BS: Israel condemned by UN

Subject: RE: BS: Israel condemned by UN
From: beardedbruce
Date: 01 Apr 13 - 08:12 AM

Still waiting on the answer to my question:

How much of Israel should Palestinians get to steal?


They have been offered far more than the 47+ percent that GregF thinks they should have, and turned it down.


Jim???

Subject: RE: BS: Israel condemned by UN
From: bobad
Date: 01 Apr 13 - 07:59 AM

It looks like Stringsinger has finally lost the plot completely - it's too bad, he was once relevant.

Subject: RE: BS: Israel condemned by UN
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Apr 13 - 03:13 AM

I admit, a little research on Wiki powerfully backs you up Stringsinger.

The Israeli occupation of Lebanon began in 1976 as a result of the civil war and ended in April 2005 in response to domestic and international pressure after the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister, Rafik Hariri."
In June, 1976, To deal with the opposition posed by this latter group (which was normally allied with Israel), Israel dispatched Palestinian units under its control into Lebanon, and soon after sent in its own troops as well.

September 1986, Lebanon actually requested an end to the Israeli presence in Lebanon. Hence, according to von Glahn, it appeared that lacking legal authority from both Lebanon and the Arab League, Israel's military forces had to be regarded henceforth as illegal occupants of Lebanon."[2]
Following the assassination of the Lebanese ex-premier Rafik Hariri in 2005, and an alleged involvement of Israel in his death a public uprising nicknamed Cedar Revolution had swept the country. With the consequent adoption of UN resolution 1559, Israel was forced to announce its full withdrawal from Lebanon on April 30, 2005.[5]

Subject: RE: BS: Israel condemned by UN
From: Stringsinger
Date: 31 Mar 13 - 10:58 AM

Sling shots are probably done by some Palestinians but are not an official policy. Of course they are no match for cluster bombs and all out military assaults by Israelis.

There are those who are not just Zionists, which may believe different things politically but they are "Zionazis. " Netanyahu, Lieberman and many members of the Likud could be characterized as such. Lebanon might be their new "Sudatenland".

Subject: RE: BS: Israel condemned by UN
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Mar 13 - 03:22 PM

the cameraman saw no violence
So we know he lies.
See my posts 9.51 and 9.50 AM

Subject: RE: BS: Israel condemned by UN
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Mar 13 - 03:19 PM

I have not been caught editing anything Jim.
The untruths pile up.


The news report said that the cameraman saw no violence and the press report says there was no violence in his area and he was deliberately targeted by the soldier, who then dropped on one knee and took aim as he was retreating.

No it did not.
It quoted him as claiming that.
He is no neutral journalist searching out the truth.
He does not work for Irish Times or any other media organisation.
He has been working with and for the Palestinian activists for years.
He was arrested in 2010.
He was there just to get Israel more bad press.
I have no doubt he provoked the soldier, probably throwing rocks at him, but that is just my own speculation.

Subject: RE: BS: Israel condemned by UN
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Mar 13 - 02:54 PM

The news report said that the cameraman saw no violence and the press report says there was no violence in his area and he was deliberately targeted by the soldier, who then dropped on one knee and took aim as he was retreating.
Can I remind you that you have just been caught editing a huge chunk out of the Ellen Seigal story?

Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Israel condemned by UN
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Mar 13 - 02:37 PM

From the introduction to Amnon Kapeliouk's book
The evidence presented here by Amnon Kapeliouk, the testimony given at the Kahan Commission, and the independent news reports about the massacres raise serious questions regarding the legal culpability of the principal Israel and Lebanese actors in the slaughter in Sabra and Shatilla camps. These questions of Criminal, as opposed to political culpability, remain to be dealt with. The Palestinian people are the most aggrieved party, but have no ability to initiate criminal prosecution proceedings. They have no state which can become a party to the several Conventions relating to crimes against humanity. International law placed Israel under a direct, unequivocal duty to protect the civilian population in the refugee camps. Israel not only failed to carry out this responsibility, but actively facilitated the arming and provisioning of the armed militia groups which entered the camp. Israel prevented the flight of the civilian population from the camps. Furthermore, it was the Israeli occupation of West Beirut which secured the approaches to the Sabra and Shatilla camps. Even if there was no coordinated plan between Israeli military officers and Lebanese Forces leadership, Israel remains culpable for its failure to provide even a modicum of protection to the civilian populationThese factors, together with the numerous anti-Palestinian statements such as Prime Minister Begin's remark in the Knesset that Palestinians were "two-legged beasts,'' must be seen as direct and public incitement to commit genocide, complicity in genocide or conspiracy to commit genocide. .
The Genocide Convention demands proof of intent. This is sufficiently established by several facts. Reports to Israeli generals that a massacre was transpiring were not checked. They were not transmitted to superiors, nor were any steps taken to stop the killing until a considerable period of time had elapsed.,/font> The most telling piece of evidence is that none of the perpetrators have been apprehended either for trial by Israeli courts or to be handed over to Lebanese authorities. Israeli military and intelligence officials obviously knew the identities of the armed men who entered the camps between September 16 and 18. Indeed, one of the Phalangists who participated in the massacres traveled to Israel for an interview on Israeli television. Israeli cameramen in West Beirut filmed the Phalangists. Some of their pictures were published and others shown on Israeli television. Many of these militiamen continued to operate in that portion of Lebanon occupied by Israeli soldiers
As a signatory to both the Geneva Conventions and the Genocide Convention, Israel was legally bound to arrest and try those persons who were both directly and indirectly involved in the wanton slaughter in Sabra and Shatilla. In addition to these international provisions, Israeli domestic precedent established in the trial of Adolph Eichmann provided a legal framework in which these provisions could have been carried out. Israel has not done so, and one might ask why if the Begin government were not directly involved ... .

Subject: RE: BS: Israel condemned by UN
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Mar 13 - 02:05 PM

Jim, I asked how you knew they were "peaceful demonstrators "

I looked at the Irish Times piece so I know the answer.
You made it up.
Like you made up Siegel seeing bodies buried and all the other lies you have to tell because you have no case without them.

We never make up anything and even if we were liars, have no need to.

Your case against Israel is based on lies.
Those lies are pushed by some of the nastiest regimes in the world, but decent democracies with free and informed media know it is all lies.

They would not be on warm, friendly terms with a state guilty of such things.
It is all lies.

Subject: RE: BS: Israel condemned by UN
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Mar 13 - 09:51 AM

http://photos.mercurynews.com/2013/03/29/top-news-photos-for-march-29/#4

Subject: RE: BS: Israel condemned by UN
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Mar 13 - 09:50 AM

Young Palestinian protesters use slingshots to hurl stones towards Israeli troops during a demonstration against the expansion of Jewish settlements in the village of Nabi Saleh in the occupied West Bank on March 29, 2013. ABBAS MOMANI/AFP/Getty Images

Subject: RE: BS: Israel condemned by UN
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Mar 13 - 09:42 AM

You always try to change the subject.
Do you know it was a peaceful protest?
I doubt rubber bullets would be used if it was.
A soldier fired the rubber bullet.
He may have been wrong to fire it.
If he was, he should be punished.

the Israelis knew that a massacre was taking place because they were informed of it on day one
Not true.
and their command post was 200 yards from the centre of the action0
No, it was 200 yards from the camp entrance, and people INSIDE were still unaware on the second day.

They would say that. wouldn't they - every other report says they dis, even producing evidence from their own investigation.
No report says they did.

Subject: RE: BS: Israel condemned by UN
From: Stringsinger
Date: 30 Mar 13 - 09:33 AM

The idea that Israeli army had a legitimate operation is ridiculous. The flares over Lebanon violates their air space. The purpose of these flares is to illuminate the area they light
for further military action in violation of international law.

The idea that this is a "self defense" mechanism is ludicrous.

How do you know that the flares have no lethal ability? That hasn't been established.
Even so, it's a provocative act of an aggressive expansionist state.

