BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Jul 10 - 08:09 AM

I made a mistake about the cluster bombs.
Thank you for pointing it out Emma.
Jack, I am sorry for what I said.
keith.

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Jul 10 - 06:57 AM

"I care deeply about the humanitarian crisis in Gaza"
You're wasting your time Emma - you are talking to somebody who doesn't.
Why not find a convenient wall to talk to, you'll probably get a more intelligent response.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Emma B
Date: 30 Jul 10 - 06:35 AM

Keith - this is YOUR method of 'discussion'

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Jack the Sailor - PM
Date: 29 Jul 10 - 12:45 PM

Keith,
They were using White Phospherous on one of the most densely populated strips of land on earth.

They used cluster bombs and land mines on farmland in south Lebanon.

From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 29 Jul 10 - 02:11 PM

I remember the cluster bombs in Lebanon, and the civilian casualties caused by unexploded bomblets.
Are you sure that Israel ever used them again? In Gaza?

From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 30 Jul 10 - 03:09 AM

Jack says they used cluster bombs in Gaza.
I ask for confirmation.

Nobody, NOBODY in this thread has said that cluster bombs were used in Gaza!

You do this ALL the time Keith

This is NOT 'discussion' in any meaning of the word I'm aware of

You are just so damn anxious to get your 'point scoring' in that you consistently fail to read what people actually say and, as you have been frequently - and accurately - accused, put words in people's mouths.

This, of course, drives people to frustration and simply accepting there is no point in any further attempts at normal debate - at which point you have 'won' haven't you?

I care deeply about the humanitarian crisis in Gaza and I'm not prepared to use the situation to indulge in this kind of 'game playing'

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Jul 10 - 05:47 AM

2 reports from today's Irish newspapers:
Dunnes Stores:
Dunnes, the Irish Supermarket chain has received a petition from The Irish Palestine Solidarity Campaign bearing 6,000 names, requesting that it stop stocking Israeli products becausee of its polices on Palestine.
IPSC chairperson Freda Hughes said all supermarkets selling Israeli goods would eventually be targeted, but Dunnes had been chosen to start the campaign because of the historical significance of the anti-apartheid strike in the 1980s.
Parallels were drawn between the apartheid regime and the State of Israel.
"Just as South African forces shot and killed their own people in Sharpville and Uitenhage, so do the Israeli military adopt a shoot-to-kill policy".

Jerusalem:
Israeli settlers took over a Palestinian home in Jerusalem's Old City yesterday, evicting about 44 members of an extended family who had occupied the building for more than 70 years.
The settlerrs said they had bought the building.
The Palestinians were challenging the takeover in court. They had rented the building since 1938 and had won two previous court cases challenging eviction orders.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Jul 10 - 03:09 AM

You should try discussing with me before giving up Jim.
You say Israel used illegal weapons.
I point out that all countries have them including liberal demacracies like Norway,Sweden, Canada, New Zealand,...
You can not reply, so liken me to a holocaust denier instead.
Jack says they used cluster bombs in Gaza.
I ask for confirmation.
Nothing, except agreement with Jim about me being like a holocaust denier.
You say they target civilians.
I point out that an agressive enemy was fighting them from among those civilians so how can you be sure.
You can not answer so say it is futile.

Emma, whatever Gaza is, it is at war with Israel.
Israel is careful to abide by the letter of the law on blockades.
It does let humanitarian stuff in and enough food to prevent starvation.
You can say it is not enough. I can agree, but the legality is a matter for lawyers.

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Emma B
Date: 29 Jul 10 - 08:51 PM

"...it is usual for warring states to blockade"

I am not interested in 'scoring points' just at least maintaining some accuracy - I prefer to make up my own mind about the Hasbara machine's propaganda.

Please note!

GAZA IS NOT A STATE!
this has far greater implications legally than just a correction of an inaccurate statement on a mudcat thread


Gaza was occupied by Israel in 1967 and, under customary international law, Israel has been the occupier of the strip since.
Despite ending their physical occupation of the Gaza Strip in 2005 when they withdrew Israel still maintained "effective control" over the Gaza Strip through control of its land borders (the Apartheid Wall), air space and of course, sea lanes.

It has the security advantage of effective control which it has exercised through incursions, the creation of buffer zones within the strip, routine aerial attacks etc.

BUT, it has simultaneously denied the obligations which come along with occupation; the main one which is upholding the well-being of the civilian population.


The international legal framework which is most appropriate for assessing Israel's obligations is the Fourth Geneva Convention, to which Israel is a party to.

Part 1 Article 55 of the IV Geneva Convention clearly states:

To the fullest extent of the means available to it, the Occupying Power has the duty of ensuring the food and medical supplies of the population; it should, in particular, bring in the necessary foodstuffs, medical stores and other articles if the resources of the occupied territory are inadequate.

From the San Remo San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea

Part IV : Methods and means of warfare at sea

SECTION II : METHODS OF WARFARE

Blockade

102. The declaration or establishment of a blockade is prohibited if:

(a) it has the sole purpose of starving the civilian population or denying it other objects essential for its survival; or

(b) the damage to the civilian population is, or may be expected to be, excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated from the blockade.

