BS: Palestine

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 27 Sep 11 - 02:26 PM

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 ...
,.,.
No Jim. I am with them; I refer you yet again to mine of 26 sep 0523 pm.: but I doubt if they feel quite 'the same as you do'; try asking them if they would put Sabra & Shatila & Deir Yassim on the same scale of iniquity as the entire Holocaust. And I STILL FEEL DISAPPOINTED IN your immovability on a vital distinction that needs drawing. They are not 'similar ones', tho there may be certain passing resemblance ~ like my mother's cancer to her cold. But if you won't see it you won't...

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 27 Sep 11 - 02:39 PM

It's true enough that if the Nazis are used as a measure it means virtually every sadistic regime around comes off as relatively mild by comparison. That's why it's best to avoid doing that - but that shouldn't be used as a way of underestimating the viciousness of what is done.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Sep 11 - 02:43 PM

McGrath, thanks but that report was the one Jim keeps on about.
It is wrong.
The author made a mistake.
That mistake was made many years ago and has never been repeated.

Jim, the massacres.
"Israeli military personnel were aware that a massacre was in progress without taking serious steps to stop it. "

I knew this.
I said that their failure to stop it shamed them.
How is that "supporting racist atrocities?"

Smoke rounds are not weapons Jim.
Only a direct hit or very near miss will cause injuries.
That is why there were so few and no deaths.
Actual weapons will kill and maim over much greater distances.
Smoke is not a weapon.
It would normally be considered illegal to use it near civilians.
That is why I said it might be.
The war crime of Hamas in fighting from civilian areas makes it less clear cut.
It is a lie to say I supported any of it.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Sep 11 - 02:52 PM

Jim, you did make a cut and paste edit error.
You deleted the acknowledgement that there was no evidence to support some of the claims.

"providing them transportation[citation needed] from outside Beirut and firing illuminating flares over the camps.[citation needed]"

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: pdq
Date: 27 Sep 11 - 02:53 PM

Palestine = Canaan = Judea = The Holy Land = Israel.

Claiming that Arabs (who moved into the area after the establishment of Islam) are a separate ethnic group called "palestinians" is a public relations ploy.

Arab countries have sent their most radical Islamists to Gaza and the sane moderate Muslims (those with the means) have largely left the area.

The Israeli Arabs live better than their Arab brothers anywhere else and do not want to join a militant violent Islamic state. The Gaza militants do not speak for the Islamic citizens of Israel.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Sep 11 - 03:27 PM

"I said that their failure to stop it shamed them."
Because the evidence exposed the fact that not only were the killers driven to the site by the Israelis and given illumination in order to carry out the massacre - no "failure" but total complicity   
I didn't comment on your making it a "thirty year old" massacre - do we have a moratorium on Massacres - and shouldn't someone have told Simon Wiesenthal.
You really do scrape the bottom of the barrel to defend atrocities
"there was no evidence to support some of the claims. "
and yet there was enough for the Israeli enquiry to find themselves half-guilty and even name names, but they did manage to boot the guilty party upstairs before he had to face the consequences of his guilt.
You have the facts on the matter and you have the "expert" judgement that made up the enquiry (or aren't they "expert" enough for you?
"You deleted the acknowledgement"
I deleted nothing - I took the reference to the Israeli role in the massacre as a block and carefully pointed out that this was what I had done, giving your past behaviour as a reason for my doing so - a little different from erasing whole sentences to turn the article on its head - as you have done.
"That mistake was made many years ago and has never been repeated."
Then you'll be able to show us where it was retracted or disproved - won't you?
White phosphorus was used as an anti-personell weapon in both Fallujah and Gaza and you wand two-gun Terri have had this pointed out to you on numerous occasions - though characteristically you both choose to ignore it.
Mike,
I am in no way suggesting that Israeli behaviour was as serious as the holocaust - I would be as agenda-driven as Keith were I to do so.
I am suggesting that the mindsets that fueled both came out of the same stable - race murded is race murder as far as I'm concerned
Incidentally - someone here has been kind enough to point out that I have acquired a fake facebook entry - I'm pretty sure I know who did it and I'm inclined to leave it where it is - I was never one for medals and prizes, but I tend to treasure this one as an example of a sewer-rat trying to bite back.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 27 Sep 11 - 03:28 PM

Not so fast. First of all, who claims that Palestinans are a separate ethnic group? Only DNA testing would tell. Who says they are all Arabic? Who equates The Holy Land with only Israel? Not me, not my Irish nun teachers back in the 1950s. We were told to call both Palestine and Israel the Holy Land as it was under dispute. We are not to say either Palestine or Israel, but only the Holy Land. If I now say Israel I say Palestine. Otherwise I revert to calling it all the Holy Land and let God sort it out. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Sep 11 - 03:38 PM

Jim, you carefully deleted the "citation needed" statements from your paste.
You accidentally left one bracket in the text.
You are caught lying again.

It is also a lie that I ever did such a thing.
I once left out something that I had already posted and was not in dispute.
I keep my posts short and to the point.
I have explained all this to you before but you repeat the lie.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 27 Sep 11 - 03:48 PM

"I am in no way suggesting that Israeli behaviour was as serious as the holocaust"
. . . .
"the same no matter what scale it is carried out on."
,.,.,.

