BS: Palestine

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Sep 11 - 12:21 PM

Irrelevant at this point and in this particular thread. (There are many others which have explored these issues exhaustively, if not too constructively).
..................

As of September 2011, 127 (65.8%) of the 193 member states of the United Nations have recognised the State of Palestine. Their total population is over 5.2 billion people, equalling 75 percent of the world's population.

So what arguments can be advanced for the position of the minority who are seeking to block UN membership for Palestine?

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 26 Sep 11 - 12:30 PM

McGrath,

Since the UN requires that other member nations be recognized by , and accorded the rights of nations, and the Palestinian leadership has stated that they will NOT recognize Israel, a member of the UN, , and a state of war still exists between the state of Israel and those groups making up the proposed Palestinian state, I think that the question should be rather

what arguments can be advanced for the position that Palestine SHOULD become a member of the UN, when it has declared itself unwilling to abide by the UN charter?

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Sep 11 - 12:48 PM

At last we're on topic, maybe.

None of those points, even if accepted, are reasons why Palestine should be denied the membership the overwhelming majority of UN members wish to accord it.

As I pointed out, neither Ireland nor United Kingdom recognised each others borders as legally valid until 1998.

"States of War" only apply between states.

Denying United Nations resolutions has never interfered with membership of the United Nations, as for example by Saddam Hussein's Iraq, or by Israel.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 26 Sep 11 - 02:17 PM

I was asked what should we do. First and foremost, stand up and be counted and perhaps explain your reasoning..or not.

Ask that the "right to exist" be replaced with "de facto existance"..there is a country that acts as a country, that conducts business etc...and that can be acknowledged without admitting to rights, wrongs, etc. This should be standard for other countries too.

Insist on proper water rights.

Insist on borders.

If there must be a "no man/woman's land" insist that it not be filled with settlers, but with orchards, common grounds, parks, community colleges, mutually used theaters etc.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 26 Sep 11 - 02:23 PM

Ah, if only ~~~

Or, as J Lennon might say, "Imagine!"

Sigh!

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Teribus
Date: 26 Sep 11 - 03:02 PM

"As of September 2011, 127 (65.8%) of the 193 member states of the United Nations have recognised the State of Palestine. Their total population is over 5.2 billion people, equalling 75 percent of the world's population." - MGOH

Point 1: Listing the number of countries who have "recognised" the State of Palestine does not in any way, shape or form indicate that the entire population of all those countries are in favour of that recognition, or indicate that those people were ever even consulted on the matter

Point 2: The member states of the United Nations are notorious for their willingness to vote for things provided they are given sufficient enough an inducement to do so. The ultra-cynical might suggest that in some way they hope to profit from the disaster when it happens.

Point 3: Most of those countries could not in effect care a toss, out of your 193 member states, five are neighbouring states, about fifteen could be described as being in and belonging to "the region", which leaves the balance of 178 who could not care less about the general carnage and mayhem that this will cause because it will not happen anywhere near them and they will not be affected by it.

Will there be carnage and mayhem should the State of Palestine be recognised? Of course there will, the clowns that are "all for this" are visiting upon the United Nations the nightmare where you have one member state that has voiced its avowed intention to eradicate another member state and have voiced their declaration that will never alter that view - Congratulations, pick up your Nobel Peace prize as you go out the door. The case might be marginally altered if there was any way on God's earth if Mahmoud Abbas or any Palestinian Arab Leader could actually control their population but the truth is they cannot, because in the eyes of Hamas and Hezbollah the Government of this so-called Palestine as represented by Mahmoud Abbas is seen as selling them out.

To Richard Bridge, who seems to think that throughout the work done by both the members of the Peel Commission in 1937, and that undertaken by the UN between 1946 and 1948, that the opinions of both Arab and Jewish Palestinians were ignored, I can only advise him to actually do some reading, there is more than enough material covering all sides of the matter.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Teribus
Date: 26 Sep 11 - 03:11 PM

""States of War" only apply between states.

EXACTLY - create the State of Palestine and you will definitely have a WAR - If so then for goodness sake this time let them fight it out to the finish.

Look at the complete and utter irrelevant idiotic bullshit and the players involved who plunged Europe into that fiasco known as the First World War - I look at Israel and Palestine and can see the same damn thing happening again.