103. IF THE CIVILIAN POPULATION OF THE BLOCKADED TERRITORY IS INADEQUATELY PROVIDED WITH FOOD AND OTHER OBJECTS ESSENTIAL FOR ITS SURVIVAL, THE BLOCKADING PARTY MUST PROVIDE FOR FREE PASSAGE OF SUCH FOODSTUFFS AND OTHER ESSENTIAL SUPPLIES…


The bottom line is that the legality of the blockade- which has, by the admission of the Israeli government itself, the purpose of "putting the Gazans on a diet", is in fact illegal under these laws because it is designed specifically to cause collective suffering throughout the entire populace.

Additionally, Israel is not letting supplies through freely after inspection- it is in fact seizing those supplies and letting the vast majority of them rot, like the clothing and shoes that were held up for 3 years - obviously because they threatened Israel's security!

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Jul 10 - 05:54 PM

"I am glad you have now called them bad." "You all close yours and just heed the propaganda of one side."
To the end you go down trying to score egotistical points.
"I do agree further discussion is futile."
No Keith - discussion WITH YOU is futile - I am more than happy to continue debating with anybody else - they listen and are prepared to consider and debate the arguments of others.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Jul 10 - 05:39 PM

Not creepy.
Only thread creep.
I said i was shocked by your attitude to the rockets.
Every little counts means good, and more would be better.
I am glad you have now called them bad.

"never disproved"
Of course I can not disprove deliberate attacks on civilians.
You can not prove such a negative.
There is no proof either way or the debate would not go on, and I do not just mean on Mudcat.
I keep an open mind. You all close yours and just heed the propaganda of one side.

We must accept we will never agree.
I do agree further discussion is futile.

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 29 Jul 10 - 04:17 PM

I suspect that Jim Carroll is onto something here.

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Jul 10 - 03:29 PM

I really don't see the point of carrying this any further with Keith.
You say that my attitude to the bombardment is Creepy (or some such word - can't be bothered)
Your attitude to this is creepy to me in one respect.
It closely resembles every argument I have ever had or read on holocaust denial.
You present a holocaust denier with concentration camps - they didn't exist and were made up (eye witness accounts and photographs - lies and fakes).
Present you with phosphorus bombing and the deaths and injuries caused - didn't happen they were smoke bombs (eye withness evidence and photographs ignored).
Present them with the anihilation of millions of human beings - the natural casualities of wartime conditions.
Present you with civilian casualities and deaths - the natural casualties of war.
When people like Emma or Foolstroop present information, you refuse to read it because it's 'too long', and they are deliberately trying to blind you with science - pretty much as you did with me on the Unionist Marches thread.
Everything else is either ignored or flatly denied - never disproved. Your ignorance of all the subjects I have encountered you on is monumental - you argue without proof, picking up on what others put
forward rather than producing knowledge and understanding of your own.
In an odd way I can understand holocaust deniers - If I supported an political ideal or a national leadership who did the things the Nazis did, I would want it not to be true; I would want to persuade people (and myself) that those I had put my trust in and given my support to could not possibly have done the things they were accused of doing.
I don't begin to understand where you are coming from.
You have spoken up fin support of three of the most inhuman and degrading subjects I know - the massacre of unarmed demonstrators in Derry, the causes of sectarian violence, and now Israeli fascism. You argue as if it's a ego-boosting, point scoring game.
I've finished arguing with you Keith - come back when you've got something to contribute and when you are prepared to consider and respond top the arguments of others.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Jul 10 - 02:11 PM

Jack and Emma, I told Carol much earlier in thread that i do not support the blockade, but it is usual for warring states to blockade.
Hamas chose to make war on Israel and israel imposed a blockade. Some people say blockade is collective punishment, but it has always been a legitimate tactic in war. The concept of collective punishment was never intended to cover it.

I remember the cluster bombs in Lebanon, and the civilian casualties caused by unexploded bomblets.
It was argued with some justification that they should be treated as land mines because of that. Are you sure that Israel ever used them again? In Gaza?

They used white phosphorus smoke munitions in gaza. We have argued about it here. I acknowledge civilian casualties were caused, but not that civilians were targeted. It was to screen their soldiers from the enemy.

It would be better if Hamas did not choose to engage Israel from within Gaza City.

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Emma B
Date: 29 Jul 10 - 01:04 PM

"Even the blockade was only a response to the rockets and other attacks from Gaza."

You are obviously not entirely up to date with the ststements from the Israeli government Keith


Immediately after Israeli commandos killed nine volunteers on a Turkish-organized Gaza aid flotilla, Israel again reiterated its claim that the aim in blockading Gaza was to stop the flow of terrorist arms into Gaza - presumably only achieved by stopping the import of ginger, paper, vegetables, musical instruments and the fabric required for the production of diapers and not allowing the export of vegetables and other means of economic survival etc out

"However, in response to a recent lawsuit by Gisha, an Israeli human rights group, the Israeli government has now explained the blockade as an exercise of the right of economic warfare.