"same"?Jim "SAME"?

"NO MATTER [!!!] what scale" !!! ???
, , , ,

If that is not 'suggesting it is as serious' ... then it seems to me it will do quite well until some 'suggesting it is as serious' comes along...

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Mrrzy
Date: 27 Sep 11 - 03:56 PM

Palestine predates Judea, and should be the land of the semites (arabs & jews) if you want to delineate it by race.

But since we now have a de jure Judea, there ought to be a de jure Palestine, but it shouldn't be Arab, it should be geographic. As, frankly, should be Israel. And they can rename it Judea if they want.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 27 Sep 11 - 04:05 PM

I don't think this is in any way relevant to the issue of Palestinian statehood, and I prefer not to contribute to thread drift in this way, but here goes. From The Times in 2008: Israel rains fire on Gaza with phosphorus shells

White phosphorus: the smoke-screen chemical that can burn to the bone

— White phosphorus bursts into a deep-yellow flame when it is exposed to oxygen, producing a thick white smoke

— It is used as a smokescreen or for incendiary devices, but can also be deployed as an anti-personnel flame compound capable of causing potentially fatal burns

— Phosphorus burns are almost always second or third-degree because the particles do not stop burning on contact with skin until they have entirely disappeared — it is not unknown for them to reach the bone

— Geneva conventions ban the use of phosphorus as an offensive weapon against civilians, but its use as a smokescreen is not prohibited by international law

— Israel previously used white phosphorus during its war with Lebanon in 2006

— It has been used frequently by British and US forces in recent wars, notably during the invasion of Iraq in 2003. Its use was criticised widely

— White phosphorus has the slang name "Willy Pete", which dates from the First World War. It was commonly used in the Vietnam era.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 27 Sep 11 - 04:22 PM

I think that counts as a chemical weapon.

It also appears that both the Palestinian and Israeli positions are at least matters of ethnic cleansing or genocide - it you accept that Palestinians and Israelis are different races (whereas they are in fact both Semites divided by politics and religion).

The fact remains that no-one had the right to give part of the Eastern Mediterranean area to a distinct population defined by religion.

The question remains of how to solve the problem.

I am of the view that UN membership for "Palestine" might well assist.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: C. Ham
Date: 27 Sep 11 - 04:27 PM

Even though I'm not American, President Obama spoke for me when he spoke last week at the U.N.

His exact words:


Peace is hard work. Peace will not come through statements and resolutions at the United Nations -- if it were that easy, it would have been accomplished by now. Ultimately, it is the Israelis and the Palestinians who must live side by side. Ultimately, it is the Israelis and the Palestinians -- not us –- who must reach agreement on the issues that divide them: on borders and on security, on refugees and Jerusalem.

Ultimately, peace depends upon compromise among people who must live together long after our speeches are over, long after our votes have been tallied. That's the lesson of Northern Ireland, where ancient antagonists bridged their differences. That's the lesson of Sudan, where a negotiated settlement led to an independent state. And that is and will be the path to a Palestinian state -- negotiations between the parties.

We seek a future where Palestinians live in a sovereign state of their own, with no limit to what they can achieve. There's no question that the Palestinians have seen that vision delayed for too long. It is precisely because we believe so strongly in the aspirations of the Palestinian people that America has invested so much time and so much effort in the building of a Palestinian state, and the negotiations that can deliver a Palestinian state.

But understand this as well: America's commitment to Israel's security is unshakeable. Our friendship with Israel is deep and enduring. And so we believe that any lasting peace must acknowledge the very real security concerns that Israel faces every single day.
Let us be honest with ourselves: Israel is surrounded by neighbors that have waged repeated wars against it. Israel's citizens have been killed by rockets fired at their houses and suicide bombs on their buses. Israel's children come of age knowing that throughout the region, other children are taught to hate them. Israel, a small country of less than eight million people, look out at a world where leaders of much larger nations threaten to wipe it off of the map. The Jewish people carry the burden of centuries of exile and persecution, and fresh memories of knowing that six million people were killed simply because of who they are. Those are facts. They cannot be denied.

The Jewish people have forged a successful state in their historic homeland. Israel deserves recognition. It deserves normal relations with its neighbors. And friends of the Palestinians do them no favors by ignoring this truth, just as friends of Israel must recognize the need to pursue a two-state solution with a secure Israel next to an independent Palestine.

That is the truth -- each side has legitimate aspirations -- and that's part of what makes peace so hard. And the deadlock will only be broken when each side learns to stand in the other's shoes; each side can see the world through the other's eyes. That's what we should be encouraging. That's what we should be promoting.