One sliver of silver lining on the cloud is that because GWB and USA went into Iraq in 2003 we do not have:

1: Iran with a secret nuclear weapon
2: Syria with a secret nuclear weapon
3: Libya with a secret nuclear weapon

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 26 Sep 11 - 03:33 PM

Teri - your point 1, if right, demolishes any claim that Israel was created witht he consent of the people of the region.

McGrath - your house deeds will proceed (with the interface of land registration principles) from a "good root of title". That is exactly what there isn't for Israel.

Teri - 1937 - too late. The UK had no title, as of 1917/22, to take any decision for the region.

BB - (1) if the UN so reguires, where and how is it stated and binding and why did that not apply (as McGrath states) to Southern Ireland or the rest of the UK. (incidentally, sidewind thought I have not checked out, how about the USA and Cuba?)
(2) what Arab (and as appears above, both sides are "Children of Abraham") conquered territory are you saying should be given up to whom and why?
(3) where are those statements about compensating refugee?
(4) what is that about a "homeland" again? The whole of Israel is in what was an Arab homeland since 1299 and before.
(5) I thought that UN membership implied such recognition - which is why some arabists oppose it.

I'm not really up on Jewish religious belief, but does Judaism recognise Hell?

I'm sorry BB but you and MtheGM are looking as if you are asserting the Zionist case for a religious homeland the size Israel wants, coupled with the right to starve and oppress others in the region. Israel did the deal for its borders (a deal with the occupying powers, not the local peoples) in 1947/8 and now it wants a better deal - a bit like Southern Ireland in 1922 although they, like the Palestinians, could argue - maybe - that they never agreed a deal before that). I am reminded of some old transactions with Miramax and Cannon in my professional life (although, to be fair, one of my old clients of Lebanese extraction but US citizenship was somewhat similar, and I remember an old friend of mine who practised in Paris saying of an Armenian film producer that after a whole week of non-stop meetings he understood why the Turks massacred the Armenians - maybe it's just film producers who should be massacred).


IMHO recognition of Palestine is likely to be a step productive of a step on the route to peace.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 26 Sep 11 - 03:37 PM

PS - and if Palestine agreed that it would square the circle of the illegitimacy of previous gifts of territory not lawfully governed.

Teri - while I was composing, you have been posting. All I think I need to say is

(1) You hope
(2) But Israel has.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 26 Sep 11 - 04:01 PM

I don't want a 'religious homeland' of any dimensions or within any specific borders, Richard, and have said nothing anywhere, on this thread or anywhere else, to suggest I do. I take it you can only be confusing me with some other poster coincidentally called MtheGM, who is a complete stranger to me.

I still can't make out what your constant obsession with dates in the 1920s have to do with anything to do with the topic at hand.

And what has the hell has Hell to do with it?

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: GUEST,999
Date: 26 Sep 11 - 04:10 PM

Hell is what will remain if no peace is found.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 26 Sep 11 - 04:32 PM

Mr Myer: do you not repeatedly assert that Israel is validly created and is entitled to wider borders, without, as far as I can see, any rational basis? That leaves religion as your inspiration.

The relevance of 1917/22 and 1947/8 is that they determine whether Israel is an invader or a rightful occupier of territory.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 26 Sep 11 - 04:38 PM

You do know what a non sequitur is, I take it?

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 26 Sep 11 - 04:47 PM

FWIW ~~ I have no religion. I was born nearly 80 years ago into a Jewish family; have been an atheist for as long as I can remember, except for a period in early middle-age when I was baptised & confirmed into the CofE, for reasons I can't quite remember now. But, as my [non-Jewish] first wife put it, "it didn't take", and I reverted to my default position, atheism, many years ago now. I genuinely can't see where you imagine 'religion' can come into any of the opinions I hold.

Still; play your games, my dear fellow. You are obviously enjoying pontificating irrelevantly on topics beyond your knowledge & comprehension ~~ or anyone else's for that matter, so far as I can see.

