BS: Israel Moves in.

Subject: RE: BS: Israel Moves in.
From: beardedbruce
Date: 06 Aug 09 - 08:58 AM

Rights group: Hamas may have committed war crimes
         

Diaa Hadid, Associated Press Writer – Thu Aug 6, 5:52 am ET

GAZA CITY, Gaza Strip – A prominent human rights group said there is "strong evidence" that Gaza's Hamas rulers committed war crimes by allowing militants to fire rockets from the territory, killing civilians in Israel, in a report released Thursday.

The 31-page report by the New York-based Human Rights Watch focuses on Hamas's actions in connection with Israel's three-week offensive in Gaza that ended in late January. Human Rights Watch, as well as other groups, have previously produced reports accusing Israel of committing war crimes during the offensive designed to stop Palestinian rocket fire.

"Hamas rocket attacks targeting Israeli civilians are unlawful and unjustifiable, and amount to war crimes," said Iain Levine of Human Rights Watch. But the report stopped short of clearly stating that Hamas militants were guilty of war crimes, with officials saying only a court could make that accusation.

More than 1,100 Palestinians were killed during the offensive. Palestinians said most were civilians, but Israel disputed that.

Three Israeli civilians were killed by rocket fire and 10 soldiers were also killed during the conflict that saw Israeli warplanes, tanks and artillery smashing Palestinian government buildings, and destroying and damaging thousands of apartments, schools and factories.

Hamas militants fired hundreds of rockets at southern Israeli towns, forcing thousands of civilians to hide in shelters or to flee. Many of those rockets were fired from crowded Palestinian neighborhoods.

Bill Van Esveld of Human Rights Watch said the intent of armed groups to harm civilians, and not numbers of people killed, determined whether they committed war crimes.

Van Esveld said the Islamic militant group, which is committed to Israel's destruction, violated international war rules by allowing fighters to launch rockets that either "deliberately or indiscriminately" targeted civilian areas. Hamas also violated rules of war by allowing militants to fire from populated Gaza areas, endangering the lives of civilians, by making them vulnerable to return Israeli fire, he said.

Van Esveld said in the specific cases where three Israeli civilians were killed by rocket fire there was "strong evidence" Hamas militants committed war crimes.

One Israeli civilian, Beber Vaknin, 58, was killed while in his backyard, about six miles (10 kilometers) from Gaza. Hani al-Mahdi, an Israel construction worker, was killed at a building site. Irit Sheetrit, a mother of four, was killed as she drove home.

Hamas took responsibility for each of the attacks on its Web site.

"It's clear evidence of intent to commit war crimes," Van Esveld said. He said other cases needed more investigation.

Hamas spokesman Ismail Ridwan said the report was "biased."

"Hamas did not use human shields and did not fire rockets from residential areas. Hamas does not target civilians," Ridwan said.

Israeli government spokesman Mark Regev referred queries for comment on the report to a 160-page Israeli document on the Gaza offensive released last week. It contains 20 pages of documentation of Hamas practices, including rocket attacks, and Israel's response.

The Israeli NGO Monitor, which critiques groups such as Human Rights Watch, criticized it for waiting for six months before issuing its report critical of Hamas though it contained "no new information." Gerald Steinberg, director of NGO Monitor, noted that the group already released two reports critical of Israel. "The fact that it (Hamas) is only now on their agenda exposes their biased priorities," he said.

Since fighting subsided in January, Hamas militants have held back from firing rockets, respecting an unwritten truce with Israel.

Hamas is already considered a terrorist organization by most of the international community.

Thousands of rockets fired by Palestinian militants in Gaza have killed 24 Israelis since 2001, according to Israeli police figures.

Subject: RE: BS: Israel Moves in.
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 14 May 09 - 06:53 PM

""I would say that what the Palestinian side is interested in is freedom.""

While I agree that NEITHER side is right, or can claim the moral high ground, in respect of HOW they pursue their objective, I also have to agree that Palestine is the side looking for freedom from the continual, and lethal, interference by what is supposed to be an Israeli "Defence" Force.

While we are looking at the history of this situation it's worth remarking that the Israelis' should be able to understand, and sympathise with, the Palestinian viewpoint.

After all, in 1948 the Israelis were murdering British troops in pursuit of the same goal.

The Irgun Zwai Leumi, an Israeli terrorist organisation, which included Menachim Begin (later to be leader of the Israeli government) among its members, was pinning down the tent flaps of British soldiers, pouring petrol over them, and roasting the occupants, or alternatively tossing in a couple of grenades, and shooting anyone trying to escape.

One member of my group of friends at school lost his father in this way.

A pity indeed that they DON'T realise that they are repeating history, but in reverse. In both cases they highlight the contempt they have for the rights of others, while always demanding that others respect their rights.

Small wonder they are hated.