This body -- founded, as it was, out of the ashes of war and genocide, dedicated, as it is, to the dignity of every single person -- must recognize the reality that is lived by both the Palestinians and the Israelis. The measure of our actions must always be whether they advance the right of Israeli and Palestinian children to live lives of peace and security and dignity and opportunity. And we will only succeed in that effort if we can encourage the parties to sit down, to listen to each other, and to understand each other's hopes and each other's fears. That is the project to which America is committed. There are no shortcuts. And that is what the United Nations should be focused on in the weeks and months to come.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 27 Sep 11 - 04:44 PM

1100 new housing units to be built by Israel in East Jerusalem, despite complaints by the EU and the U.S.
It is obvious that Israel will never stop in their takeover of Palestine.
The support of Israel by the United States serves no purpose except to exacerbate relations with the Arab world.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 27 Sep 11 - 04:48 PM

Pedantic note: "Ethnic group" doesn't mean the same as "race". The term primarily refers to culture. "Race" is such a confusing and misleading term it should be pensioned off.
...............

I can't see anything in Obama's rhetoric there which actually justifies the American intention to veto Palestine's full membership if the United Nations.

Negotiations have stalled, primarily because of continuing building of illegal settlements on occupied land, in defiance of the United Nations and international law, and against the stated policy of the United States This is being done as an attempt to establish "facts on the ground" which preempt the outcome of any negotiations.

The bid for United Nations membership is an attempt to break this deadlock, and could help towards getting negotiations under way on a new basis. In particular, the bid has provided a way in which implicit recognition of Israel can be presented as an advance of the Palestinian cause, rather than what it is, a tactical retreat.

Israel ought logically to welcome it, and the USA|should be exerting influence on them to do so.

Of course it is always possible that something along those lines may actually be happening in the back rooms... We'll see.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 27 Sep 11 - 05:29 PM

The rhetoric is worse, McGrath, than that. If you do not abandon your "historic homeland" by leaving it in 1299 and not trying to return until 1947, when do you?

Negotiations may be in train but at present it looks as if Obama is possessed by the Zionist US vote.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 27 Sep 11 - 06:07 PM

Jim ~~

I would draw your attention to the following exchange a little upthread between lively lass & me ~~

LL:" 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."'

M: '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."

LL: "That is a fair point also M" ~~~

One of the preferred techniques for achieving this conflation is to compare the actions of Israel to those of the Nazis: a rhetorical trope for obvious reasons peculiarly offensive to Jews {even, I suspect, Jim, to these Jewish friends of yours you have mentioned more than once}.

Let me emphasise that I know well that you yourself are no racist or antisemite; but I feel you should be made aware of the danger that your pertinacity in making what several of us have pointed out to you we regard as exaggerated and invidious comparisons might make you appear so to many; and of the extremely undesirable nature of the company with whose views you might well appear to some to be aligning yourself by such statements.

You have informed me before now of your opinion that my defence of another poster's position, which you have perceived as racist while I have not, might have the effect in some minds of tarring me with the same brush. So I trust you will not mind my pointing out to you that I consider you to be putting yourself at something of a similar risk in the present instance.

~Michael~

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 27 Sep 11 - 06:25 PM

RICHARD

"Not trying to return till 1947"?

~you are an ignorant fellow. The desire to return has never gone away, from the Spanish-Sephardic poetry of longing for return to the traditional homeland by Yehudah Halevi in the 12th century to the traditional desire for the rite to be held 'next year in Jerusalem' which has concluded the Passover service throughout all the years of exile. The actual return in any numbers began late C19, motivated much by Herzl's publication The Jewish State (1895) which followed the scandal of the Captain Dreyfus mistrial by French court-martial, coincidental in the Zeitgeist with movements for return from about 1880s onwards throughout the Jewish Diaspora. Where do you imagine all the kibbutzim, along with full cites like Tel-Aviv and Safed, which filled the land by the time the settlement of 1947 occurred, can have come from, if, as you assert above, no desire for return had been expressed between the Diaspora and that date? Before making such reckless and fatuous accusations, it would be well to check such facts. I thought you claimed a legal training. If your clients' affairs are conducted with the same degree of scrupulous attention to the facts of the case, I can't imagine you can make a very fat living.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 27 Sep 11 - 07:09 PM

Oh, forgive me - over 500 years away with a verbal ritual only as a reminder. And as a basis for an invasion of settlements - repeated today?

And I said "trying to return". If for example I said "I fancy Princess Anne" that is not attempted rape (although it might be improbable).

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Sep 11 - 07:23 PM

Richard,
"I think that counts as a chemical weapon."

You are entitled to your opinion but it is diametrically opposed to the understanding of every government in the world, every military in the world and every treaty, protocol and agreement that has ever been stated.
It does not act by toxicity, so it is not a chemical weapon according to the universally accepted definition of a chemical weapon.

McGrath, your information is correct.
WP smoke munitions are designed to contain the WP so as to minimise casualties.
WP anti personnel weapons blast it over a wide area.
British forces do not use such things.
They do use smoke WP munitions as does every military in the world.
The munitions used in Gaza were smoke not anti personnel.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 28 Sep 11 - 03:51 AM

Richard ~ Think I have contrived to make a little sense of your last somewhat convoluted & elliptical reply; tho don't see where Princess Anne comes into it, or contrive to raise any interest in your Royalty-based fantasies.