To answer, as a courtesy, your only direct and sensible question in your last post: yes, I have asserted that Israel was validly created; and no, I have said absolutely nothing as to what the extent of its territory should be: quote back to me where you imagine me to have advocated 'wider borders', if you would be so kind.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 26 Sep 11 - 05:07 PM

"The subsequent expansion of territory was brought about by successful defence of their very existence, and legitimate conquest of those who attempted to invade what had been declared their sovereign territory, and remaining, by right of conquest and the absolute and essential considerations of security, in the territory thus gained." 23 Sept 0819 Mudcat time

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 26 Sep 11 - 05:14 PM

That was an accurate statement of the situation that obtained at the time I referred to. I have nowhere said that these borders will, or should, be permanent or form part of any settlement which might ultimately be achieved; or that Israel has any 'entitlement' [the word which you accuse me of having employed] to their being retained as part of any such negotiated settlement...

Try again.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 26 Sep 11 - 05:23 PM

And let me repeat here something I said in a previous post ~~

"I am embarrassed and horrified by what the state of Israel is in danger of turning into; even my sister & her son [who was born there], who maintain their Jewish & Zionist identity which I don't, are having serious reservations" ~~

I hold no brief for the actions or attitudes of the present government of Israel, find many of their actions and policies entirely unacceptable and culpable, and dissociate myself unreservedly from them.

But I do expect accuracy in statements that are made: and ones which question the right of Israel to exist legally are so manifestly absurd as to cast much doubt as to the motivations, intelligence, and general bona fides of those uttering them.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: GUEST,Mrr
Date: 26 Sep 11 - 05:41 PM

I still like the Jon Stewart approach. Tongue in cheek.

I think the UN mandate that created Israel should be repealed.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Sep 11 - 05:41 PM

What's this got to do with blocking UN membership for Palestine? No one is proposing to expel Israel, so the matter of its legal status doesn't arise.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Greg F.
Date: 26 Sep 11 - 06:19 PM

So take YOUR anti Jewish bigotry and got to hell.

I think that would come as quite a surprise to my Jewish grandmother and Jewish father, BeeBee.

The anti-Jewish bigotry part, I mean; not necessarily the going to hell part.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Greg F.
Date: 26 Sep 11 - 06:22 PM

By the by, Beardie: do you consider the Israeli Jews who oppose most of this Zionist nonsense to be "anti-Jewish bigots" as well?

Just curious.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 26 Sep 11 - 09:16 PM

I think we need to at least ask ourselves why we are for or against statehood. Security fears are a very important consideration, and need to be dealt with. My hunch is that security will be improved but you never know. One condition could be that many Palestinians immigrate to relieve the population pressure there and to quickly educate young people. It has to be understood that there can be a homeland, but not everyone can live in it..due to the land's carrying capacity, the infrastructure that exists etc. So there might have to be colonies here and there, as there are with other immigrant and exiled groups. Countries in this day and age also can not extend an open invitation to millions of people, crowding out those with legitimate claims to particular parcels of land-- particular houses and farms and orchards. It is just not right. So I can't go back to Ireland, regardless of what was done to my family and others can't go back to Russia or Ghana or wherever. But there still should be a homeland that people feel a part of and visit when they can etc. Just knowing that it exists officially is extremely important. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 27 Sep 11 - 12:03 AM

Mr Myer, may I lend you a shovel?

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Sep 11 - 12:39 AM

"Teri - your point 1, if right, demolishes any claim that Israel was created witht he consent of the people of the region." - Richard Bridge

Now what was my Point 1 again:

"Point 1: Listing the number of countries who have "recognised" the State of Palestine does not in any way, shape or form indicate that the entire population of all those countries are in favour of that recognition, or indicate that those people were ever even consulted on the matter,"

This point was made because you trotted out some completely bogus statistics by which you hoped to demonstrate the support amongst the "world's population" for the creation of a Palestinian State.

Did the Peel Commission of 1937 consult the people and the leaders inside Palestine during the course of their work? Of course they did and what they found led them to advocate a "Two-State" solution to the perceived problems in the area.