"A country has the right to decide that it chooses not to engage in economic relations or to give economic assistance to the other party to the conflict, or that it wishes to operate using 'economic warfare,'"

The Israeli government also took an additional step and said the economic warfare is intended to achieve a political goal a government spokesman commenting that authorities will continue to 'ease' the blockade but "could not lift the embargo altogether as long as Hamas remains in control" of Gaza"

Information from McClatchy website June 9, 2010 "Israeli document: Gaza blockade isn't about security"

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 29 Jul 10 - 12:45 PM

Keith,

They were using White Phospherous on one of the most densely populated strips of land on earth.

They used cluster bombs and land mines on farmland in south Lebanon.

They often use collective punishment.

The very definition of the current blockade is collective punishment.

Why blockade luxury goods if not to punish the population for voting for Hamas?

All of the above are war crimes.

Why level so many buildings then blockade building materials?

Yes concrete can be used build bunkers. But obviously those bunkers are only useful against massed military attacks. the government of Israel may have a right to defend its population, but the "right" they now defend and claim, the "right" to blockade to maximize the possibility of unfettered attack is beyond absurd.

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Jul 10 - 12:21 PM

Sorry, delete first word "If"

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Jul 10 - 12:20 PM

If I am not denying attacks on civilians, but I am not convinced they have been deliberately targeted. I think you are too easy to convince.
No agression prior to incursion.
I know there has been conflict there for ever. I meant since Israel withdrew its settlers and forces from Gaza.
That could and should have been the end of conflict there.
The attacks from Gaza were unprovoked.

Chemical weapons.
Sadaam did use chemical weapons. Poison gas.
Whatever any of us may think, ALL ARMED FORCES USE WP INCLUDING ALL THOSE WHO HAVE SIGNED EVERY CHEMICAL WEAPONS TREATY.
WP is not recognised as CW for all its nasty effects.
Israel's weapons were legal, and had it signed all the treaties they still would have been.

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Jul 10 - 10:37 AM

"In your quote I did not deny civilian attacks. I am not convinced of them but do not deny. I would need evidence that it was deliberate targeting of civilians"
Yes you did deny it - now you are disputing your own statements. What is there not to believe - don't they have televisions in Hertford or did the cameramen fake them and lie about what they were. Were the UN observers lying in their accounts, or the doctors in the hospitals that were shelled, or the teachers who had to herd the children to relative safety while the barrages were taking place? Were the newspapers lying. Come on!!!
"Prior to the incursion there was no agression by Israel against Gaza."
The Shatila and Sabra massacres took place in 1982 - Israel had already provided the world with proof of their ability to slaughter anybody who got in their way, refugees, civilians, aid workers, you name it , they'll targate them - or don't these count?
"No country in the world classes WP as a chemical weapon, (or WP smoke as a weapon at all) so why should Israel"
You are using diverionary tactics again - you have the effect of these weapons, they are banned for use in residential areas = Israel committing war crimes.
And once again you are trivialising the effect these weapons have on human beings - the ones that appeared in the documentary on the incursion, or the ones shown with the artical on Fallujah, along with the US soldier's description of the horrific injuries; ort maybe this biologist's account
"A biologist in Fallujah, Mohamad Tareq, interviewed for the film, says: "A rain of fire fell on the city, the people struck by this multi-coloured substance started to burn, we found people dead with strange wounds, the bodies burned but the clothes intact"
What kind of person are you that can excuse this in support of a terrorist state?
Can I suggest you grit your teeth, stop feigning goldfish concentration syndrome and read some contributions of more that a couple of paragraphs, particularly Emmas - if you haven't got the humanity to admit Israel's war crimes, at least have the good manners to read what sshe has to say; she's obviously gone to a great deal of trouble searching out her information to answer your 'challenges. Nobody is going to tailor their arguments to suit conveniently acquires dyslexia.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Emma B
Date: 29 Jul 10 - 06:20 AM

Apologies for a correction - the article quoted above was from the BBC news and not the Guardian as I stated

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Emma B
Date: 29 Jul 10 - 06:07 AM

Keith you have admitted to not reading my posts as, because I attempt to answer your continual repetitive questioning of evidence in some depth, you clain they are too long except to pick out the 'salient points'

Well here is one 'salient point' you seem to have omitted from my last post

The Goldstone commision accused Israeli forces of using Palestinian human shields during its invasion of Gaza, a breach of the Geneva conventions that prohibit intentionally putting civilian lives at risk; this practice has also been used (and filmed) in Nablus in the West Bank after the Israeli court specifically banned the tactic.


There is also the question of who is a 'combatant' who is a 'civilian'

An article in the Guardian 5 Jan 2009 reported -

"...when an Israeli military spokesman also says things like "anything affiliated with Hamas is a legitimate target," things get complicated.

The International Committee of the Red Cross - guardian of the Geneva Conventions on which international humanitarian law is based - defines a combatant as a person "directly engaged in hostilities".

But Israeli Defence Forces spokesman Captain Benjamin Rutland told the BBC: "Our definition is that anyone who is involved with terrorism within Hamas is a valid target. This ranges from the strictly military institutions and includes the political institutions that provide the logistical funding and human resources for the terrorist arm."

Philippe Sands, Professor of International Law at University College London, says he is not aware of any Western democracy having taken so broad a definition.

"Once you extend the definition of combatant in the way that IDF is apparently doing, you begin to associate individuals who are only indirectly or peripherally involved… it becomes an open-ended definition, which undermines the very object and purpose of the rules that are intended to be applied."