But your "trying" ~~ they had been , not 'trying', but succeeding in large numbers, in returning for 70 years before 1947, networking the whole country with several hundred farming settlements and co-operatives of various kinds, + at least three or four major cities with Jewish-settlement majority populations ~ apart fom Jerusalem which has been recognised throughout as a special case. During these years had occurred Herzl's publication, the Balfour Declaration... What can you possibly mean by "trying to return in 1947", as if this was a sudden opportunistic whim growing spontaneously out of a UN resolution - other than that you are pontificating away in complete & blissful ignorance as to what situation actually obtained in 1947?

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Sep 11 - 03:54 AM

Mike,
"So I trust you will not mind my pointing out to you that I consider you to be putting yourself at something of a similar risk in the present instance."
If anybody here has used anti -Zionism as an attack on Jews, please point it out.
All the arguments I have read here and on similar threads have been aimed at the actions of the Israelis, and have not gone beyond that - if they had I would have been among the first to point it out.
The logic of your suggestion is that we cannot criticise any ethnic group for fear it will be used by racists.
By giving Keith his blanket character reference you supported his view that "All male Pakistanis have a cultural implant towards the sexual abuse of under-age girls".
Where has anything I, or anybody here has said, come anywhere near that profoundly racist statement?
"but it is diametrically opposed to the understanding of every government in the world"
I ask again Keith; if the artical containing the US statement describing WP as chemical weapon is "WRONG" - where is your proof; where is the retraction, where has it been shown to be "WRONG"?
This is yet another case of your claiming to have quoted something from and "expert" (like the "culturally implanted" tendency in all male Pakistanis" to paedophelia - which nobody said but you) - and you have yet to produce that quote.
The Wiki entry on this shitty weapon (that is exactly what it is) is more than adequate to show what it is, how it has been used and the effects of its use on human beings - children included.
In the long run it is a matter of semantics whether or not white phosphorus is "chemical" - it is an apalling weapon, it has been used by the Israelis and the Americans as an anti-personel weapon and its use as such in civilian areas is a clear indication of how low humanity is prepared to go in pursuit of political and economic ambition
From The Guardian Jan 2009 and there's plenty more where that came from.
Jim Carroll

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/16/phosphorus-bombs-video-israel-gaza

A doctor shows phosphorus bomb injuries in Gaza. Warning: contains graphic footage of war injuries
Video showing injuries consistent with the use of white phosphorus shells has been filmed inside hospitals treating Palestinian wounded in Gaza City.
Contact with the shell remnants causes severe burns, sometimes burning the skin to the bone, consistent with descriptions by Ahmed Almi, an Egyptian doctor at the al-Nasser hospital in Khan Younis.
Almi said the entire body of one victim was burned within an hour. It was the first time he had seen the effects of what he called a "chemical weapon".
The Israeli military has denied using white phosphorus during the assault on Gaza, but aid agencies say they have no doubt it has been used.
"It is an absolute certainty," said Marc Garlasco, a senior military analyst at Human Rights Watch. He had seen Israeli artillery fire white phosphorus shells at Gaza City, Garlasco said.
The shells burst in the air, billowing white smoke before dropping the phosphorus shell.
Garlasco said each shell contains more than 100 incendiary rounds, which ignite and pump out smoke for about 10 minutes.
Severe respiratory problems can result in anyone exposed to the smoke and burning chemical particles that rain down over an area the size of a football pitch.
According to the International Solidarity Movement, many patients at the hospital near Khan Younis were suffering from serious breathing difficulties after inhaling smoke.
Human Rights Watch compares the use of white phosphorus shells over Gaza to the impact of cluster munitions, which scatter "bomblets" over a wide area. Children may kick and play with a lump of phosphorus, stirring up the embers and producing more fire and smoke.
The use of white phosphorus as a weapon – as opposed to its use as an obscurant and infrared blocking smoke screen – is banned by the UN's third convention on conventional weapons, which covers the use of incendiary devices. Though Israel is not a signatory to the convention, its military manuals reflect the convention's restrictions on using white phosphorus.
Israel initially claimed that it was not using white phosphorus. It later explained that shells being loaded for a howitzer, identified from photographs as phosphorus rounds, were empty "quiet" shells used for target marking. However, images of exploding shells and showering burning fragments are now acknowledged by independent observers as having been phosphorus.
At the centre of the controversy is the way white phosphorus air burst shells have been used in heavily built-up urban areas, with an overwhelmingly civilian population.
The M825A1 rounds, which are the kind identified as being fired by Israeli forces, are made primarily for use as a smokescreen in a way that limits their effect as an incendiary weapon, experts say.
Neil Gibson, a technical adviser to Jane's Missiles and Rockets magazine, said the shells did not produce high-velocity burning fragments like conventional white phosphorus weapons once did.
Instead, he said, they produced a "series of large slower burning wedges which fall from the sky". The wedges would then ignite spontaneously in the air and fall to the ground, burning for five or 10 minutes, he said.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 28 Sep 11 - 04:14 AM

Jim ~ I do not disagree with you re WP. I wish the Israelis didn't do such things; or destroy Arab lands and agricultural resources as they do in disproportionate retaliations against attacks. It was not for such that I marched and collected in my youth in support of the establishment of the entity which has turned out in its present governmental avatar to be such a grave disappointment. I really do see where you are coming from re Israeli intransigence & worse ~ I refer you again to that previous credo of mine of a couple of days ago.

