attacks, especially in Gaza, closures,the increase of checkpoints in the WB, and Israeli withholding of tax monies owed to the Palestinians.

          If you haven't seen this piece in the NYRB check it out.

          Palestinians: The Crisis in Medical Care

          Cheers

          by sofia on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 07:23:15 PM PDT

      •  Wow

        So, Israel and Palestine cannot be compared because they are different societies? But Palestine, Jordan, Egypt and Syria can be compared because, what, they are all Arab?

        The logic conclusion of your posts in that we must ignore the government in control of a place (the thing that dominates health care policy) and focus on the race of the people.  For the life of me, I don't see any way to differentiate that from racism of the ugliest sort.  It suggests there is some naturally high rate Arab babies are supposed to die at, and that is the only valid comparison.

        by weasel on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 04:07:47 PM PDT

        •  How the hell can you suggest

          that the facts are not supporting the facts?

          Shit dude, the oppressed Palestinian women are suffering from a maternal death rate that is one-sixth that of Egyptians and Syrians, which is either stone-cold proof that the Israelis treat them better than their Arab cohorts are treated inside of their own nations, or there is a very serious problem with the way that culture treats women.

          Either way you chose to look at it, it speaks poorly for those nations.

          by Dcoronata on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 06:15:56 PM PDT

    •  Horrifically false statement.

      Again, an illogical statement.  In every nation on earth, there are discrepancies between classes when it comes to medical and prenatal care.  Richer people have better health care, better diets, better education.  Even in the US minorities have significantly higher infant mortality rates, and we aren't inflicted by apartheid.

      However, since the data presented here shows that Palestinians have a baseline rate that is statistically  AT THE MEDIAN of the neighboring Arab states, might indicate that they are doing no worse than they would have done in other nations.

      BUT, if you look at the maternal death rates, they are roughly 1/5th of what they are in the other Arab states.

      Imagine that, a Palestinian woman has a five-times LESSER chance of dying in childbirth than her Arab cohorts.

      by Dcoronata on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 06:11:22 PM PDT

  •  And Israel's?

    infant mortatlity rate?  As occupier, they have a duty to provide equivalent standards of care.

    by Eiron on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 04:20:14 PM PDT

•  Why the hell...

  ...are women that could give birth at anytime trying to cross through border checkpoints? Shouldn't they be somewhere comfortable until the baby comes instead of in a stressful situation like that?

  by dennisl on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 02:03:50 PM PDT

  •  they're going to the hospital, dumbass

    by Taketheredpill on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 02:04:48 PM PDT

    •  Why on earth

      Would you call someone a "dumbass" just because they asked a question you didn't like? Is it really that difficult to be even slightly civil?

      No one would speak that way to a random guy on the subway, or your boss, or mother, or someone you just met at a party. It is not acceptable to bark "dumbass" at someone just because we're online.

      by DavidNYC on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 02:33:06 PM PDT

      •  he took the wrong pill....

        >eom<</p>

        by Keith Moon on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 02:34:35 PM PDT

        •  Ha

          Some days I really wish I had taken the blue pill.

          by DavidNYC on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 02:35:58 PM PDT

      •  Because...

        ...it is the internet, David; heck, isn't getting to call strangers names half the point?

        by Jay Elias on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 02:39:19 PM PDT

        •  Maybe that's okay

          On the series of tubes, or even the Google, but not on the internets.

          by DavidNYC on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 02:42:07 PM PDT

      •  You have to admit

        it was a pretty silly question...

        by litho on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 03:22:53 PM PDT

        •  I don't care

          The merits of the question are not at issue here. Civility is. And if someone asks me what I consider to be a dumb question face-to-face, in person, I don't respond by calling them a "dumbass."

          by DavidNYC on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 04:04:51 PM PDT

          •  Glory of the internets n/t

            by litho on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 04:14:37 PM PDT

      •  Well,

        it was kind of a "let them eat cake" moment.  Maybe someone should have called Marie Antoinette a dumbass, too.

        by weasel on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 04:10:00 PM PDT

        •  Or

          The commenter was asking a legitimate, innocent question. Of course, none of us knows. But considering that he did phrase it as a question and did not make a flat statement of fact, he deserves the benefit of the doubt. In a civil world.

          But as has been pointed out to me several times, this is the Internet, where everyone has deliberately forgotten how to be civil. Stupid me.

          by DavidNYC on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 04:39:02 PM PDT

•  Christ. I didn't know stuff like this was

  going on. What the hell is the point? I would think those soldiers would go all out to help a pregnant woman about to give birth. Don't these guys have mothers?

  This is the first time I've been really pissed at this mess.

  by canananandoo on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 02:07:14 PM PDT

  •  First Time?

    Where have you been?

    by 1918 on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 02:12:41 PM PDT

  •  My guess is that most of the time they do...

    ...help or try to help or want to help.

    They've probably got a bunch of bureaucratic bullshit standing in the way of helping.

    by bluedogtxn on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 02:12:46 PM PDT

    •  Yeah, but it's the worst kind of press

      for Israel. But that's not the point either. Imagine the agnoy and suffering of the women who died in childbirth. And the dispair of the mother's losing these babies.

      by canananandoo on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 12:46:39 PM PDT

  •  Well, I do remember one episode of JAG...

    ...where some woman, pretending to be pregnant, hid a bunch of weapons in her fake stomach.

    Hence, I would assume that even if someone is pregnant and in labor at these checkpoints, there's still procedures that need to be followed.

    by dennisl on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 02:14:56 PM PDT

    •  Yeah, you know and I also heard

      that those Rutgers players really do have nappy hair...

      What rock did you crawl out from under?  And could you please go crawl back underneath it?

      I have to go take a shower after reading your comment.

      by litho on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 03:37:33 PM PDT

      •  Just a random pop culture reference...

        ...involving Cuban terrorists. Read whatever you want into it.

        by dennisl on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 03:56:54 PM PDT

•  I think this is statistically inevitable...

  ...given the number of checkpoints and the numbers of people crossing through them.

  I would imagine you might encounter a similar situation along any rigorously security-conscious border.  That's not to justify what is happening, but it's just a reality.

  I can't tell you how many anecdotal cases I've heard where a cop pulls someone over for speeding on the way to the maternity ward and refuses to help them get there or even insists they wait until he's done being a prick.

  It's the nature of authority figures.  A lot of them will always be nitpicking shits.  I suspect there are incidents where Israeli soldiers have helped Palestinians get to the hospital or even helped deliver their children.

  The checkpoints are a product of the fear Israelis have for a people not like them, the Palestinians (aside from the question of trying to get rid of them).  That doesn't make the guys who man the checkpoints less or more human than anyone else.

  The checkpoints are horrible, but I suspect the men at them are neither better nor worse than the rest of us.

  by bluedogtxn on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 02:11:20 PM PDT

•  In an attempt to actually learn something...

  ...is there a copy of this report that's actually in English? Or are we to believe your third-hand information?

  by dennisl on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 02:12:43 PM PDT

•  Who won the Holocaust Denial Cartoon contest?

  Dunno, but Carlos Latuff, the guy who did this cartoon, won second place.

  http://www.irancartoon.com/...

  Very impressive.

  by zemblan on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 02:16:50 PM PDT

  •  interesting...

    ...which begs the question of whether or not the image is being reproduced with permission.

    by Jay Elias on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 02:19:09 PM PDT

    •  Latuff usually waives copyright on his stuff

      But what a hateful lot it is.

      by zemblan on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 02:26:12 PM PDT

      •  Wow