PROTOCOL 1 OF THE GENEVA CONVENTIONS - QUOTED BY ISRAEL, ALTHOUGH NOT SIGNED BY IT - SAYS THAT FOR A SITE TO BE A LEGITIMATE MILITARY TARGET IT MUST "MAKE AN EFFECTIVE CONTRIBUTION TO MILITARY ACTION" AND ITS DESTRUCTION OR NEUTRALISATION MUST ALSO OFFER "A DEFINITE MILITARY ADVANTAGE".

Israel says it has bombed mosques because they are used to store weapons, releasing video of the air strikes which it says shows secondary explosions as its proof.

But it gives no evidence for its claims that laboratories at the Islamic University, which it bombed heavily, were used for weapons research

....on its targeting of the education, interior and foreign ministries and the parliament building, Israel simply argues they are part of the Hamas infrastructure – and there is no difference between its political and military wings."

The Israel-based Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center, charged Hamas with methodically building its military infrastructure in the heart of population centers - againt this depends on the definition of 'military infrastructure'

The first wave of bombings, targeted police stations across Gaza, one strike killed at least 40 trainees on parade.
The Israeli human rights group B'Tselem, said it appears those killed were being trained in first aid, human rights and maintaining public order.

A money changers office was deliberately injuring a boy living on the floor above based on the claim that the money changers were involved in "the transfer of funds for terrorist activities".

Operation Cast Lead left between 1,166 and 1,417 Palestinians dead (most of them civilian) - and 13 Israelis killed (3 of these by an 'errant IDF tank shell')

THE LEGAL CONCEPT OF PROPORTIONALITY. DEMANDS THAT THE MILITARY GAIN OF A PARTICULAR OPERATION BE PROPORTIONAL TO THE LIKELY OR ACTUAL CIVILIAN LOSSES INCURRED IN CARRYING IT OUT.

The difference in civilian casualties in the Gaza war is stark compared with 18 Israelis from rocket fire since 2001.

"Witnesses and analysts confirm that Hamas fires rockets from within populated civilian areas, and all sides agree that the movement flagrantly violates international law by targeting civilians with its rockets.

But while B'Tselem's Ms Montell describes the rocket fire as a "blatant war crime", she adds: "I certainly would not expect my government to act according to the standard Hamas has set for itself - we demand a higher standard." - source as above


p.s.
"No country in the world regards wp smoke as a chemical weapon."

Please don't start this personal 'smokescreen' again Keith - time after time after time you have been advised that WP is internationally defined as an 'incendiary WEAPON' and by the US as a 'chemical weapon' when it wished to demonstrate the use of such weapons by Saddam

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 29 Jul 10 - 06:05 AM

"Prior to the incursion there was no agression by Israel against Gaza."

Oh my God - my head hurts - is he really stupid or should I start believing the conspiracy theory that he is a dupe/secret agent trying to brainwash us....

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Jul 10 - 05:43 AM

"They are the only opposition to Israeli agression - you have not suggested an alternative, therefore the only option on hand is surrender."

Prior to the incursion there was no agression by Israel against Gaza.
Even the blockade was only a response to the rockets and other attacks from Gaza.
Killing civilians in Sderot is not defending you from anything.
It is just killing and unequivocally a war crime

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Jul 10 - 05:38 AM

In your quote I did not deny civilian attacks.
I am not convinced of them but do not deny.
Obviously there were civilian casualties and damage. I would need evidence that it was deliberate targeting of civilians. What purpose?
Why not just attack those fighting back, of whom there were plenty?

Chemical Weapons.
It is not just USA. All armed forces use WP including those who have signed every chemical weapons treaty.
No country in the world classes WP as a chemical weapon, (or WP smoke as a weapon at all) so why should Israel?

Human shields in battle is not the same as a hostage situation.
You do not have to give up the battle because the enemy is using them.
The rules say you must give warnings and Israel complied with that.

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Jul 10 - 05:19 AM

Firstly you have denied it and I included your having done so as a quote.
There is filmed evidence of Israeli attacks on civilians and the destruction of their homes; this was included in the BBC documentary on the incursion into Gaza, persistantly on news footage - (unless the UK has a news blackout on the subject - which I very much doubt, as BBC's has been the fairest and most comprehensive of all reporting). I would again recommend the harrowing 'Occupation 101 - Voices of the Silenced Majority (winner of 8 film festival awards), a comprehensive account of the whole conflict. We got our copy at a public screening by some of the people who were due to set off on the Rachel Corry relief ship the following week. The evidence is only not available if you do not wish to find it.
"No country in the world regards wp smoke as a chemical weapon"
Look at the definition and dispute it if you can.
If you mean the US does not recognise it as a chemical weapon - they describe the killing of civilians as 'collateral damage' and torture as 'extreme rendition' - they tend to have a way with words when it suits them. Your argument is a facilile one and whatever side of the fence you happen to fall on, the description of the effects on phosphorus remain exactly the same. It is these that the arguments should be centred on, not the diversionary what name it is given. The use of phosphorus is prohibited in populated areas; Israel was aware of this to the extent that they denied its use until they were faced with contrary evidence and admittted it; it is only you apologists who continue to attempt to divert the attention from it.
"Why single out Israel alone?"
I seem to remember discussing its use in Fallujah further up this thread - anyway, the subject on hand is Israel's atrocities.
"I do not understand how they can be said to be defencive though"
They are the only opposition to Israeli agression - you have not suggested an alternative, therefore the only option on hand is surrender.
"If Hamas renounced violence and recognised Israel, conflict would cease and a negotiations begin. Also there would be no blockade."
As the main aim of Israel is the acquisition of territory, I very much doubt that. It is Palestinian opposition to agression that will bring Israel to the conference table, not surrender - life appears to be like that everywhere unfortunately (including Ireland btw).
Why is it you always attempt to minimise israeli war crimes?
In your last posting you said of Shatila and Sabra "Israeli forces should have acted to prevent them" giving the impression that their only crime was inaction; surely you knew the extent of their participation in them? You adopt a similar stance on chemical weapons.
And now you remain silent on the killing of hostages - argument by ignoring the awkward bits seems to be your favoured technique.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Jul 10 - 04:19 AM