But I nevertheless persist in my animadversions against the inappropriate overstated comparisons you continue to make; which are bound to lead to, and to an extent to justify, the sort of accusations of ill-faith against which I caution you. I know you don't intend to conflate anti-Israeli attitudes with outright antisemitism; but you do not do yourself any favours in avoiding such accusations by persisting in your thoroughly evasive pleas of mere 'difference of scale' in two manifestations of atrocity, as far apart, I still urge, as cold & cancer.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Teribus
Date: 28 Sep 11 - 04:34 AM

Q tell us all again how East Jerusalem came into being.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Teribus
Date: 28 Sep 11 - 04:48 AM

I rather liked this from Kevin (absolutelyu hilarious):

(White Phosphorus) - It is used as a smokescreen or for incendiary devices, but can also be deployed as an anti-personnel flame compound capable of causing potentially fatal burns

So there you are Kevin, Jim, Richard in action and under sustained fire from enemy positions covering ground that you have to traverse. Your Sergeant or your Officer recce's the situation and then turns round and orders you to abandon your weapons capable of killing (Note that - capable of killing) at 600 metres in order that you can use munitions against the enemy that is firing at you that could POTENTIALLY prove fatal to him

I know what I would call that - Absolutely f**king ridiculous.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 28 Sep 11 - 04:56 AM

"The logic of your suggestion is that we cannot criticise any ethnic group for fear it will be used by racists."
.,.,
No, Jim. The logic of my suggestion is that by making your criticisms, justified as they may be, so entirely disproportionate to their actual triggers, you lay yourself open to charges of being one of those racists.

Can you really not see that? And it's no good getting over this by saying to yourself, "I know I'm not a racist, and for that matter Michael knows it too; so it doesn't matter how much anybody else may misinterpret". Mud will stick; and it is not the sort of mud you will want sticking to you. And you are IMO foolish in the extreme provocatively to make yourself liable, by your hyperbole and over-emphatic over-inflated criticisms & denunciations, to have it flung at you. I repeat that word, Jim: you are being provocative. As the observant character in the Shaw play keeps saying, "You might think you are not, but you are".

With all good wishes ~ genuinely:

~Michael~

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 28 Sep 11 - 05:08 AM

I am trying to explain - and you are not listening - that by and large those who would later want to be called Israelis left what would later be called Israel about the year 1300 and had abandoned that land.

Giving them a "right" to return in 1922, or 1947, or later, dispossessed those by then on that land, and it was imposed by no government having the right to do so. It is an invasion, it is based on theocratic arguments and it is not justified.

It is however, there, so the only thing to be done now is (like in Ireland) surrender in part and try to reach an agreement. You cannot do that without understanding why the displaced population feel aggrieved, and displacing them further will not help that feeling go away.

If the UN recognises the state of Palestine it might be the first step towards peace, and towards Palestine and Israel accepting the existence of each other.


You based your argument solely on a form of words - and when I pointed out that words were not actions, you then based a fresh argument on actions - actions that no government validly countenanced and from 1917/22 onwards no ruler had valid power to countenance.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 28 Sep 11 - 05:09 AM