Subject: RE: BS: Israel condemned by UN
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Mar 13 - 09:27 AM

Do I have this right – the Israelis knew that a massacre was taking place because they were informed of it on day one and their command post was 200 yards from the centre of the action0 "To quote one Israeli officer, watching from the roof of these buildings was like watching "from the front row of a theater" yet they continued to provide extreme illumination for three nights – but that's ok with you – is that right?
I think we're finished with this, don't you?
"It is denied by Israel that they knew from the start"
They would say that. wouldn't they - every other report says they dis, even producing evidence from their own investigation.
you really are not going to respond to the shooting of an Irish cameraman, the use of rubber coated steel bullets on peaceful demonstrators or the shame of the Israeli press who compared the massacre to "Babi Yar" and "Lidice" - are you.
Have a good day
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Israel condemned by UN
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Mar 13 - 09:08 AM

"After each flare, rounds of light artillery fire were heard"
That is exactly what the lady said.

Yes Jim, but the massacre victims were not killed by artillery.

if the flares weren't needed, why provide them?
They were required for the legitimate operation, but were irrelevant to the massacre.

The Israelis new from day one that a massacre was taking placeyet they continued to illuminate the camp - nobody but you has ever disputed it.
Nobody disputes the flares.
It is denied by Israel that they knew from the start, and you have failed to find evidence of that.
Seigel and the doctor did not know until it was over.
The Red Cross and the fim crew and the ambassador who visted the hospital on second day were all unaware of it, and they were all INSIDE the camps.
No Israeli was.

Subject: RE: BS: Israel condemned by UN
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Mar 13 - 08:35 AM

I thought you wouldn't mind my adding the rest of the unlinked and unidentified bit of the article with the awkward bits included
Jim Carroll


WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 19, 2007
Ellen's Story: Nurse, Witness and Peace campaigner
MAKING A POINT in London, before she went on to make a name in Lebanon.

REMEMBERING the massacre at Sabra and Chatila which shocked us all twenty five years ago,
I mentioned Dr.Swee Chai Ang, who worked in the camps' Gaza hospital, and testified before the Kahan Commission in Israel. Swee, whose Singapore Christian background and beliefs had originally predisposed her to see Israel's side before she went to work in Lebanon, wrote about her experiences in "From Beirut to Jerusalem", published in 1989.

Today I'll introduce another witness, from a different background, who worked as a colleague of Swee's at the hospital.

In 1973, two women stood outside the Israeli embassy in London with placards drawing attention to the bizarre logic of Israel's Law of Return. One of them, Ellen Siegel, carried a sign pointing out that as an American Jew, born in the USA, she could "return" to Israel-Palestine. Her co-demonstrator, Palestinian-born Dr. Ghada Karmi bore a sign saying that as a Palestinian, born in Jerusalem she could not return. It was a telling point, when few people here had given thought to what Zionism entailed. It was also a striking little event, at that time for a Jewish woman, identifying herself as such, to protest outside an Israeli embassy.

Ellen Siegel was an unusual woman. But her background seemed usual enough, indeed more conservative than most. "I was born and raised in a conservative/orthodox Jewish household," she says. Her grandparents escaped pogroms in Eastern Europe by coming to America, where they spoke only Yiddish and strictly observed religious holidays. Ms. Siegel's parents followed suit. She attended Hebrew school twice a week, and went to an orthodox synagogue every Saturday, as well as a religious school every Sunday. "It was only when I went to high school that I learned there were people other than Jewish people," she recalls. After high school, Ms. Siegel went to a Jewish nursing school and then practiced in Jewish hospitals in New York and Washington, D.C.

But one thing Ellen seems to have got from her family and teachers is an understanding of what it means to be persecuted, and a sense that when you see people ill-treated it is your duty to speak out. Growing up at a time of America's civil rights struggles she learned to recognise and react against racism - even when she encountered it from fellow-Jews. During a trip to Europe in 1972 she decided to visit the Middle East and see things for herself. Hearing Israelis sound like Southern racists when they talked about "dirty Arabs" was one thing that upset her. But there was more. In Lebanon, Ellen visited the synagogue in Beirut and befriended people in the local Jewish community. She also met Palestinians, and as she said,. "I had been taught that there was no such thing as Palestinian people and I never knew about a land called Palestine. But then I went through the Borj El-Barajneh refugee camp and it was a real mind blower."

Ellen Siegel decided not just to speak but to act. By taking her nursing skills to work among the Palestinian refugees in Lebanon she would be doing something useful and, as being from a religious background she might put it, atoning for the sins of others. Thus it was that in September 1982, a "nice Jewish girl from Baltimore" (as she humorously described herself) found herself nursing amid the hell of Sabra and Chatila. Here is part of her account:

http://randompottins.blogspot.ie/2007/09/ellens-story-nurse-witness-and-peace.html

Subject: RE: BS: Israel condemned by UN
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Mar 13 - 08:24 AM

"After each flare, rounds of light artillery fire were heard"
That is exactly what the lady said.
As I asked - do you believe that the Phalangists stopped firing when the Israeli flares were up and resumed the slaughter when they'd gone out because they preferred to use torches and car headlights - stop being crass - if the flares weren't needed, why provide them?
The Israelis new from day one that a massacre was taking placeyet they continued to illuminate the camp - nobody but you has ever disputed it.
"The carnage began immediately. It lasted forty hours without interruption. The Israelis were able to observe the operations from the roof (seventh floor) of the three Lebanese buildings they had occupied since September 3. They were equipped with telescopes and binoculars with night-vision. In reality, they did not need this equipment because they were only 200 meters away from the major location of the carnage."
"To quote one Israeli officer, watching from the roof of these buildings was like watching "from the front row of a theater."
You are obviously not going to acknowledge the shooting of the camera man, not the reaction of the Israeli press at the time of the massacre - I didn't expect for a moment you would
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Israel condemned by UN
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Mar 13 - 06:47 AM

Jim, there is a discrepancy in Siegel's accounts.
I referred to her more detailed account made 10 years earlier than the one you quote.http://www.mafhoum.com/press2/79P9.htm



First night.
"That evening, a few other health-care workers and I climbed to one of the top floors of the hospital; it had been unused since the recent invasion. Because most of the walls had been bombed out, the view was unobstructed. We watched for a time as flares were shot into the air, brightly illuminating different parts of the camp. After each flare, rounds of light artillery fire were heard. I thought people were trying to shoot down the flares. Not a sound was heard from the camps except the noise of the flares being projected and the shots that followed. No screaming, no cries for help, no human sound, nothing. Israeli planes continued to fly overhead as the night went on.

(Sometime Friday morning, in the midst of this bombardment, a film crew from Visnews came. They did some filming, then left. Late in the afternoon, representatives of the International Committee of the Red Cross appeared; they evacuated a half-dozen critically injured children, whom they placed in other hospitals around the city. They also left us oxygen, blood and other vital and much-needed supplies. Finally, the ambassador of Norway came by".)

Second night
"By that evening, the heavy artillery had ceased. Only the sound of light artillery and gunshots could be heard. Sundown marked the beginning of Rosh Hashanah, the Jewish New Year of 5743. That night I managed to get a few hours' sleep. Very early on Saturday morning, September 18, I was awakened by one of the other nurses."

Despite what she says here, I would have expected firing during the illumination.
The flares were fired for a purpose, but not for a massacre.
The murderers could have easily done their work without flares or in daylight.

Subject: RE: BS: Israel condemned by UN
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Mar 13 - 05:55 AM

"Siegel says there was silence in the camps under the flares."
Where di you get her "silence" claim – another 'makie up', no doubt?
You really don't intend to stop lying, do you?
Jim Carroll

From Ellen Seigal's letter
Where did you get her "silence" claim – another 'makie up', no doubt ?
Jim Carroll
"Following the assassination of the newly-elected president of Lebanon in mid-September all hell broke loose. I listened as Israeli planes broke the sound barrier over the camps, heard continuous heavy artillery fire, and stayed away from shattering windows. For almost 48 hours, from September 16th to the 18th, I attempted to save the lives of those who were brought to the hospital. Many had severe wounds from being shot at close range. I cared for hundreds of terrified refugees seeking the safety of the hospital. I tried to comprehend the throat-slitting gesture the women made. . I WATCHED FROM A TOP FLOOR OF THE HOSPITAL AS FLARES WERE SHOT IN THE AIR. THE FLARES ILLUMINATED AREAS OF THE CAMP; THE SOUND OF AUTOMATIC WEAPONS FIRE FOLLOWED EACH ILLUMINATION."