Make up your mind Keith - you said or you didn't say "you are wrong to say that civilians were targeted." earlier; what's it to be?

You are wrong to say it without clear evidence. I do not deny it, but it seems unlikely as Israel would gain nothing from it and suffer a propaganda defeat.

No country in the world regards wp smoke as a chemical weapon. Mudcat opinions hardly count.
Why single out Israel alone?

I do not demand Palestinian surrender.
It was Hamas rocketing that led to the incursion and all the consequent suffering. It would never have happened.
If Hamas renounced violence and recognised Israel, conflict would cease and a negotiations begin. Also there would be no blockade.

You have just said "bad as the rockets are"
I see that as a breakthrough and bringing us closer in our views. I do not understand how they can be said to be defencive though. Can you explain that?

Thanks for the spelling correction. Me a teacher too. The shame.

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Jul 10 - 03:49 AM

You have Emma's and Foolstroop's answer to your question Keith - more or less same as mine, and virtually everyone else's on this thread with the exception of a couple of rabid right wingers like yourself.
"The massacres were truly deplorable. Israeli forces should have acted to prevent them"
The Israelis participated in the massacres by providing the weapons and driving the actual perpetrators to the camps and then allowed the killers in - their role was an active, not a passive one - they shouldn't just have prevented them, they should not have participated in them, and should have punished the guilty people and not elected the one chiefly responsible Prime Minister.
"I do not deny attacks on civillians...."
Make up your mind Keith - you said or you didn't say "you are wrong to say that civillians were targeted." earlier; what's it to be?
"No unequivocal war crimes by Israel."
Then they should have no problem in participating in any enquiries along with the UN team, rather than insisting on holding their own (and finding themselves not guilty (once again). The history of this conflict is a long list of war crimes committed against civilians.
"I do not know of any chemical attacks on townships."
I assume you are continuing to re-define 'chemical weapons - been there, done that - read the thread - you and Brucie are the only ones denying that the weapons used are chemical - and you have a list of their effects on human beings.
"The guilt is shared. Hamas chose to make civillian...."
Been there also - even if this were true, and not used as an excuse to terrorise non-combatants - NO CIVILISED SOCIETY PARTICIPATES IN OR ALLOWS THE KILLING OR THE ENDANGERING OF THE LIVES OF HOSTAGES.
As bad as the rockets may be - and they're a pinprick compared to the military might of the Israeli weaponry used on civilians throughout this conflict, they are the only defence the Palestinians have to Israeli agression - what opposition would you propose in their place, or do you suggest that they surrender outright - and lay themselves open to further destruction of their homes, hospitals and schools, become refugees, move into camps, and are treated to repeats of past massacres?
You are, in effect, demanding the surrender of the Palestinians to Israeli demands. They could not rely on International protection as the most powerful countries, notebly the US have refused to act on their behalf, will continue to do so while they are under the thumb of Israeli supporters, and tend to be very free with their veto in the UN whenever action is proposed which runs contrary to their interests. They cannot go to the UN as the Israelis have refused to participate even in an enquiry on human rights abuses (they can afford to - they hold the nuclear threat).
As I said - you are demanding their outright surrender to a terrorist state - have I got that right?
A small thing - not trying to score points, just a persistant irritant - 'civilians' only has one 'l'
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Jul 10 - 02:08 AM

"Then why not acknowledge and condemn or excuse, if you can, the Shatila and Sabra massacres, the attacks on civilians, which you denied happened despite filmed and eye witness evidence, the chemical attacks on occupied townships, the destruction of hospitals and schools....."

The massacres were truly deplorable. Israeli forces should have acted to prevent them. They were disgraced by it.

I do not deny attacks on civillians but Israel does and the evidence is not there. Both sides do lie.

I do not know of any chemical attacks on townships. Please give details.

The destruction of schools and hospitals. The guilt is shared. Hamas chose to make civillian areas their battlefield for the shielding effect and the propaganda value of civillian casualties.
Israel should have shown even more restraint.

No unequivocal war crimes by Israel.
The rockets are. Also using civillians as shields is.

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Emma B
Date: 28 Jul 10 - 09:24 PM

"Question to Emma and Foolestroupe. Do you think the rocketing of civilians is wrong, and should it stop?"