Teri - white phosphorus injures and may kill because of its chemical behaviour.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 28 Sep 11 - 05:32 AM

~~~that no government validly countenanced and from 1917/22 onwards no ruler had valid power to countenance.~~~
,.,.,
Sorry, Richard,just not right. The Balfour Declaration of 1917, later incorporated into the Sèvres peace treaty with Turkey and the Mandate for Palestine [google it], contains the words "His Majesty's Government", who became the valid authority under mandate from The League Of Nations". This ratification was later incorporated into the resolution of 1947 by the UN, which had by then become the valid, universally recognised, authority. Much as you personally may dislike them, those are the facts; and you merely make yourself look idiotic by retreating further & further into this own little bubble of yours where the facts of the outside world don't matter and only the misapprehensions of one Richard Bridge have any validity.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Sep 11 - 06:01 AM

Jim, I am not surprised you do not want to discuss your attempted deception by editing.

Jim, what you describe as a "profoundly racists statement" was never made by me.
I just said that I believed the people who did say it because they are known anti-racists from the Pakistani community.
I accepted it as I would a weather forecast or a medical diagnosis.
I am not qualified to form such an opinion.

The proof you asked for is simply that it was never again, before or since, ever described as a chemical weapon and is outside the definition of a chemical weapon.
It is not a chemical weapon.

From your last cut and paste,
"The M825A1 rounds, which are the kind identified as being fired by Israeli forces, are made primarily for use as a smokescreen in a way that limits their effect as an incendiary weapon, experts say."

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Sep 11 - 06:07 AM

Richard,
"Teri - white phosphorus injures and may kill because of its chemical behaviour. "

That is true.
It is also true of napalm, and all explosives.
That does not make them chemical weapons, it makes them explosive or incendiary weapons.

Chlorine is a chemical weapon.
It poisons its victims.
Its effect comes from its toxicity.
That makes it a chemical weapon.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Teribus
Date: 28 Sep 11 - 07:58 AM

"that by and large those who would later want to be called Israelis left what would later be called Israel about the year 1300 and had abandoned that land." - Richard Bridge

What about the ones who didn't leave? Who did thery dispossess

What about the ones who from 1847 to 1920 arrived and legally purchased land? Who did they dispossess? The land they were sold was generally considered to be worthless, but the immigrant Jews knew how to alter that and where land could not be turned to cultivation it was developed and turned to industry and commerce.

In May 1948 when the Arabs of Palestine and their allies from Egypt and Jordan attacked the Jews with the intention of annihilating them and drive them into the sea - are you attempting to tell us that there was no intent to disposses?

Are you attempting to tell us that because the Jews left in around 1300 they have no right of return because they were forced to leave and abandoned their land, yet Palestinian Arabs who were ordered to leave their land by their fellow Arabs who were intent in killing all in their path did not abandon their land?

A perfectly workable solution was tabled by the United Nations in 1947 prior to the withdrawal of the British. The Jews accepted it and the Arabs did not, the latter hoping to benefit from the spoils of a war they were about to start. They lost, and they must learn to live with that reality. Having lost, Arab nations almost universally took revenge on Jews living in their midst by killing them, assaulting them, robbing them of the homes, their businesses their property and their savings. No outcry for them Richard I notice, how selective of you.

Did Egypt gain from the war of 1948? Of course it did it annexed Gaza and imprisoned the Arab Jews of Palestine in camps set up on Palestinian soil, the corrupt bastards then ripped the people off by stealing aid genuinely given by others to alleviate the plight od those "refugees" care to explain how you can be a refugee on your own land?? This state of affairs lasted until 1967 when Israel liberated Gaza and evicted the Egyptians from Palestinian soil. The Israelis having formerly been Palestinians themselves had a damn sight more right to hold Gaza than any damn Egyptian

Same thing with Jordan they occupied the West Bank and half of Jerusalem - (Pssst Q - that is how there came to be an EAST JERUSALEM - Jordanian spoils of WAR - I know I'd have to wait until hell froze over before I would get that admission from you)

White Phosphorus - The Richard Bridge terror weapon of choice - because, irrespective of how unlikely, it might kill you. I on the other hand Richard, would prefer to use as a weapon something that was actually designed to kill as it's principal purpose.

Back to Gaza and the West Bank - Billions received in aid over the last 63 years - What have the "Palestinians" done with it all??

I know that Mrs Arafat is a very wealthy widow and that Hamas could give two figs for the people who were foolish enough to elect them to power. Their next election is when Richard? Oh yes that's right, they aren't having any more elections in Gaza are they - I wonder why? The Arab citizens of Israel vote quite regularly though don't they.

The Jews of Palestine took wasteland and made it productive. The Arabs of Palestine made it into a hellhole.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Teribus
Date: 28 Sep 11 - 08:03 AM

"The Arab Jews of Palestine" for God's sake my temperature must higher than I thought.

That should of course read "The Arabs of Palestine" my apologies.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 28 Sep 11 - 09:08 AM

If it was a wasteland, how could they have had their olive orchards, famous orange groves, herds? Sounds like good adaptation to an arid land to me..sort of like things were in Greece perhaps. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Sep 11 - 09:18 AM

From wiki

Ottoman Palestine was a harsh environment. The Galilee was swampy, the Judean Hills rocky, and the south of the country, the Negev, was a desert. To make things more challenging, most of the settlers had no prior farming experience. The sanitary conditions were also poor. Malaria, typhus and cholera were rampant. Nomadic Bedouins would raid farms and settled areas. Sabotage of irrigation canals and burning of crops were also common. Living collectively was simply the most logical way to be secure in an unwelcoming land. On top of safety considerations, establishing a farm was a capital-intensive project; collectively the founders of the kibbutzim had the resources to establish something lasting, while independently they did not.