Not only but also:
"For the next 38 hours, aided by Israeli flares at night, the militiamen raped, tortured, mutilated and massacred civilians. IDF personnel, including General Amos Yaron, IDF Commander in Beirut, were stationed on the rooftop of a seven-story building 200 meters from Shatilla, with a clear view of the camps below. Also there were members of the Phalangist intelligence who had radio communication with militiamen on the ground. By
Friday morning, evidence that a massacre was taking place was communicated to Israeli Chief of Staff, Raphael Eitan, but he approved a request that the Phalangists remain in the camps until 5:00 am Saturday. The militiamen finally left the camps at 8:00 am."
http://www.niu.edu/phil/~kapitan/pdf/SabraandShatillaMassacre.pdf

Subject: RE: BS: Israel condemned by UN
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Mar 13 - 05:29 AM

Are you suggesting that despite the fact that despite the undisputed fact that the Israelis lit the skies with flares, the killers chose not to use that light, but preferred to use torches and car headlights - that they stopped killing every tiome the flares came on - well done Keith, another classic
Jim Carroll

From this morning's Irish Times.
IRISH CAMERAMAN SHOT BY ISRAELIS
AINE McMAHON
An Irish cameraman was shot in the arm yesterday by the Israeli military while filming a protest in the Palestinian village of Nabi Saleh in the occupied West Bank.
Tommy Donnellan from Galway, who travelled to the West Bank last month, said he sustained a wound from a rubber-coated steel bullet which punctured his upper right arm.
Mr Donnellan said he had been filming the protest when he was shot in the arm by an Israeli soldier almost 40 feet away. Nabi Saleh is a village with a population of 550,20km northwest of Ramallah in the Israeli-occupied West Bank.
"I think I was deliberately targeted as a journalist, as my video camera was plainly visible and there was no stone throwing going on anywhere near me. After being hit I remonstrated with the soldier who fired on me. He then went back down on to his knee adopting a firing position; luckily I was able to run to the cover of a nearby wall."
Mr Donnellan said Palestinians were injured by these bullets "almost every day" and many had been killed by "so-called non-lethal weapons".
A spokesman for the Department of Foreign Affairs said the Irish Embassy in Tel Aviv had been in contact with Mr Donnellan to see if he required any consular assistance.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Israel condemned by UN
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Mar 13 - 04:55 AM

A debate can be won or lost, and you lose.
Israeli equipment was supplied.
Never disputed.
Flares were fired.
Not disputed but irrelevant to the massacre.
It would have happened with or without flares.

Siegel says there was silence in the camps under the flares.

Subject: RE: BS: Israel condemned by UN
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Mar 13 - 04:15 AM

"I answered your questions- whether you like the answers is not my problem."
No you didn't Bruce - you made a couple of statements, you were challenged and yo, as you have done every time, did a runner - that is not an answer.
What Don did or did not say (taken out of context by you) is between you and Don, he's more than capable of speaking for himself. - take it up with him and don't hide behind other people's statements - you have mine.
"YOU LOSE."
This is not about winning or losing, not with most of us here anyway.
It's a sick game with you; making up and twisting and turning arguments to win some sort of prize - it's no more than an ego-trip for you.
You've had responses to your claims dozens of times from me and from others - you can't bother reading them.
Meanwhile - back to the reality (please note the constant reference to the presence of Israeli vehicles on the scene - perhaps their headlights were used for the massacre - it was in line with the way Israelis behaved hear.)
The idea of headlights" and "torches" being used is a grotesque nonsense- THERE HAS NEVER BEEN ANY DISPUTE THAT THE ISRAELIS LIT THE SITE UP LIKE A CHRISTMAS TREE - EVEN THEY DIDN'T DENY THAT
And once again, thanks for the opportunity to present yet more evidence.
Jim Carroll


From Kapeliouk
"The carnage began immediately. It lasted forty hours without interruption. The Israelis were able to observe the operations from the roof (seventh floor) of the three Lebanese buildings they had occupied since September 3. They were equipped with telescopes and binoculars with night-vision. In reality, they did not need this equipment because they were only 200 meters away from the major location of the carnage. During these two days, the building swarmed with officers. There was an endless flow of traffic in and out; vehicles of the signal corps, armored vehicles and different units all around. To quote one Israeli officer, watching from the roof of these buildings was like watching "from the front row of a theater.""

"At the same time, pictures depicting scenes from the camps were portrayed on television screens throughout the world. American journalist George Will, notorious for his relentless support of Israel, described the massacre as the ''Babi Yar" of Israel. He wrote: ''Palestinians have now had their Babi Yar, their Lidice. The Beirut massacre has altered the moral algebra of the Middle East, producing a new symmetry of suffering"[6] (Washington Post, September 23, 1982).
American Jews interviewed by an Israeli television correspondent stated that they were ashamed of being Jewish at such times. The Jewish Chronicle, official organ of the Jewish community in England, wrote: "After the 'mopping up' of camps in Beirut, it is Israel that should now be cleaned of all those who authorized or were implicated in this horror which brought shame to us all."

And from the Israeli press – the aftermath of the massacre:
"WAR CRIME IN BEIRUT"
Units of the Lebanese Army established a "security belt" around the two camps using 1500 soldiers supported by 40 armored vehicles. The deployment of Lebanese troops continued throughout the night. By Monday morning, there were no signs of Israeli soldiers.
Inside the camps, the smell of death grew stronger as new corpses were uncovered. At the entrance of Shatila, more than 100 bodies were still lined on the ground near two mass graves. Many bodies were already in a state of decomposition making it impossible to identify the victims. The corpses were lowered inside these massive holes and covered with quicklime. The burials, which started the day before, continued for several days.
Oblivious to the rescue teams, survivors of the camps continued to wander aimlessly hoping to locate a missing parent or a precious possession. An elderly man, accompanied by a woman and two children, searched in the rubble of their home in Shatila. Their cries deafened nearby rescue workers. However, none of the workers dared to speak to them. Further down, a young man returned to locate his brother's remains. He uncovered another corpse behind every wall. Three young people sitting next to a demolished hut whispered to each other. One of them told an approaching journalist: "We will never again rely on the promises of others. We will never again entrust others with our destiny and security. We will take care of ourselves by ourselves."
Camp residents were still traumatized by the forty hours of carnage they lived through. In the morning, two trucks arrived loaded with Lebanese soldiers dressed in bright green uniforms, in contrast to the dark green worn by the other soldiers stationed in the camps. The residents were struck with horror as rumors spread that "Haddad's militiamen are back." Hundreds of panic-stricken residents stampeded northward. They did not return to the camp until the afternoon when they received assurances from the Lebanese authorities.
In West Beirut, Israeli withdrawal from the center of the city to the periphery became evident as early as Monday morning. Nine days later, on September 29, the Israelis, UNDER STRONG AMERICAN PRESSURE, had completed their total withdrawal from Beirut including the airport. They were replaced by troops from the Multinational Force. Meanwhile, the Israelis continued to search for arms and munition depots. They went through the neighborhoods with bullhorns, asking the residents to surrender their weapons. Israeli officers driving military vehicles or even civilian cars with Israeli license plates, dashed through the streets of Beirut with name-lists in their hands. Often accompanied by local informers, they would slowly drive back and forth past the headquarters, press offices or residences of leftist Lebanese leaders who sympathized with the Palestinian cause. Frequently, they would stop and ask whether so-and-so was inside. If the person they sought was not there, they would make an appointment to pick him up an hour later. Blindfolded civilians with their hands tied behind their backs were seen being transported in Israeli vehicles. No one knows the exact number of Lebanese and Palestinians arrested by the Israelis in Beirut. Their present legal status and whereabouts are also unknown. The Lebanese press estimates the number of detainees at 1000-1500.
Israeli soldiers continued to plunder the well-equipped library of the Palestine Research Center of the P.L.O. in West Beirut. All materials, books and documents were loaded indiscriminately aboard trucks chartered for this task. A jeep and a tank covered this operation. When questioned by a Lebanese journalist, the Israeli officer in charge of the "moving operation" responded that his soldiers were taking "everything I find useful." He added: "We are the 'People of the Book,' and we have great respect for books." When the journalist reminded him that this was a research center, the Israeli officer retorted: "It is a center of espionage. There are no Palestinian intellectuals, only spies. The evidence we found includes biographies of Israeli officers."[7]
Daily life in West Beirut became increasingly precarious. Food supplies had not been replenished for five days, the city was without electric power and the water supply was diminishing. Furthermore, the scarcity of fuel oil threatened to close the last functioning major hospital in the city -the American Hospital.
In Israel, newspapers appeared for the first time since the massacre was announced. A front-page headline in Ha'aretz read: "War Crime in Beirut." Its military correspondent, Ze'ev Schiff, started his article with these words:

A war crime has been committed in the refugee camps of Beirut. The Phalangists have killed hundreds, if not more, of elderly people, women and children, exactly in the same fashion pogroms were carried out against Jews. It is not true, as claimed by official spokesmen that we didn't learn of this crime until Saturday at noon after receiving reports filed by foreign correspondents stationed in Beirut. I personally heard about it on Friday morning. I brought all my information to the attention of a senior official who took immediate action. In other words, the massacre began Thursday evening, and what I learned on Friday morning was certainly known to others before me.

On its editorial page, the same paper wrote:

The circumstances under which the horrible deed was carried out inevitably clarified Israel's responsibility indirect or direct, for the death of hundreds of helpless people. ... Even if Israel cannot clean the stain of Sabra and Shatila, it is its duty to show -first to itself and then to the rest of the world- that it is taking itself to task because of this terrible event that has taken place within the realm of its responsibility. The removal from office of General Eitan and Mr. Sharon is a first and necessary precondition for us to be able to look ourselves and the world straight in the eyes again. (Ha'aretz, September 21, 1982).

Under the headline: "The Shame of Beirut," the Labor daily, Davar, wrote: "It is difficult to be an Israeli ... We shall not be able to absolve ourselves of this stain. What has been perpetrated by those who carried out the Deir Yassin massacre, the commander of the Qibya raid and the one who commuted Daniel Pinto's sentence,[8] defames the entire nation today." Hanna Zemer, editor-in-chief of Davar, referred to the "villainous government which dragged the State of Israel into moral bankruptcy." She added: "If the government forces the army to stay in Beirut and continues to assign it the role of gendarme in this region of the world, we won't surrender our reservist cards, but the day will come soon when we shall surrender our identity cards because this is not our identity."
Al-Hamishmar, the voice of MAPAM (United Workers Party), wrote: "This slaughter has made the war in Lebanon the greatest disaster to befall the Jewish people since the holocaust." Even the evening newspapers which are generally favorable to Begin's policy on relations with the Arabs did not try to avoid responsibility. Both Yedi'ot Aharonot and Ma'ariv thought that Israel shared some indirect blame for the massacre.
The right wing political parties were quite embarrassed. A number of their leaders were quoted saying: "It is better not to discuss the situation because it is harmful to Israel." Others, as if trying to vindicate themselves, declared: "It is not, however, the first time a massacre has occurred in the Middle East!" Nevertheless, these reactions did not succeed in containing the indignation of many diverse elements. The press published on Saturday, and in subsequent issues, articles and statements of unparalleled intensity. Israel Zamir, the son of Nobel Prize-winner Isaac Bashevis-Singer, wrote: "Until this day, the word 'pogrom' had a connotation which directly concerned us, Jews, as victims. Prime Minister Begin has 'extended' the scope of the term: there was Babi-Yar, Lidice, Oradour, and now there is Sabra and Shatila."

Subject: RE: BS: Israel condemned by UN
From: Greg F.
Date: 29 Mar 13 - 04:17 PM

GIVE ME A NUMBER!

47.275

Subject: RE: BS: Israel condemned by UN
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Mar 13 - 02:54 PM

Jim.
what ****** cars - perhaps the Phalangists drove into the camps in Jags and Mercs

Siegel reports the Phalange having "jeeps" in the camp.

Also, although I do not really believe in apocryphal Peterson the canny cameraman, he says they had trucks too.

Subject: RE: BS: Israel condemned by UN
From: Greg F.
Date: 29 Mar 13 - 02:34 PM

Hey Bruce, you ever look up the studies on the value & validity of eyewitness testimony?

No? Do check it out before you go slagging Don off.

You might actually learn something. Or not.

Subject: RE: BS: Israel condemned by UN
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Mar 13 - 01:36 PM

I think we've all become tired of feeding your ego by responding to made up facts and figures.

Another of your lies that repetition has elevated to the status of FUCKING LIE!

I make up nothing.
I can substantiate everything and keep offering to.

You know this, so you can only repeat the lie.

YOU LOSE.

Subject: RE: BS: Israel condemned by UN
From: beardedbruce
Date: 29 Mar 13 - 01:21 PM

Now, Jim, you have NEVER answered my questions.

1. What percentage of the Mandate Palestine should be given to the Arab Moslums, and what percentage to the Jews? Remember,

"The 1922 census of Palestine was the first census carried out by the authorities of the British Mandate of Palestine, on 23 October 1922.[1]
The reported population was 757,182, including the military and persons of foreign nationality. The division into religious groups was 590,390 Muslims, 83,694 Jews, 73,024 Christians, 7,028 Druze, 1,454 Hindus, 808 Sikhs, 265 Bahais, 156 Metawalis, and 163 Samaritans.[2]"

That means that Muslims were 77.9% of the total population. And the Mandate power (Great Britain) split off over 77% of the land and created an Arab state, with Jews prohibited.

So how much of the less than 33% of the remaining Mandate Palestine territory would you say that the Arab Muslims should be given?

GIVE ME A NUMBER!

Subject: RE: BS: Israel condemned by UN
From: beardedbruce
Date: 29 Mar 13 - 01:10 PM

Jim,

I answered your questions- whether you like the answers is not my problem.

DonT has stated that eyewitness testimony is not valid. So, even if you could show that the people YOU claim saw the massacre did so, you must provide documented evidence for it to be valid- that means actual bodies, I guess ( ask Don what he would accept...) You have claimed they are under the stadium- have you any evidence of that, such as bones or at least xrays of the area?


If not, we have to go by Don's rules, which state you have no evidence.

Subject: RE: BS: Israel condemned by UN
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Mar 13 - 01:00 PM

"So you can not challenge one statement."
No Keith - I choose to end this black-hole argument here - I think we've all become tired of feeding your ego by responding to made up facts and figures.
Come up with some facts and and sources that you haven't invented and you might have a case - why should anybody bother responding to a self-confessed ignoramous who is stupid enough to admit he is only presenting one side of the case.
Hi Bruce - back to take up where you left off (27 Mar 13 - 01:13 PM ")? - didn't think so somehow.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Israel condemned by UN
From: beardedbruce
Date: 29 Mar 13 - 11:24 AM

Eyewitness statements ARE NOT VALID EVIDENCE, according to DonT.


"From: Don(Wyziwyg)T - PM
Date: 28 Mar 13 - 02:54 PM
...I
... unsupported word would not carry a case in any court of law. Why should you assume that it would be any different here.
....

Don T."

Subject: RE: BS: Israel condemned by UN
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Mar 13 - 09:05 AM

So you can not challenge one statement.
You lose.

Dr Ang Swee Chai and Nurse Siegel describe in detail what happened in the hospital right in the centre of the camps.
No-one reported massacres and they were unaware of them, so it is not surprising that IDF outside were also unaware.

Can you find something in either account that contradicts that?
No you can not.