It is NOT 'acceptable' for ANYONE to commit war crimes

The Goldstone report in a 547 page document stated unambiguously that both sides in the conflict during Operation Cast Lead had committed 'war crimes' and 'acts that were likely crimes against humanity' during the fighting in the Gaza Strip.

This investigation was headed by Richard Goldstone, the former chief prosecutor of the international courts for Yugoslavia and Rwanda, comprised three other experts in various fields, including international law and weapons and was based on nearly 200 interviews and over 20,000 pages of documents and photos.

The report clearly stated its belief that the Israeli military operation was "directed at the people of Gaza as a whole" to "punish" the population.
It cited incidents where food productions facilities, drinking water installations and other such sites were attacked, saying these might be "crimes against humanity."

Investigations, the report said, led the team to believe Israeli forces used human shields in certain cases, hospitals were attacked and civilians were shot while carrying white flags.

On the other hand the report also condemned Palestinian rocket fire into southern Israel which constituted "war crimes and may amount to crimes against humanity" as the militants failed to distinguish between civilians and soldiers, causing "terror." but also added that Israel failed to protect its Arab citizens against the rocket fire in the same way that it protected its Jewish residents.


SO!
What was the response to the Goldstone report that concluded Palestinian factions were ALSO responsible for committing 'crimes against humanity'? ………………..

Now let's talk about 'balance' ............

The Jerusalem-based NGO Monitor predictably cast doubt as to the 'neutrality' of the Goldstone Commission on Gaza in much the same way it attempted to revile the Human Rights Watch group that reported critically on BOTH the firing of rockets from Gaza AND the use of White Phosphorus

Defence Minister Ehud Barak described it as "false, distorted, and irresponsible".

Maybe more predictably, Information Minister Yuli Edelstein called it "anti-Semitic.

Perhaps even more predictable was the infinite stream of ad hominem libel against its main author in a sustained effort to undermine the commissions findings, despite Israel's concerted non-cooperation with the commission and resistance to calls by Israeli and international human rights organisations for an independent Israeli investigation outside the military framework.

South African Judge Richard Goldstone, was also excoriated by leading members of the local Jewish community for chairing the commission.
He was told his commission's findings were lies; that he was naive and gullible for accepting the version of events given by terrorists; and that, since he is a Jew, he was a traitor to his people.

His critics were given support by Chief Rabbi Warren Goldstein, who chastised Goldstone for "doing great damage to the state of Israel". He should have recused himself instead, Goldstein said, and taken no part in the investigating mission.

Veteran journalist and political analyst Allister Sparks posed the question

"Goldstein is a trained lawyer as well as a rabbi. Did he mean that no Jew, however professionally disciplined — and Judge Goldstone's legal reputation is among the highest in the world — can be objective when it comes to a matter involving Israel?

And if so, does that involve Jews individually or collectively as well, or just the interests of the state of Israel?

Or did he mean that it is a Jewish person's inherent duty either to set aside his professional ethics and find in favour of the state of Israel regardless of the merits of a case or, if that is unacceptable, to recuse himself?
But that for a Jew to find against Israel is traitorous?"

Goldstone determined both sides had committed 'war crimes'

Israel initially completely denied any of its findings and instead substituted 'alternative' versions later proved to be fraudulent - critics were subsequently attacked as anti-semites or self-hating Jews -
there seems to be a pattern which was reflected in the reaction to the attack on the flotilla - to take us back to the start of this thread.

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 28 Jul 10 - 08:30 PM

"The only balance will come when the Zionist's have been stopped in their quest to fulfill the prophecy of Israel stretching from Egypt to the Euphrates or when weapons of war are completely removed from their control."

Well JTS, I have been known to say for many years, that it would just be much cheaper for the US to target a couple hundred megatons on that big rock in the centre and melt it into a huge glowing hole that would keep ALL people away for a few hundred thousand years... :-)

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 28 Jul 10 - 08:26 PM

"I ask you Foolestroupe, is it wrong and should it stop?"

QUOTE

"Question to Emma and Foolestroupe. Do you think the rocketing of civilians is wrong, and should it stop?"

And the targeting of kids throwing stones at tanks being killed by bullets (just to mention ONE of the many endless atrocities against civilians too numerous to mention) is, and it should stop also.
UNQUOTE

That was my plain and simple answer.

QUOTE
You sir, are a twisting manipulating liar, or else you lack the ability to understand plain English!
UNQUOTE


Go away!

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 28 Jul 10 - 08:21 PM

""Foolestroupe, he does supportit, saying every little helps.""

I took this wording to mean that _I_ support the madness. I do not support 'attacks', but one has to support 'defence' (pacifist or not!) - this does not mean that I see shooting live rounds at kids throwing rocks at tanks as a 'defence' - nor the said throwing of such rocks as an 'attack'!

To support aggression by one side while denying whatever poor 'retaliation' the victims of it can respond with very limited military force (throwing rocks!) to, IS hypocritical - just like the madmen in Ireland and their loony bigoted supporters carried on with.

Don't drag _ME_ into defending your losing argument with someone else!

The world is NOT just 'black and white' - it is shades of grey that you are unwilling to admit to, lest you feel that YOU could be wrong!