Finally, the land had been purchased by the greater Jewish community. From around the world, Jews dropped coins into JNF "Blue Boxes" for land purchases in Palestine. In 1909, Baratz, nine other men, and two women established themselves at the southern end of the Sea of Galilee near the Arab village of Umm Juni. These teenagers had hitherto worked as day laborers draining swamps, as masons, or as hands at the older Jewish settlements. Their dream was now to work for themselves, building up the land. They called their community "Kvutzat Degania" (lit. "wheat of God").

The founders of Degania endured backbreaking labor: "The body is crushed, the legs fail, the head hurts, the sun burns and weakens," wrote one of the pioneers. At times half of the kibbutz members could not report for work and many left. Despite the difficulties, by 1914, Degania had fifty members. Other kibbutzim were founded around the Sea of Galilee and the nearby Jezreel Valley.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Sep 11 - 09:46 AM

I don't know if this satelite image link will work.
If not take a look at an image of where Israel, Gaza and Egypt meet.
Compare the land use.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Sep 11 - 09:50 AM

Sorry, this works.
http://www.theodora.com/maps/new9/gaza_strip_satellite_image.jpg

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Sep 11 - 09:55 AM

http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?q=satellite+gaza&hl=en&safe=active&gbv=2&tbm=isch&tbnid=uOF2yI2WABxCoM:&imgrefurl=http://bokertov

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 28 Sep 11 - 10:43 AM

What on earth has differences in land use across the border with Egypt got to do with the question of Palestinian statehood, Keith?

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: GUEST,Jonathan Cristol
Date: 28 Sep 11 - 11:00 AM

The only way that Palestine will achieve a viable independent state is through direct negotiation with Israel. The pursuit of Palestinian statehood at the United Nations is a bad strategy for the Palestinians and is a testament to their continued poor leadership. Being seated in the General Assembly will not mean that Israel will grant Palestinians overflight rights, trade agreements, open borders, work permits or other privileges that the Palestinians presumably desire. The only way to achieve these privileges is through bi-or trilateral negotiation with Israel and the United States.

Being seated in the General Assembly does not force Israel, or any other state, to recognize Palestine. But even if it did, it would strengthen Israel's hand to close the borders to all goods, continue its blockade of Gaza, deny over-flights and to retaliate to rocket attacks with overwhelming force (legally, the standard is retaliation to the point at which the enemy can no longer launch attacks against you).

Right now Israel is in a legally murky relationship with the Palestinians and an argument can be made that they enjoy some responsibility for their well-being. Once Palestine is an independent state, the legal distinction is clear. Palestine is responsible for the Palestinians and Israel for the Israelis. Israel, like any other state, is under no obligation to allow foreign nationals the right to work or even visit its territory. There will be no obligation to share water, to share energy, or medical care. The Palestinian patients who enjoy outstanding health care in hospitals in Tel Aviv will have to take their chances at Ramallah Hospital. It can even build a massive wall along the border (and shoot people trying to cross it). The maritime boundary will remain disputed for some time and Israel's naval superiority will ensure that no ships will reach Gaza.

Perhaps the worst outcome for the Palestinians will be donor fatigue. Right now, the Palestinians are the largest percapita recipients of international aid in the world. Some of that aid surely comes from the perceived hardship of living "under occupation." Once statehood is achieved it is certainly possible that the international donor community will turn its attention elsewhere and the Palestinians' aid based economy will dry up.

The world has seen this happen in Haiti, Pakistan, and elsewhere. And the Palestinians' Arab brethren have never been particularly forthcoming with anything more than rhetorical support for the Palestinians. Statehood via the United Nations will grant the Palestinians nothing more than a seat and a vote in the General Assembly, and those are worth exactly nothing. General Assembly resolutions do not carry the weight of law; and surely Israel has nothing to fear from one more anti-Israel vote in the already Israel-obsessed General Assembly.

Perhaps the Palestinian strategy is that general recognition, even if not from Israel or the United States, would make the settlements illegal and force the settlers to leave. But this ignores the fact that most states already consider the settlements illegal and have done nothing to stop continued Israeli settlement. In part this is because they know that the major settlements will end up part of Israel, and in part because it is not in their interest to do anything.

There will never be sanctions put on Israel, not just because of the obvious American veto (and likely veto by China, who purchase sophisticated weaponry from Israel), but because Israel supplies many goods that the world wants, computer chips in particular. The current failing strategy of isolating Israel through "boycott, divestment, and sanctions" is a fools' errand for the Palestinians, whose economy is so deeply intertwined with Israel that a true sanctions regime would likely devastate both states.

And what territory are we even talking about? A necessary condition of statehood is "effective control." Fatah has effective control over most of the West Bank, but none of Gaza; and Hamas has effective control over Gaza, but none of the West Bank. Would there be a threestate solution? Would Fatah be recognized as sovereign over Gaza when it clearly is not? There is no current example of a state with two separate governments, recognized by the same set of states.
The only way that Palestine will achieve a viable independent state is through direct negotiation with Israel. Israel must agree to allow over-flights, to allow cross-border trade, to share resources, to exchange diplomats (and grant them immunity) and to negotiate final borders. The United Nations does not have the legal right to do most of those things and does not have the political will or ability to do the others. This latest Palestinian gambit serves only to raise hopes, when what is really needed is a lowering of expectations.

a reminder: guests, even if they are members, need to be consistent with whatever name they use. Thank you. Moderator

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Sep 11 - 11:12 AM

"entirely disproportionate to their actual triggers,"
I don't really think we are that far apart on this - we are talking about the thousands of Arabs that were slaughtered by Jewish "freedom Fighters" and Israeli collusion in the deaths of "700–800 to 3,500 (depending on the source)" refugees at Shatila and Sabra, compared to the millions who were exterminated by the Nazis (it's often forgotten that the final figure includes Gypsies, Trades Unionists, and "mental and physical deficiants")
For me, these are significant enough figures for a comparison to be drawn, but I really am open to argument. I am more than aware of my tendency to overstate, but am not sure this is the case here