Subject: RE: BS: Israel condemned by UN
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Mar 13 - 08:03 AM

Piss off Keith - you've blown it
If you hadn't done your old usual of aiming for the last word again none of us would have bothered taking it any further.
As it is, as well as showing yourself as the arsehole you are you've given us the opportunity to present sources that we wouldn't have bothered with.
I knew about the Kapeliouk book and am grateful for the chance to present some of his findings, I was not aware of the Inequality Report which will be useful for future reference, and again, I'm grateful for the opportunity to learn from it and for being able to share it with others.
"The hospital treated people wounded in fighting."
Your arguments get crasser and crasser.
The hospitals I'm familiar with treat everything from headaches to bubonic plague - I would have thought that anybody injured as the result of being present at a massacre would rate fairly high on their priority scale.
Your desperation is beginning to show.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Israel condemned by UN
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Mar 13 - 06:01 AM

So do you challenge my statement about the countries that did and did not vote for all those UN motions?
No you don't.

Do you challenge Siegel's statement that there was complete silence under the flares?
No you don't
"No screams. No cries for help." The only sounds were of "light artillery" (most likely the mortars firing the flares)

If Fisk was not there, he can not be a witness.
None of the eye witnesses he spoke to that morning implicated IDF.
Luckily for him, every time he went back, he found more and more who did.
It would not make a story if just another Arab on Arab massacre.

Massacre victims do not go to hospital.
The hospital treated people wounded in fighting.
None of the hospital testimonies mentioned patients reporting massacres (except for rapes and murders at another hospital that never actually happened).
Deny any of that Jim?
No you don't.
Israeli soldiers. Many testified at the time.
Strangely, the vast majority of soldiers present do not report anything different, and the tiny handful that now do, only emerged long after.
That makes their stories highly equivocal.

Subject: RE: BS: Israel condemned by UN
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Mar 13 - 05:15 AM

"Fisk arrived after the massacre."
Apart from the eye-witnesses, whose testimony you have rejected out of hand as being biased, untrustworthy, anti-Israeli, bigoted....... everybody other than the perpetrators and survivors "arrived after the massacre" That is the nature of all crimes and all investigations into crimes.
You have even dismissed the statements of the Israeli soldiers who confessed to co-operating with the killing and had conscience enough to speak out .
Fisk was one of the first on the scene and made a point of gathering information from everybody he could and published what he came up with; he later followed that up with a long term investigation and published his findings on that.
Dr Ang Swee Chai was there; she lectured on her experiences (you have yet to explain where your ridiculous "book cover" claim came from), explaining what happened in detail (your utterly stupid suggestion that medical staff who were treating casualties in the middle of a massacre didn't know what was going on really does sum up your mindless defence of all this)   
Amnon Kapeliouk painstakingly researched the massacre, scoured all the available evidence, weighed it up and published it, giving all the references he had drawn upon; those references came from both the eye-witnesses and the Israelis - both sides of the argument – his sources are exhaustive and impeccable.
It remains, as far as I can see, the most comprehensive analysis of the massacre - from an Israeli Jewish academic - if a bit long for some people.
You have been given all this and much more - in return you have presented unattributed statements which, as you have failed to identify your sources, leave the impression that they are your own inventions - you made up facts to get the Israeli regime off the hook, even going so far as to implicate the 3,000 victims in terrorism by suggesting that they were armed and could fight their killers- another bottom-of-the-barrel.
Your Alice in Wonderland claims regarding the illumination provided beggars belief - torches, car headlights (what ****** cars - perhaps the Phalangists drove into the camps in Jags and Mercs and didn't arrive on Israeli-provided transport as documented - or maybe they nicked cars from the local car parks in this refugee camp - are you out of your skull?)
You have rejected every single piece of evidence that doesn't back up the Israeli case and have provided none of your own - not a scrap - and you call us bigoted!!
You have now topped your case by presenting the United Nations as a 'Muslim Plot' to make your non- existent case.
Jay-sus
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Israel condemned by UN
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Mar 13 - 04:46 PM

Jim, Fisk arrived after the massacre.
Nothing he saw or heard on that first day implicated Israel.

Of all your UN resolutions, not one was supported by a proper democracy.

Democracies are outvoted at UN by dictatorships and Islamic Republics.

Proper democracies, with a free and informed press and media, know that all the ant-Israel shit is just that.

The lies you peddle are recognised as just that, outside your little bubble of bigots.

Subject: RE: BS: Israel condemned by UN
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Mar 13 - 03:51 PM

No I didn't Mike – "don't be so sensitive" as you rightfully say you've kept your head down and chosen to act as a character witness for this abomination – god knows why.
You really should explain to your ward that responding to facts with nonsense like "All the motions were proposed by nasty Islamic Republics" really is underlining his idiocy, but hey – who am I to tell somebody else how to bring their kids up?
I was referring to 'One step forward, two steps back' Bruce who reminds me of the old Billy Connolly joke –"if you want to confuse a policeman, ask him a question".
G' luck
Jim Carroll

From Robert Fisk – one of the first reporters on the scene after the massacre:
September 15, 1982 – Sharon orders shelling of refugee camps and with Israel support, Lebanese Christian militia enter camps and begin slaughter
As soon as the peacekeeping force was withdrawn, the then Israeli Defence Minister Ariel Sharon moved to root out some "2,000 terrorists" he claimed were still hiding in the refugee camps of Sabra and Shatila. After totally surrounding the refugee camps with tanks and soldiers, Sharon ordered the shelling of the camps and the bombardment continued throughout the afternoon and into the evening of 15 September leaving the "mopping-up" of the camps to the Lebanese right-wing Christian militia, known as the Phalangists. The next day, the Phalangists – armed and trained by the Israeli army – entered the camps and proceeded to massacre the unarmed civilians while Israel's General Yaron and his men watched the entire operations. More grotesquely, the Israeli army ensured there was no lull in the 36 hours of killings and illuminated the area with flares at night and tightened their cordon around the camps to make sure that no civilian could escape the terror that had been unleashed.
Israel's Kahan Commission of Inquiry "not intended for people who have a prejudice in favour of truth and honesty", including US Congress
Although Israel's Kahan Commission of Inquiry did not find any Israeli directly responsible, it did find that Sharon bore "personal responsibility" for "not ordering appropriate measures for preventing or reducing the danger of massacre" before sending the Phalangists into the camps. It, therefore, lamely recommended that the Israeli prime minister consider removing him from office. [14] Sharon resigned but remained as Minister without portfolio and joined two parliamentary commissions on defence and Lebanese affairs. There is no doubt, as Chomsky points out "that the inquiry was not intended for people who have a prejudice in favour of truth and honesty", but it certainly gained support for Israel in the US Congress and among the public. [15]
Although International Commission found Israel directly responsible, no one was prosecuted
Monday, December 3, 2007
Broken U.N. Resolutions
Here's a list of U.N. Resolutions issued against, or ignored by, Israel. At the end are some of the human rights, issued by the Geneva Convention, that Israel has also violated.
All of this infomation was compiled by Jews Against the Occupation, and is available on their website.

Palestinian Refugees have the right to return to their homes in Israel.
General Assembly Resolution 194, Dec. 11, 1948
"Resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbors should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible."

Israel's occupation of Palestine is Illegal.
Security Council Resolution 242, Nov. 22, 1967
Calls for the withdrawal of Israeli forces from territories occupied in the war that year and "the acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every state in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force."

Israel's settlements in Palestine are Illegal.
Security Council Resolution 446, March 22, 1979
"Determines that the policy and practices of Israel in establishing settlements in the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967 have no legal validity and constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East."

Palestinian have the right to Self-Determination.
General Assembly Resolution 3236, November 22, 1974
Affirms "the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people in Palestine...to self-determination without external interference" and "to national independence and sovereignty."

Reaffirmation of a Palestinian State
Security Council Resolution 1397, March 12, 2002
Affirms "a vision of a region where two states, Israel and Palestine, live side by side within secure and recognized borders."