Did the United Nations Committee consult the people and their leaders during the course of their work between 1946 and 1948? Of course they did, and some died whilst doing it. Like the Peel Commission they too advocated a "Two-State" Solution which the Jews of Palestine accepted and the Arabs of Palestine along with their Arab neighbours rejected (The both rejected the 1947 UN proposal for entirely different reasons - doubt that? Then take a look at what Jordan was looking for and what the Arabs of Palestine were looking for in 1947 - different as chalk and cheese)

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: GUEST,livelylass
Date: 27 Sep 11 - 02:37 AM

Terribus: "Point 2: The member states of the United Nations are notorious for their willingness to vote for things provided they are given sufficient enough an inducement to do so. "

Yes, poor countries can unfortunately be wooed with cash, or indeed the threat of it's removal of it - as the US well knows, support can be bought:

US to sever aid to all pro Palestinian Nationhood voting nations

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: GUEST,livelylass
Date: 27 Sep 11 - 03:05 AM

Sorry, make that 'proposed' severance of aid - the bill is yet to be passed.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 27 Sep 11 - 04:42 AM

"Mr Myer, may I lend you a shovel? "
.,.,.,.,
Sorry, Mr Bridge ~~ not the least idea of what you are on about. But that's par for the course.

Out of interest: can anyone on here make heads or tails as to what points Richard thinks himself to be making, with all his witter & gabble about 1912 & 1922 and approval of states in the region & UN having no authority for this & that. It all sounds simply like the desperate maunderings of a - ah - somewhat confused individual to me. But perhaps I am being uncharitable.

What do others think? Have these irrational idiocies of his [as they appear to me] any supporters? Or even anyone who can make anything of the points he is purporting to make?

Genuinely exercised & puzzled ~~

~Michael~

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 27 Sep 11 - 04:46 AM

No Teri, I trotted out no statistics. Maybe you need the shovel, not Mr Myer.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Sep 11 - 05:28 AM

"So take YOUR anti Jewish bigotry and got to hell. "
It really is time some people learned to distinguish between "anti-Jewish" and "anti- Zionism"
Israel came into being partly because of a long and indescriminate terrorist campaign - the actions of groups like Haganah and the Stern Gang made the Hamas activities appear rank amaturish in comparison.
The British left Palestine to the sound of the grenades and gunfire of the massacres of several thousand Arab non-combatats being slaughtered to make way for the "Promised Land". The technique was to throw a grenade into an Arab home then rake the survivors with gunfire - taking out men, women, children, old, young - you name it.....
Mike took issue with my comparing the behaviour of the Israelis to that of the Nazis - there were many, many more non-combatants systematically slaughtered immediately following British departure from Palastine than there were at Lidice.
Since then the expansionist policy of driving out Arab families tomake way for Jewish ones has continued; this has included at least two major massacres of men, women and children at Shatila and Sabra refugee camps.
It has been virtually impossible to distinguish between the behaviour of the Nazis and that of successive Israeli governments in the matter of crimes against humanity, other than the scale of same.
This continues to be the case with the Gaza incursions; chemical weapons on built-up areas, heavy artillery on homes schools and hospitals, the razing of whole streets where any resistance is shown They've even se-sited the Berlin wall to the Middle East, this time cutting off Arabs from their work and means of sustenance - not to mention the attempts to starve the Palastinians into submisshion and the killing of aid-bringers.
When I lived in Manchester I counted among my friends a large number of Jews, some of them holocaust survivers and their families; a few of them ex-kibbutz volunteers. Virtually all of them had totally disowned the behaviour of Israel - I think this is the firt time I heard the phrase "Jewish reich". Many of these had taken a sharp left turn in their outlook and joined the Labour and Communist parties - I suppose all of these would fit neatly into Bruce's "anti-Jewish" catergory?
Before Israeli mouthpieces and apologists start listing conditions for Palastine statehood perhaps they might take a quick look at the behaviour of those they are supporting - and their supporters in the UN whose hands are by no means clean as far as human rights abuses are concerned.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 27 Sep 11 - 05:45 AM

No, Jim: Haganah were a respectable official militia to an extent even recognised, at least de facto, by the mandate authorities. The other terrorist group beside the Stern Gang were called the Irgun [Zvai Leumi].

I still think your comparison at fault, not so much because it overstates the Israeli actions [see my post above 26 Sep, 0523 pm] as because it gravely understates the nazi ones.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: GUEST,livelylass
Date: 27 Sep 11 - 06:35 AM

"It really is time some people learned to distinguish between "anti-Jewish" and "anti- Zionism""

I believe that most people accusing others of 'anti-Semitism' mean no such thing and abuse the term as a fully cynical means to stifle open discussion of actions of the Israeli govt.