"Jim, I am not surprised you do not want to discuss your attempted deception by editing"
Your attempts to implicate others in your own behaviour only serve to underline your dishonesty.
Unlike your editing (removing sentences from the middle of the piece which totally changed the purpose of the statement), I edited nothing; what I included changed nothing - I pointed out what I had done and why I did it and gave the link to the whole piece.
In your panic when you were first caught out, you attempted to something similar but quickly abandoned the idea when you realised you were getting nowhere - you would have done well to stick with your first instincts.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 28 Sep 11 - 11:25 AM

Those arguments that Jonathan Cristol raises might be relevant reasons against Palestine seeking UN membership, to be balanced against other arguments tending the other way.

But that's a matter for the Palestinians, and while there are those among them who oppose this move (notably Hamas, who see it, justifiably, as involving a fuller recognition by Palestine of Israel's sovereignty over most of what Hamas sees as Palestine), the bid appears to have widespread support among most Palestinians.

But these arguments are not relevant to the question whether it is justifiable for a small minority of states - basically the USA - to block this membership application.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 28 Sep 11 - 11:36 AM

No, indeed, Jim: I don't think we are that far apart either. I am simply genuinely concerned that some of your more extreme comparisons could lay you open to some very disagreeable accusations which you might be hard-put to refute. I have pointed out to you that accusations of Nazi-like behaviour, however deeply you may feel them deserved by some of the more extreme Israeli actions, are a red-rag to antisemitism seekers ~ NOT ONLY to those of bad faith who use such accusations as a sort of defence-mechanism against criticism of israel, BUT ALSO [& this is the important point], those of good faith who genuinely, and in many cases justifiably, see such accusations as antisemitic because they frequently are. I honestly think some of your more extreme statements, of the sort which you admit to occasionally making, might lay you open to some of the latter sort of accusation by making you appear to be keeping some most undesirable intellectual company, which would be seen by your accusers, and possibly by others whose good opinion you would not wish to lose, as justifiable.

That is a situation I and your other friends would not wish to see you make yourself vulnerable to; and I think you would do well to consider all your animadversions against Israeli actions & intransigence, and all the comparisons you might make based on these, and employ some circumspection in approaching this question if you do not want to find yourself in an invidious position of your own making.

I don't want to sound like Nanny; but please believe I perceive myself as saying these things for your own good.

~Michael~

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Sep 11 - 02:44 PM

Mike
Then we have no real argument - not on this anyway.
But that bloody Thatcher woman.....!!
Best
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 28 Sep 11 - 03:39 PM

Oh, don't worry about her ~ she's a bit yesterday's now, anyhow. LoL!

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Sep 11 - 04:04 PM

McGrath, the question had been asked about Israel's achievements in agriculture.
The last link I gave show neat fields on Israel's side of the border, and wasteland on the Gazan and Egyptian sides.

Jim, you said you copied text as a block without deletions.
That was not true.
You deleted the flags that showed the claims to be unsubstantiated.
You hoped to achieve a deception.

That which you accuse me of deleting had already been posted, and acknowledged as true, by me.
Do you deny that?
No point in putting it back up again, was there?

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Greg F.
Date: 28 Sep 11 - 05:14 PM

The last link I gave show neat fields on Israel's side of the border, and wasteland on the Gazan and Egyptian sides.

Same argument that was used by the U.S. of A. to steal the land of the Native Americans & herd them onto reservations.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 28 Sep 11 - 05:21 PM

But what's that got to do with the question of statehood for Palestine?

Is the suggestion something along the lines "These Arabs don't know how to look after a country, just aren't up to the job"? I've heard that kind of suggestion, and I despise it. I'm not accusing you of endorsing it it, but I'm puzzled by how you see this map as relevant in this context.

In any case Egypt has plenty of intensively cultivated land over by the Nile. The effort and expense involved in irrigating way out by the border in the Sinai isn't seen as justifiable. As for the Gaza, which is relatively intensely cultivated, as the map indicates, cultivation is reduced by various factors, including the availability of water, where effectively Israel controls things.   And of course it was devastated by the last Israeli blitz. Plus of course if you try farming near the border with Israel you are liable to get shot.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 28 Sep 11 - 05:54 PM

I think one of the main questions is fundamentally do we wish the Palestinians well, whether or not we can see statehood right now. Or do we see them as ants to be gotten rid of? mg

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Sep 11 - 08:02 PM

"You deleted the flags that showed the claims to be unsubstantiated."
No I deleted nothing
There as no need to - there is no dispute whatever that the Israelis both facilitated and co-operated in both of the massacres.
An independant enquiry found that "In 1982, an independent commission chaired by Sean MacBride concluded that the Israeli authorities or forces were, directly or indirectly, responsible."
Even "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."
To make doubly sure you didn't accuse me of doctoring the text I carefully wrote.
"Just in case there is any 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"
Yet you still have the dishonesty to accuse me of what you did.
You really are a dishonest little shit.
"No point in putting it back up again, was there?"
You, on the other hand cut-'n-pasted Jack Straw's statement to prove that there was a racial/cultural connection to paedophelia - having already made your claim that "All male Pakistanis have a cultural implant" that inclines them to the abuse of underage girls - and removed Straw's comment that there was no racial conclusions to be drawn from the fact that a handful of Pakistanis were involved in procuring underage girls for sex.
People can draw their own conclusions from your behaviour both then and now.
"Or do we see them as ants to be gotten rid of?"
The Israelis appear to have made up their mind on that one in 1948 when the Brits pulled out of Palestine - to their eternal shame , the British Military authorities did nothing to stop the massacres of thousands of Arabs.
Jim Carroll