More UN Resolutions on Israel, 1955-1992
Resolution 106: condemns Israel for Gaza raid.
Resolution 111: condemns Israel for raid on Syria that killed fifty-six people.
Resolution 127: recommends Israel suspend its no-man's zone' in Jerusalem.
Resolution 162: urges Israel to comply with UN decisions.
Resolution 171: determines flagrant violations by Israel in its attack on Syria.
Resolution 228: censures Israel for its attack on Samu in the West Bank, then under Jordanian control.
Resolution 237: urges Israel to allow return of new 1967 Palestinian refugees.
Resolution 248: condemns Israel for its massive attack on Karameh in Jordan.
Resolution 250: calls on Israel to refrain from holding military parade in Jerusalem.
Resolution 251: deeply deplores Israeli military parade in Jerusalem in defiance of Resolution 250.
Resolution 252: declares invalid Israel's acts to unify Jerusalem as Jewish capital.
Resolution 256: condemns Israeli raids on Jordan as flagrant violation.
Resolution 259: deplores Israel's refusal to accept UN mission to probe occupation.
Resolution 262: condemns Israel for attack on Beirut airport.
Resolution 265: condemns Israel for air attacks for Salt in Jordan.
Resolution 267: censures Israel for administrative acts to change the status of Jerusalem.
Resolution 270: condemns Israel for air attacks on villages in southern Lebanon.
Resolution 271: condemns Israel's failure to obey UN resolutions on Jerusalem.
Resolution 279: demands withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanon.
Resolution 280: condemns Israeli's attacks against Lebanon.
Resolution 285: demands immediate Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon.
Resolution 298: deplores Israel's changing of the status of Jerusalem.
Resolution 313: demands that Israel stop attacks against Lebanon.
Resolution 316: condemns Israel for repeated attacks on Lebanon.
Resolution 317: deplores Israel's refusal to release.
Resolution 332: condemns Israel's repeated attacks against Lebanon.
Resolution 337: condemns Israel for violating Lebanon's sovereignty.
Resolution 347: condemns Israeli attacks on Lebanon.
Resolution 425: calls on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon.
Resolution 427: calls on Israel to complete its withdrawal from Lebanon.
Resolution 444: deplores Israel's lack of cooperation with UN peacekeeping forces.
Resolution 446: determines that Israeli settlements are a serious obstruction to peace and calls on Israel to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention
Resolution 450: calls on Israel to stop attacking Lebanon.
Resolution 452: calls on Israel to cease building settlements in occupied territories.
Resolution 465: deplores Israel's settlements and asks all member states not to assist its settlements program.
Resolution 467: strongly deplores Israel's military intervention in Lebanon.
Resolution 468: calls on Israel to rescind illegal expulsions of two Palestinian mayors and a judge and to facilitate their return.
Resolution 469: strongly deplores Israel's failure to observe the council's order not to deport Palestinians.
Resolution 471: expresses deep concern at Israel's failure to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention.
Resolution 476: reiterates that Israel's claim to Jerusalem are null and void.
Resolution 478: censures (Israel) in the strongest terms for its claim to Jerusalem in its Basic Law.
Resolution 484: declares it imperative that Israel re-admit two deported Palestinian mayors.
Resolution 487: strongly condemns Israel for its attack on Iraq's nuclear facility.
Resolution 497: decides that Israel's annexation of Syria's Golan Heights
is null and void and demands that Israel rescinds its decision forthwith.
Resolution 498: calls on Israel to withdraw from Lebanon.
Resolution 501: calls on Israel to stop attacks against Lebanon and withdraw its troops.
Resolution 509: demands that Israel withdraw its forces forthwith and unconditionally from Lebanon.
Resolution 515: demands that Israel lift its siege of Beirut and allow food supplies to be brought in.
Resolution 517: censures Israel for failing to obey UN resolutions and demands that Israel withdraw its forces from Lebanon.
Resolution 518: demands that Israel cooperate fully with UN forces in Lebanon.
Resolution 520: condemns Israel's attack into West Beirut.
Resolution 573: condemns Israel vigorously for bombing Tunisia in attack on PLO headquarters.
Resolution 587: takes note of previous calls on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon and urges all parties to withdraw.
Resolution 592: strongly deplores the killing of Palestinian students at Bir Zeit University by Israeli troops.
Resolution 605: strongly deplores Israel's policies and practices denying the human rights of Palestinians.
Resolution 607: calls on Israel not to deport Palestinians and strongly requests it to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention.
Resolution 608: deeply regrets that Israel has defied the United Nations and deported Palestinian civilians.
Resolution 636: deeply regrets Israeli deportation of Palestinian civilians.
Resolution 641: deplores Israel's continuing deportation of Palestinians.
Resolution 672: condemns Israel for violence against Palestinians at the Haram Al-Sharif/Temple Mount.
Resolution 673: deplores Israel's refusal to cooperate with the United Nations.
Resolution 681: deplores Israel's resumption of the deportation of Palestinians.
Resolution 694: deplores Israel's deportation of Palestinians and calls on it to ensure their safe and immediate return.
Resolution 726: strongly condemns Israel's deportation of Palestinians.
Resolution 799: strongly condemns Israel's deportation of 413 Palestinians and calls for their immediate return.

The Fourth Geneva Convention (1949) is a cornerstone of international humanitarian law that ensures minimum protections for civilians in armed conflict and occupation. It forbids, among other things: the construction of settlements on occupied land1, unilateral annexation2, willful killing of civilians3, collective punishment4, torture5, and the destruction of property without a compelling military reason6. It also requires judicial accountability for those who commit war crimes (defined as "grave breaches" listed in Article 147 of the Convention). The Convention fully takes into account military necessity and cannot be violated for "security" reasons.

1Article 49, 2Article 47, 3Articles 146-147, 4Article 33, 5Articles 31-32 and146-147, 6Articles 53 and 146-147
Posted by AmelMag at 1:40 PM

http://salemshalom.blogspot.ie/2007/12/heres-list-of-u.html

Subject: RE: BS: Israel condemned by UN
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 28 Mar 13 - 10:09 AM

... to have ‸been‸ too much for you to resist...

Subject: RE: BS: Israel condemned by UN
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Mar 13 - 10:06 AM

Your list of vetoes.
All the motions were proposed by nasty Islamic Republics and vicious little dictatorships who outnumber the decent democracies, NONE of whom supported all those ludicrous accusations.

All just lies and shit and that is all you are pushing.
Who believes it?
Not Ireland, or Denmark, or any EU state, or Australia, or Finland, Canada.....

None believe your ludicrous lurid lies

Subject: RE: BS: Israel condemned by UN
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 28 Mar 13 - 10:02 AM

"even your mate has done another runner when asked to back up his statements."
.,,.
I suspect you mean me here, Jim. I have made no statements, except that I take most of your points on board and am much grieved ~~ which, for some reason I have never quite fathomed, is never enough for you as you persist in impugning my sincerity in the matter. Perhaps you suspect my motivations; as you know, there are reasons I have mentioned before that I suspect your attitudes to this question to be somewhat dubiously motivated; but I do not propose to expound on that any further. I have pretty well opted out of the thread because, as I have said before, I find this entire situation all too painful. Is that what you call doing a runner? Last time I said this you agreed to get, and stay, off my back IIRC; but the temptation for a bit of snidery seems to have too much for you to resist.

I keep up with the thread nevertheless. Not sure why. A bit of Mallory on Everest, I suppose: "Because it's there."

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Israel condemned by UN
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Mar 13 - 10:00 AM

Same old shit Jim.
You say I have not substantiated statements, but you can not actually identify one. I keep asking you to.

I do not "support Israel".I just ask you to justify your ludicrous claims that the whole world know are lies.

There were fighters in the camp.
Siegel herself states that fact.
She says there were few, not none.

Had there been none, it would still have been reasonable to go in and check.

Subject: RE: BS: Israel condemned by UN
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Mar 13 - 09:26 AM

"making up lies about Israel."
"Every one stands up and can be substantiated, unlike your shit."
No free, informed nation believes those lurid, ludicrous lies."
You are the only one here to have consistently failed or refused to give and evidence - you make up 'facts', you don't link your claims, you reuse to respond when you are requested to back up your statements, you contradict yourself to support your particular line, you have provided no factual basis whatever for YOUR statements.
You have been given the opportunity to substantiate your support for Israel - you haven't and you make it quite clear you have no intention whatever of doing so.
You are still on your own here - even your mate has done another runner when asked to back up his statements.
"Your ludicrous, lurid accusations are believed by no-one outside your bunch of bigots in your bubble of lies."
It is difficult to get an overall figure of how many times the US has supported Israel with its veto.
Up to 1992 the US had used its veto 32 times in support of Israel; between 2001 and 2011 it used another 11 times.
This is a list of those between 1972 and 2011 from the pro Israeli 'Jewish Virtual Library'
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/UN/usvetoes.html
Jim Carroll

"U.S. Middle East Policy
U.S. Vetoes of U.N. Resolutions on Behalf of Israel
By Donald Neff
Former Time Magazine Bureau Chief, Israel
This updated version was published in Fifty Years of Israel
Originally printed in Washington Report, September ⁄ October 1993

Donald Neff has been a journalist for forty years. He spent 16 years in service for Time Magazine and is a regular contributor to Middle East International and the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs. He has written five excellent books on the Middle East.
On March 17, 1970, the United States cast its first veto in the United Nations Security Council during the presidency of Richard Nixon, when Henry Kissinger was the national security adviser. It was a historic moment, since up to that time Washington had been able to score heavy propaganda points because of the Soviet Union's profligate use of its veto.