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Jul 10 - 07:49 PM

"Yet you keep saying you have the moral high ground."
Where?
"SO, if it is OK to commit war crimes if one is invaded, "
Where has anybody said that? some people, me included, have said that it is acceptable for people to defend themselves when attacked - it is the Israelis who have consistently committed war crimes (chemical (illegal) weapons, piracy, destruction of hospitals and schools...) and have refused to co-operate with the United Nations investigation team - why, if they've nothing to hide (unless, of course, they are all anti-Semits too)?
"I do not think Emma or Foolestroupe are with you on that Jim."
Once again you are parasiting on other people's ideas by claiming them as your own. Can't you speak for yourself? Emma and Foolstroop are articulate people who put forward their own ideas; if I disagree with them, I will say so (I don't see a great deal of conflict here), but they are both capable of speaking for themselves - you just echo what others say or bounce off what others have said - no original ideas - just like previous threads
"I have not and do not support Israel's abuses. I just seek balance."
Then why not acknowledge and condemn or excuse, if you can, the Shatila and Sabra massacres, the attacks on civilians, which you denied happened despite filmed and eye witness evidence, the chemical attacks on occupied townships, the destruction of hospitals and schools.....
"I think you are in a place on your own."
I suggest you count your supporters on this and the two previous threads and come back when you have a number. You and BB appear to be the only supporters or apologists of Israel's atrocities here.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 28 Jul 10 - 03:38 PM

The only balance will come when the Zionist's have been stopped in their quest to fulfill the prophecy of Israel stretching from Egypt to the Euphrates or when weapons of war are completely removed from their control.

I just wish my taxes were not putting weapons in their hands.

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Jul 10 - 03:19 PM

I do not need to put words into your mouth Jim.
Your own words condemn you.
"As a pragmatist I realise that without some sort of resistance Israel would have no hesitation in moving in on Gaza and moving the Palestinians out, with any means at their disposal."

Israel moved out of Gaza completely.
The rockets increased.
You say they should still resist, and even though you claim to be a pacifist, you demand violent resistance.
Never mind that the shrapnel packed rockets are intended for ordinary, innocent people and their children.

I do not think Emma or Foolestroupe are with you on that Jim.
I think you are in a place on your own.

I have not and do not support Israel's abuses. I just seek balance.

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 28 Jul 10 - 03:18 PM

The two most consistent arguments in support of Israel's war crimes are listed at the bottom as quoted on this thread.

It does not take a rocket scientist to see where the hypocrites are.

Obviously, If one is saying that we should support Israel because they are better than the Palestinians, then Israel MUST be held to that standard. They need to be better than the Palestinians. They need to behave better and be more civilized.

On the other hand there is a second fallacy in Bruce's post. It gives some proof to opposition claims of collective punishment. Bruce is comparing the actions of violent fringes of Palestinian society to official actions of the Israeli government. Can he really be saying that as long as the worst Palestinian commits a crime, Israel has the right top commit and equal or worse crime in response.

That attitude is not only illogical. It is barbaric and uncivilized.

_________________________________

For a long, long time, Michaelr. Israel is the best friend we have in the mid-east. Probably the only one, actually.

DougR

------------------

Yet you keep saying you have the moral high ground.

SO, if it is OK to commit war crimes if one is invaded, Israel is let off the hook, and cannot be held any more accountable than you are holding the Palestinians.

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: beardedbruce
Date: 28 Jul 10 - 02:14 PM

You are a hypocrite in not even acknowledging the human rights abuses by the Palestinians, let alone condemning them.


Yet you keep saying you have the moral high ground.

SO, if it is OK to commit war crimes if one is invaded, Israel is let off the hook, and cannot be held any more accountable than you are holding the Palestinians.

Unless, against your denials, YOU are applying a different standard to one side than you do to the other- which most would determine is bigotry.

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Jul 10 - 01:20 PM

Don't put words in my mouth.
The bombardment is a result of permanent terrorist persecution by the Israelis and will only stop when the Israelis cease that persecution.
The Israelis are the agressors and out-man and out-weapon the Palestinians.
If the Palestinians were to ceace their opposition the Israelis would undoubtably regards this as weakness and move in - and we know what could happen by their previos atrocities in Shatila and Sabra.
Of course the opposition is not good, but in the lighht of past atrocities by the Israelis it is the lesser by far of two evils.
Stop poncing off my ideas tio try and scor points over another member of this forum - THINK FOR YOURSELF OR CUT-N-PASTE SOMETHING.
You are a hypocrite in not even acknowledging the human rights abuses by the Israelis, let alone condemning them.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Jul 10 - 11:04 AM

I ask you Foolestroupe, is it wrong and should it stop?
Jim has answered both, with no. Long winded, but no.
No twisting. No lying.
If he meant yes let him say so.

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 28 Jul 10 - 10:40 AM

"Foolestroupe, he does supportit, saying every little helps."

You sir, are a twisting manipulating liar, or else you lack the ability to understand plain English!