Many Jewish people, particularly those who do not wish to have their Jewish identity subsumed into and conflated with the actions of a government of a country they may not even have any personal interest in or relationship with, find the routine invoking of "anti-Semitism" in such discussions, both offensive and harmful.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: GUEST,livelylass
Date: 27 Sep 11 - 06:47 AM

"Many Jewish people, particularly those who do not wish to have their Jewish identity subsumed into and conflated with the actions of a government of a country they may not even have any personal interest in or relationship with, find the routine invoking of "anti-Semitism" in such discussions, both offensive and harmful."

I should probably add, that this type of feeling, is increasingly common in younger Jewish people (a Google for articles on "young Jews Israel" should yield relevent results on this)- personally I don't know any older Jews, so my own experience of this is excluded to younger Jewish people likewise.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 27 Sep 11 - 06:51 AM

Take your point, lively lass; that is up to a point my position ~~ see my post above just pointed out to Jim, 26 sep 0523 pm. But I think it is also a fact that anti-Zionism can be conflated with, or used as a cover for, straight antisemitism by some ill-wishers. Not always easy to distinguish between these motivations, alas.

~Michael~

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 27 Sep 11 - 06:52 AM

... and FYI, I am nearly 80...

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: GUEST,livelylass
Date: 27 Sep 11 - 06:56 AM

"But I think it is also a fact that anti-Zionism can be conflated with, or used as a cover for, straight antisemitism by some ill-wishers. Not always easy to distinguish between these motivations, alas."

That is a fair point also M. And I think both are good reasons we should, ideally, all attempt to conduct ourselves in such discussions, with integrity and respect for our fellow posters. Difficult though that may be, when emotions run high!

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Sep 11 - 07:08 AM

Jim, you spoil your case with wild exagerations.

No chemical weapons were used in Gaza, and,
"expansionist policy of driving out Arab families tomake way for Jewish ones has continued; this has included at least two major massacres of men, women and children at Shatila and Sabra refugee camps."

Those camps were not in Israel.
It happened in Lebanon and it was not carried out by Israelis.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Sep 11 - 08:35 AM

"wild exagerations."
No wild exaggeration whatever - everything I claimed to have happened, happened as I described and is a matter of record.
"No chemical weapons were used in Gaza"
White phosphorus (chemical weapons according to the US agency who oversaw its use in Fallujah) was used in Gaza on civilain targets AS WEAPONS - not illumination
"It happened in Lebanon and it was not carried out by Israelis."
The refugees were under the care of Israelis - the enquiry found that they colluded with the killers fully in allowing them access to the camps - the Israeli in charge was expected to resign, but was appointed to high political office instead - it was an Israeli massacre and fully recognised as such
There has never been any doubt whatever that the massacres were Israel's responsibility - except in your mind apparently - surprise, surprise!!
Your apologist attitude and open support for racist atrocities seem to know no bounds.
Mike:
"as because it gravely understates the nazi ones."
As I said, only in scope - Everest and Sliebh Callan are both mountains.
Thanks for the correction on Haganah - I am confusing it with one of other Jewish "freedom fighters"!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Sep 11 - 08:44 AM

No US "agencies" classify WP as a chemical weapon Jim.
Chemical weapons inflict casualties by their toxicity.
Phosphorus is not that toxic.

In Gaza smoke munitions were used to create smoke.

All that stuff about the massacres is disputed, and I am only refuting your claim that it was part of "expansionist policy of driving out Arab families to make way for Jewish ones "

Any Jewish families settled in Lebanon Jim?

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Sep 11 - 10:03 AM

Jim,
"Your apologist attitude and open support for racist atrocities seem to know no bounds"

Not true Jim.
You will find no example, in any post of mine, of any support for any atrocity, racists or otherwise.

If you can not produce an example, a decent person would withdraw the charge.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Stringsinger
Date: 27 Sep 11 - 10:13 AM

The nature of the preceding agreements by the UN or other "official" organizations which mandated what is or isn't Israel have been invalidated by changes not only by the parties involved but by the realities of the people who have decided what the position should "officially" be.

These arbitrary conclusions can never come at the point of a gun, bull dozer, cluster bomb, white phosphorous, suicide bombings, occupations or violence and the denial of basic human rights.

They can't be brokered by religious adherence either. The justification for the State of Israel is as flimsy as the accusation about the validity of the State of Palestine. There may not be even a justification for what constitutes a Jew other than a religious adherence.