The first U.S. veto in history was a gesture of support for Britain, which was under Security Council pressure to end the white minority government in southern Rhodesia.
Two years later, however, on Sept. 10, 1972, the United States employed its veto for the second time—to shield Israel.1 That veto, as it turned out, signalled the start of a cynical policy to use the U.S. veto repeatedly to shield Israel from international criticism, censure and sanctions.
Washington used its veto 32 times to shield Israel from critical draft resolutions between 1972 and 1997. This constituted nearly half of the total of 69 U.S. vetoes cast since the founding of the U.N. The Soviet Union cast 115 vetoes during the same period.2
The initial 1972 veto to protect Israel was cast by George Bush [Sr.] in his capacity as U.S. ambassador to the world body. Ironically, it was Bush as president who temporarily stopped the use of the veto to shield Israel 18 years later. The last such veto was cast on May 31, 1990, it was thought, killing a resolution approved by all 14 other council members to send a U.N. mission to study Israeli abuses of Palestinians in the occupied territories. Then President Bill Clinton came along and cast three more.
The rationale for casting the first veto to protect Israel was explained by Bush at the time as a new policy to combat terrorists. The draft resolution had condemned Israel's heavy air attacks against Lebanon and Syria, starting Sept. 6, the day after 11 Israeli athletes were killed at the 1972 Munich Olympic Games in an abortive Palestinian attempt to seize them as hostages to trade for Palestinians in Israeli prisons.3 Between 200 and 500 Lebanese, Syrians and Palestinians, mostly civilians, were killed in the Israeli raids.4
Nonetheless, Bush complained that the resolution had failed to condemn terrorist attacks against Israel, adding: "We are implementing a new policy that is much broader than that of the question of Israel and the Jews. What is involved is the problem of terrorism, a matter that goes right to the heart of our civilized life."5
Unfortunately, this "policy" proved to be only a rationale for protecting Israel from censure for violating a broad range of international laws. This became very clear when the next U.S. veto was cast a year later, on July 26, 1973. It had nothing to do with terrorism. The draft resolution affirmed the rights of the Palestinians and established provisions for Israeli withdrawal from occupied territories as embodied in previous General Assembly resolutions.6 Nonetheless, Washington killed this international effort to end Israel's occupation of Palestinian lands.
Washington used the veto four more times in 1975-76 while Henry Kissinger was secretary of state. One of these vetoes arguably may have involved terrorism, since the draft condemned Israeli attacks on Lebanese civilians in response to attacks on Israel. But the three other vetoes had nothing at all to do with terrorism.
One, in fact, struck down a draft resolution that reflected U.S. policy against Israel's alteration of the status of Jerusalem and establishment of Jewish settlements in occupied territory. Only two days earlier, U.S. Ambassador William W. Scranton had given a speech in the United Nations calling Israeli settlements illegal and rejecting Israel's claim to all of Jerusalem.7 Yet on March 25, 1976, the U.S. vetoed a resolution reflecting Scranton's positions which had been passed unanimously by the other 14 members of the council.8
The two other vetoes during Kissinger's reign also were cast in 1976. One, on Jan. 26, killed a draft resolution calling for recognition of the right of self-determination for Palestinians. The other, on June 29, called for affirmation of the "inalienable rights" of the Palestinians.9
The Carter administration cast only one veto. But it had nothing to do with terrorism. It came on April 30, 1980, killing a draft that endorsed self-determination for the Palestinian people.10
The all-time abuser of the veto was the administration of Ronald Reagan, the most pro-Israel presidency in U.S. history, with the most pro-Israel secretary of state, George Shultz, since Kissinger. The Reagan team cynically invoked the veto 18 times to protect Israel. A record six of these vetoes were cast in 1982 alone. Nine of the Reagan vetoes resulted directly from Security Council attempts to condemn Israel's 1982 invasion of Lebanon, and Israel's refusal to surrender the territory in southern Lebanon which it still occupies today. The other nine vetoes shielded Israel from council criticism for such illicit acts as the Feb. 4, 1986, skyjacking of a Libyan plane.11
Israeli warplanes forced the executive jet to land in Israel, allegedly in an effort to capture Palestinian terrorist Abu Nidal. He was not aboard and, after interrogation, the passengers were allowed to leave.12 The U.S. delegate explained that this act of piracy was excusable "because we believe that the ability to take such action in carefully defined and limited circumstances is an aspect of the inherent right of self-defense recognized in the U.N. Charter."13
Other vetoes employed on Israel's exclusive behalf included the Jan. 20, 1982 killing of a demand that Israel withdraw from the Golan Heights it had occupied in 196714; the April 20, 1982 condemnation of an Israeli soldier who shot 11 Muslim worshippers at the Haram Al-Sharif in the Old City of Jerusalem15; the Feb. 1, 1988 call for Israel to stop violating Palestinian human rights in the occupied territories, abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention and formalize a leading role for the United Nations in future peace negotiations16; the April 15, 1988 resolution requesting that Israel permit the return of expelled Palestinians, condemning Israel's shooting of civilians, calling on Israel to uphold the Fourth Geneva Convention and calling for a peace settlement under U.N. auspices.17
The Bush [Sr.] administration used the veto four times to protect Israel: on Feb. 17, 1989, to kill a draft strongly deploring Israel's repression of the Palestinian uprising and calling on Israel to respect the human rights of the Palestinians18; on June 9, 1989, deploring Israel's violation of the human rights of the Palestinians19; on Nov. 7, 1989, demanding Israel return property confiscated from Palestinians during a tax protest and calling on Israel to allow a fact-finding mission to observe Israel's suppression tactics against the Palestinian uprising20; and, finally, on May 31, 1990, calling for a fact-finding mission on abuses against Palestinians in Israeli-occupied lands.21
The May 31, 1990 veto was the last, presumably, as the result of a secret understanding, if not an official agreement, with Russia and the three other Security Council members with veto power. By then it had become obvious that the council could not be effective in a post-Cold War world if Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States recklessly invoked their vetoes.
Moreover, the international alliances sought by Washington to repel Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in August, 1990 made it necessary for the Bush administration to retain unity in the Security Council. As a result, instead of abstaining on or vetoing resolutions critical of Israel, as it did in 1989 and the first half of 1990, the Bush administration abruptly joined other members in late 1990, 1991 and 1992 in passing six resolutions deploring or strongly condemning Israel's conduct against the Palestinians.22
These resolutions brought the total passed by the council against Israel since its birth to 68. If the United States had not invoked its veto, the record against Israel would total 100 resolutions condemning or otherwise criticizing its behavior or supporting the rights of Palestinians.
The agreement on vetoes held until March, 1995, when President Clinton invoked the veto after all 14 other members approved a U.N. Security Council resolution calling on Israel to rescind a decision to expropriate 130 acres of land in Arab East Jerusalem.23 The Clinton administration exercised two more vetoes in 1997, both of them on resolutions otherwise unanimously supported by the 14 other Security Council members. The draft resolution was critical of Israel's plans to establish a new settlement at Har Homa ⁄ Jabal Abu Ghneim in East Jerusalem in the midst of Palestinian housing.24
The three Clinton vetoes brought to 32 the number Washington has cast to protect Israel."
http://www.ifamericansknew.org/us_ints/p-neff-veto.html

Subject: RE: BS: Israel condemned by UN
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Mar 13 - 07:38 AM

Israeli ignorance of the massacre
Jim Carroll

"Officers at the command post which overlooked the camps began receiving reports about developments inside the camps from the assailants themselves immediately after their entry into Sabra and Shatila. An hour after the Phalangists entered the camps, an Israeli officer stationed on the roof of the command post overheard a Phalangist officer radio his commander, also stationed on the roof, informing him that:

there were 50 women and children, and what should he do. The reply of Elie Hobeika [commander of the Phalangist forces operating inside the camps] over the radio was: 'This is the last time you're going to ask me a question like that, you know exactly what to do.' Then raucous laughter broke out among the Phalangist personnel on the roof. (Final Report, p.24).