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Jul 10 - 10:32 AM

"Foolestroupe, he does supportit, saying every little helps."
You are somewhat overmilking this aren't you - not surprising, as you have very little else to offer.
As a pacifist I would not wish to be involved in killing - a personal choice that I would not wish to enforce on anybody else.
As a pragmatist I realise that without some sort of resistance Israel would have no hesitation in moving in on Gaza and moving the Palestinians out, with any means at their disposal.
Israel has resorted to heavily armed incursions into Gaza using tanks, planes and chemical weapons. The West has stood by and watched the (yet uncommented on by you) war crimes happen unopposed, apart from an occasional tut-tut, thanks to the economic and political influence wielded by Israel's supporters.
While I have no brief for Hamas, or any religion-driven organisation; (I believe the mixture of politics and religion to be a highly volatile one), and as pathetic as Hamas's opposition is, it does act as a stop-gap and keeps the eyes of the world on the fact that there is resistance. I believe it helps prevent a wholesale massacre of the type that Israel has proved itself more than capable of in the past (also uncommented on by you). As I said - every little helps - any resistance is better than none in this situation.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Jul 10 - 08:12 AM

Foolestroupe, he does supportit, saying every little helps.
I find that shocking too.

Are you saying that they have not actually left Gaza, or some settlers remain?
They left completely long before the incursion (which was only a few days).

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Jul 10 - 07:48 AM

"In the absence of any challenge I will take flight again."
Bye-eee
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 28 Jul 10 - 07:36 AM

"And you, the pacifist, support it. "

That's a disgusting gutter level smear.

A pacifist is unable to stop irrational war mongering rabid nutters like you by force - by definition, all he can do is try to engage them in rational discussion - which of course they always refuse.

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 28 Jul 10 - 07:32 AM

"Question to Emma and Foolestroupe. Do you think the rocketing of civilians is wrong, and should it stop?"

And the targeting of kids throwing stones at tanks being killed by bullets (just to mention ONE of the many endless atrocities against civilians too numerous to mention) is, and it should stop also.

Goodbye - at least till you come back...

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 28 Jul 10 - 07:28 AM

"It had left Gaza, using its army to force out its own settlers."

Haha! They missed a massive number - they musta been hiding, what? :-)

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Jul 10 - 07:09 AM

In the absence of any challenge I will take flight again.

Question to Emma and Foolestroupe. Do you think the rocketing of civillians is wrong, and should it stop?

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Jul 10 - 06:30 AM

Sorry Keith - not being dragged into another of your blind alleys - you've had the arguments, so it's not worth repeating them because you only hear what you want to.
I read this morning that UK Conservative Prime Minister David Cameron is in trouble for describing Gaza as a "prison camp for its 1.5 million Palasinian inhabitants" and that the blockade must end.
Not a place I would usually go for political information or inspiration, but if Maggie Thatcher's party says it is unacceptible - things must be bad,
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Jul 10 - 05:54 AM

"Defence or retalliation against nothing."
Except forty-odd years of incursion into their land....

Yes, the rocket attacks were to avenge historical grievances.
Today's children must die for yesterdays hate.
And you, the pacifist, support it.

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Jul 10 - 05:34 AM

"Defence or retalliation against nothing."
Except forty-odd years of incursion into their land, illegal settlements, chemical weapons, killing and maiming of civilians, destruction of homes, attempts at starvation into submission, a Berlin-type wall, constant persecution and humiliation.... you name it.
"are wrong to say that civillians were targeted."
WHAT????
"I had nothing to add."
This has never stopped you on any of the threads you have contributed to in the past.
"Do we need to go back to the convoy?"
Bit of a turnaround - what!
It is usually you complaining that people should stick to the topic in hand, which in this case is....... an attack on a relief convoy by Israeli pirates.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Jul 10 - 03:57 AM

You said I had taken flight.
You did not really challenge my last posts, and I had nothing to add.
I have no interest in sustaining this, unlike you.

Do we need to go back to the convoy?
The legality is disputed by some, but it is an argument for international lawyers.
Your are entitled to your own opinions, but that is all they are.

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Jul 10 - 03:49 AM

Jim,
"primitive rocket launchers against a well armed (nuclear) state strikes me as being defence, or at most, retaliation"

Defence or retalliation against nothing.
Israel was not attacking them with anything.
It had left Gaza, using its army to force out its own settlers.

The rockets were unprovoked, and were and are a war crime against civillian people.
Other means to stop them were tried and failed.
The incursion was a last resort, and you are wrong to say that civillians were targeted.

Israeli people were dying, and towns in range lived in a permanent state of terror.
What choice did they have?

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Jul 10 - 03:29 AM

"I guess my assumption that you hate Jews more than you care about people is true."
Can I just clear one point up before this sinks any deeper into the slime.
So far this thread has been refreshingly clear of anti-Semitism and has largely confined itself to discussing the actual events of the Palestine-Israeli conflict. This may be down to the vigilance of the site administrators keeping an eye on things, but I like to think that it is because the posters involved care about what is happening in Gaza and have no axe to grind, racist or otherwise.
I suppose it was inevitable that somebody should play the 'race card' - it is a despicable and cowardly way to debate and, to me, shows a paucity of arguments by those who pull such stunts.
Taken to its logical conclusion it means that we can never discuss Zimbabwe because Denis Mugabe is black, or it would make Iraq a no-go area because of the ethnic origins of Sadam Hussain.
Let's keep it clean and not let this become a slanging match or yet another closed thread-eh?
Jim Carroll