Jordan has it's own autonomy and is not a Palestinian State but an attempt to push Palestinians back to a mythical Jordanian homeland suggested for them is specious.

The only solution for Israel and Palestine is to accept a secular state which may not be based on Judaism or Islam. It also may have to be a "one state solution" with equal power sharing of it's inhabitants. It could be hoped for that it would be a social democracy, a system that seems alien in this part of the world.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: GUEST,999
Date: 27 Sep 11 - 10:33 AM

Hell musta froze over, Stringsinger. Well said.

"When President Lyndon Johnson turned over the presidency to Richard Nixon eight months into the talks [Paris Peace Talks in '68], the only thing the two sides had agreed on was the shape of the conference table."

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Sep 11 - 10:33 AM

"Any Jewish families settled in Lebanon Jim? "
No Keith - it's called ethnic cleansing - the culling of inferior races..
AND IT REMAINS AN ISRAELI ATROCITY.
The use of phosphorus on civilians in Gaza - in some cases in hospitals and schools, was fully covered by a BBC documentary on the last incursion into Gaza - eye witness acounts by doctors who saw it usedand who had to treat the victims - including a number of children with horrific burns.
Examples of the effects of this weapon on humans is freely accessible on the net, should you care to seek it out.
"You will find no example, in any post of mine, of any support for any atrocity, "
You have your own racist agenda to select from - but here, as in the past, you are supporting the racist agendas of others.
I have said I am not going to make this an argument between you and I - that remains the case
If you have any evidence to show that Israel has not been massacring Arabs, did not massacre the residents of the villages in Palestine, did not facilitate and probably instigate the massacre of refugees, did not use White phosphorus as a weapon against civilians in Gaza, did not make Arabs stateless by passing a "three year" rule removing their citizenship, did not evict families from their home to build a tourist centre, has not erected a Berlin Wall..... as I described, please produce it.
Otherwise take your racism and stick it.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Sep 11 - 11:00 AM

No shovel required Richard, my apologies to you, it was Kevin (MGOH) who was trotting out the bogus statistics not you.

I am also in debt to Jim Carroll who has explained to me why there are no Jewish people settled in Lebanon, it was because they were all ethnically cleansed by the Israelis, although I am damned if I can find out when.

White Phosphorus is NOT a Chemical Weapon if it were it would appear in the appropriate protocal of the Geneva Convention and it does not.

The use of white phosphorus is constrained according to a Protocol on conventional weapons. It should not be used in areas considered to be centres of population. Something else that should not occur in areas considered to be centres of civilian population is the deliberate use of civilians as "Human Shields". This is not just a case of two wrongs not making a right but you cannot have one without the other and the use by Hamas of the civilians of Gaza as "human shields" must have occurred first for them to come under fire by the IDF - Unless of course Jim you are trying to sell us on the idea that the israeli Forces started shelling a bunch of Palestinian civilians and a whole rake of heroic Hamas "Freedom Fighters" decided to race over there to see what was going on. Personally I would find that scenario to be highly unlikely.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Sep 11 - 11:15 AM

I saw all that stuff about Gaza Jim.
I deplored the use of WP smoke there.
I said its use was reckless.
I said it may have been illegal (see Terribus' post).
I did not support any atrocity.
To say I did is a lie.

I deplored those 30 year old massacres.
I said it shamed the IDF that it failed to stop it.
I did not support any atrocity.
To say I did is a lie.

(A few years later, Muslim militias killed a greater number of Palestinians in those camps.
I deplore that as well.
Do You?)