A little later, the Israeli Division Intelligence Officer heard a Phalangist liaison officer tell one of his men inside the camps to "Do the will of God" to 45 people held by the Phalangists (Final Report p. 22). Then, two hours after the beginning of the massacre, the Phalangist liaison officer at the Israeli command post stated in the dining room that:

As a result of the Phalangists' operations up to that time [8:00 P.M., Thursday, September 16, 1982], 300 terrorists and civilians had been killed in the camps. (Final Report, p. 24)."
Ibid

Subject: RE: BS: Israel condemned by UN
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Mar 13 - 07:16 AM

"making up lies about Israel."
"Also on this Friday, eyewitness reports confirmed for the first time that trucks filled with civilians had been seen heading for unknown destinations. A Danish television cameraman, M. Petersen, actually filmed the militiamen loading men, women and children aboard such trucks on the edge of Shatila. This was taking place only 400 meters from an Israeli position. Residents of the Lebanese villages of Shweifat and Hadath, south of Beirut, confirmed that at noon on Friday, three large trucks and two smaller vehicles loaded with civilians passed through their area. These people were never seen again. Similarly, survivors reported to the Red Cross in Beirut that members of their families had been loaded on trucks and taken to unknown destinations, never to return."
Amnon Kapeliouk

Subject: RE: BS: Israel condemned by UN
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Mar 13 - 06:56 AM

Don, lots of soldiers testified at the time.
Virtually everyone has to serve so you get fruitloop and rabid politicos ex-soldiers.
Only a tiny number have claimed bad things and not until long after.

everyone who criticises or exposes any Israeli crime, as in the case of Sabra/Shatila, of commission or omission, is a liar, a bigot, an antisemite, or all three?

We KNOW that there is an industry out there making up lies about Israel.
Those people who "SAW" the Jenin massacre WERE liars because it never happened.

Subject: RE: BS: Israel condemned by UN
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Mar 13 - 06:52 AM

"Not the same Jim."
Do not be stupid - there was no "fighting" going on - it was a massacre of unarmed people.
"Of all my actual statements you quote, do you challenge a single one Jim?"
I have consistently pointed out and am doing so again - your statements do not make any sense - they cancel each other out
Your stupidity about carrying our massacres in the dark is beyond belief - seeking out victims, butchering them, raping women and cutting their throats with torches in their hands - are you out of your mind?
"Unless, who knows, they had torches and vehicle lights, or maybe even waited until it was daylight anyway"
This, as you indicate "who knows?" is pure invention on your part,
There is something particularly revolting revolting about trying to implicate 3,500 massacre victims in terrorism by suggesting that they had arms to offer armed resistance.
There is something utterly stupid at suggesting that you have offered proof that there was armed resistance when all you have said is
"There were reports of fighting. Exchanges of fire.
If there were none, they were still expected.
NYT states that IDF came under fire AFTER the PLO were supposed to have withdrawn.
The Phalange were sent in by IDF to clear the camps of fighters."
Total 'making-it-up-on-the-spot claims in the face of dozens of documented reports to the contrary.
No evidence, no links, just unqualified statements by the perpetrators of the massacre - meglomania at its most extreme.
You really are out of your mind - and real sicko in the bargain.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Israel condemned by UN
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 28 Mar 13 - 06:33 AM

""Why did they not come forward, like many of their comrades, until long after the events and the enquiries?""

You are either incredibly naive, or incredibly dim and I can't quite decide which.

If you are a soldier, blowing the whistle on your superiors is the road to a life of absolute hell, so of course they waited till they were out of the IDF to come forward. They also had families and pensions to protect.

You, mister, would have done exactly the same thing.

The fact that they did come forward after waiting so long, and express their horror, shows just how traumatic those events were, and an arrogant shit with an agenda calls them liars out of hand.

That says a lot more about you than about them.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Israel condemned by UN
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 28 Mar 13 - 06:17 AM

""He who makes outrageous accusations should provide the unequivocal evidence, not demand it of someone asking why to believe it.""

Like the outrageous accusation that everyone who criticises or exposes any Israeli crime, as in the case of Sabra/Shatila, of commission or omission, is a liar, a bigot, an antisemite, or all three?

When might we expect you to live up to the standards you demand of the rest of humanity?

When might we expect Israel to do the same?

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Israel condemned by UN
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Mar 13 - 06:04 AM

"Siegel reports sounds of fighting."
You have told us Seigal didn't even know the massacre was taking place – make up your ******* mind.

"fighting"
"massacre"
Not the same Jim.

Subject: RE: BS: Israel condemned by UN
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Mar 13 - 06:01 AM


DO NOT BE STUPID – MASSACRE IN THE PITCH DARK – THEY'D BE SLAUGHTERING EACH OTHER.

Unless, who knows, they had torches and vehicle lights, or maybe even waited until it was daylight anyway.

Of all my actual statements you quote, do you challenge a single one Jim?

Every one stands up and can be substantiated, unlike your shit.

Subject: RE: BS: Israel condemned by UN
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Mar 13 - 05:19 AM

Your claims waver from – the medical staff did not know the massacre was going on to - they could see everything but did not see Israeli soldiers there, to how could they see anything from an enclosed hospital – to they had an excellent view of the camp from the roof of the hospital – to they never left the hospital to – they took long walks – flexible evidence to suit all occasions, don't you think.
A small selection.
"She was in the hospital throughout the massacres, and was unaware of them."
07 Mar 13 - 02:57 PM
"She herself had seen no signs of the civilian massacre from the top of her hospital deep within the camp, or during her long walk out."
08 Mar 13 - 04:08 AM
"The "eye witness doctor" did not even see anything of the massacres. She was with Siegel in the hospital."
"07 Mar 13 - 02:57 PM
And as I came out of the hospital I saw groups of women and men and children all rounded up by soldiers and while I was passing them one woman tried to give me her baby"
14 Mar 13 - 03:39 AM
"Why did they not come forward,"
A They where traumatised by what they witnessed; fully covered in the story of the making of the film Waltz with Bashir, based on the experiences of one of those soldiers
My father was a prisoner of war in Spain - I found out last year that he was taken out regularly and placed in front of a mock firing squad then taken back to his cell. He never spoke about the war in Spain until five years after his release - he didn't talk to anybody for a year after he returned home.
His brother my uncle, was one of the soldiers who entered a Nazi concentration camp at the end of the war - he never spoke of it to anybody; he'd written down some of his experiences in a notebook which was found after his death
That's what happens in wartime.
B Some of the soldier witnesses said that they had seen their mates disciplined for speaking up; several of them were dismissed from the army - a disincentive to telling what had happened until it was long behind them.
Others, of course, felt a duty to their country but, being human beings, could only live with what happened for so long - that came out in their testimonies which you have been given, read them.
"The militia took casualties."
Where are the reports – you are just telling us what happened, as you have throughout this thread – EVIDENCE.
"Siegel reports sounds of fighting."
You have told us Seigal didn't even know the massacre was taking place – make up your ******* mind.
"Bloody nonsense - there was no street lighting "
DO NOT BE STUPID – MASSACRE IN THE PITCH DARK – THEY'D BE SLAUGHTERING EACH OTHER.
If they needed light to, as you so revealingly put it "seek out their enemies" they certainly needed it to slaughter their victims – UTTER NONSENSE.
"I have given you mine."
No you haven't – you have just told us, without evidence – what you claim happened – you have had our evidence several times – READ IT
Jim Carroll