As for your "take your racism and stick it." we are back to groundless personal attacks again.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 27 Sep 11 - 12:35 PM

~~~"as because it gravely understates the nazi ones."
As I said, only in scope - Everest and Sliebh Callan are both mountains. ~~~
.,.,.,
Yes, yes, I know Jim, We have been here before.

I refer you yet again to Hegel's belief in the critical point where quantative difference becomes qualitative difference. I'm afraid your 'only in scope' here disgusts me profoundly, and I should have though better of you than to offer any sort of 'only in scope' defence [a word I use advisedly] of the Holocaust, an enormity unique in its quantity & hence its quality of evil.

I suppose you will tell me that the cancer which killed my mother at the age of 57 differed 'only in scope' from the irritating cold in the nose she had had a couple of years before.

You disappoint me profoundly, Jim, in not being able to see this. Your 'scope' comparisons are an absolute disgrace. You should be ashamed of yourself ~~ but I don't suppose you are...

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Sep 11 - 01:05 PM

"I said its use was reckless."
No Keith - it was deliberate and eye-witnesses who say it being used (both in Falujah by the Americans (by a US soldier) and by the Israelis in Gaza described it as deliberate).
Whatever you and your pratt gun-nut of a soulmate claim, the US admitted it was a weapon publicly - in the case of Gaza it was used on a hospital, the excuse offered was that Hamas were there.
As I said, go and look it up and see the photographs of the effects on childrens' faces.   
"I said it shamed the IDF that it failed to stop it."
They didn't - they deliberately facilitated it.
"You disappoint me profoundly, Jim,"
Then we have something we can agree on - sadly.
As far as I am concerned, the deliberate removel of groups, cultures, people - whatever, who happen to stand in the way of national aspiration and economic and political interests is the same no matter what scale it is carried out on.
I grew up batered and appalled by images of the holocaust - my father felt compelled to go and fight in Spain because of what was happening in pre-war Germany, his family took part in the anti-Mosely protests, my grandmother was jailed for her part in it.
I am both saddened and sickened that the victimes of those atrocities should become the perpetrators of similar ones - as I said, many of my Jewish acquaintences and friends feel the same as I do - do they also disppoint you?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Sep 11 - 01:33 PM

"Reckless" does not deny it was deliberate.
Of course it was.
They deliberately used smoke to screen their people from enemy fire.
I said that the commander on the ground was reckless of the consequences.
Most blame must go to Hamas for placing their fighters in civilian areas near hospitals and schools.

You should not say I have supported atrocities when I have not.
You should not again accuse me of racism when I have never shown it.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Sep 11 - 01:45 PM

Just in case there is anyt doubt what you pair of apologist shits are up to here's the relevant bit and also the link, in case you think I'm getting up to Keith's trick of editing cut-'n-pastes
"You should not again accuse me of racism when I have never shown it"
There you go, parefect example above of racicism by excusing atrocities by presenting them as incompetence.
Take your heads out of your arses and you'll find horrific photographic evidence of children maimed by your "illumination flares" (not unlike Terrytoon's describing agent Orange as "weed-killer" and napalm as petrol) used deliberately on them AS WEAPONS
Jim Carroll

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabra_and_Shatila_massacre

Israeli forces enabled the entrance of the angry Kataeb Party group to the refugee camps, by providing them transportation[from outside Beirut and firing illuminating flares over the camps. The Phalangists were under the direct command of Elie Hobeika, who later became a long-serving Member of the Parliament of Lebanon and, in the 1990s, a Lebanese cabinet minister.
In 1982, an independent commission chaired by Sean MacBride concluded that the Israeli authorities or forces were, directly or indirectly, responsible. The Israeli government established the Kahan Commission to investigate, and in early 1983 it found that Israeli military personnel were aware that a massacre was in progress without taking serious steps to stop it. It therefore regarded Israel as having indirect responsibility. The commission held Ariel Sharon personally responsible for having disregarded the prospect of acts of bloodshed by the Phalangists against the population of the refugee camps and not preventing their entry.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Mrrzy
Date: 27 Sep 11 - 02:16 PM

Take one of those implicit attitudes tests - I found out that I like Islam better than Christianity better than Judaism, when I would have sworn that I disliked Christianity more than either of the above.

Very interesting stuff, thread creep notwithstanding.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 27 Sep 11 - 02:21 PM

This is off topic, but it\clears up a point raised: US intelligence classified white phosphorus as 'chemical weapon'

The assessment was published in a declassified report on the American Department of Defence website. The file was headed: "Possible use of phosphorous chemical weapons by Iraq in Kurdish areas along the Iraqi-Turkish-Iranian borders."

In late February 1991, an intelligence source reported, during the Iraqi crackdown on the Kurdish uprising that followed the coalition victory against Iraq, "Iraqi forces loyal to President Saddam may have possibly used white phosphorous chemical weapons against Kurdish rebels and the populace in Erbil and Dohuk. The WP chemical was delivered by artillery rounds and helicopter gunships."