Don T.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Israel Moves in.
From: CarolC
Date: 14 May 09 - 12:07 PM

I would say that what the Palestinian side is interested in is freedom.

Subject: RE: BS: Israel Moves in.
From: CarolC
Date: 14 May 09 - 12:04 PM

There's absolutely nothing false about my statement. The Palestinian government has on many occasions recognized Israel's right to exist. At the time they did that, the government of Israel wanted nothing to do with Resolution 242. The government of Israel still wants nothing to do with Resolution 242.

Hamas is not internationally recognized as the legitimate government and representative of the Palestinians - Fatah is. Fatah under Abbas recognizes Israel's right to exist, which means that the internationally recognized government and representative of the Palestinians recognizes Israel's right to exists, and supports Resolution 242.

Subject: RE: BS: Israel Moves in.
From: SINSULL
Date: 14 May 09 - 11:57 AM

SIGH
So let's not find a solution; let's drag up every event for the past thousand years to prove we are right, you are wrong and (THIS IS CRITICAL) war is not only inevitable but you started it.

Neither side is totally at fault; neither side is totally innocent; neither side is really interested in peace.

Subject: RE: BS: Israel Moves in.
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 May 09 - 07:20 AM

"The Palestinians ... have already acknowledged Israel's right to exist"

False statement. Hamas does NOT acknowledge it. You can't make it true by repearting it, when it is not true.

Or are you saying Hamas is NOT Palestinian, and NOT the legitiment goverment of Gaza? If so, Israel can wipe out Gaza without hurting Palewstinians, by your logic.

Subject: RE: BS: Israel Moves in.
From: CarolC
Date: 13 May 09 - 10:25 PM

The resolution was accepted by Egypt, Jordan, and Israel from the outset, but was initially rejected by Syria. Only after the October War of 1973 did Syria accept the resolution, while all the Arab states (except Libya) accepted its principles at the Fez Arab summit conference in 1982. The most consistent rejection of Resolution 242 came from the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), which from its inception in 1964 refused a peaceful settlement with Israel. After 1974, however, as the PLO moved toward the idea of a negotiated settlement with Israel, it increasingly based its objections to Resolution 242 on the fact that it dealt with the Palestinians as refugees, rather than as a people with national rights. Finally, in 1988, the PLO formally accepted Resolution 242 as the basis for a Middle East settlement, thereby meeting one of the conditions posed by the United States for opening contacts with it."

http://israelipalestinian.procon.org/viewanswers.asp?questionID=000473

Subject: RE: BS: Israel Moves in.
From: CarolC
Date: 13 May 09 - 10:20 PM

Also, it there would be a foreign involvement in Palestinian sovereignty for the first few years, it should include protection from any aggression on the part of Israel.

Subject: RE: BS: Israel Moves in.
From: CarolC
Date: 13 May 09 - 10:17 PM

The Palestinians and the surrounding Arab states have already acknowledged Israel's right to exist. Quite a few times, actually.

Subject: RE: BS: Israel Moves in.
From: bobad
Date: 13 May 09 - 11:24 AM

Seems reasonable to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Israel Moves in.
From: Wolfgang
Date: 13 May 09 - 11:05 AM

from resolution 242 (UNSC):

...the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:      
   
    (i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;

    (ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement 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....

This is a demand for all parties involved, in particular part (ii).

CarolC's answer to Sinsull's question only addresses Israel which in my mind is not a way to peace. All parties have to say goodbye to a number of dearly held ideas. Israel has to say goodbye to the idea of a greater Israel (minor exchanges of land should not play a big role) and will have to withdraw from Golan and (nearly) all of the Westbank.
The surrounding Arab states (of the whole region) will have to acknowledge the right of Israel to exist. The Palestinians will have to do the same (acknowledge the existence of Israel at that place and in addition will have to say goodbye to the idea of a right to return (in exchange for monetary compensation).

Israel will have no right to interfere in any way with the new Palestinian state and that state will have to do all it can to make it impossible (as far as that goes) for its citizens to attack Israel in any way.

The last paragraph will take several years to implement after an accord. For these few years the sovereignty of Palestine will be slightly restricted (surveillance not by Israel, but by the UN or, better, neighbours in the name of the UN: Arab and Turkey in which both partners have trust)

One sided demands as are in abundance in this thread will never lead to peace.

Israel then (1967) accepted the resolution, most Arab states and the Palestinians rejected it. As long as both sides insist that the other side first implements what is most difficult for them and then perhaps the other part of the agreement may follow (or not) there will be no solution. If I was the Israeli prime minister, I would not give up the control of the Westbank or most of the settlements there without being sure (as sure as one can be; pacts always may be broken) that (ii) will be acknowledged at the same time. If I was a leader of the Palestinians I would not give Israel the feeling they can be safe from attacks without being given a trustworthy assurance of an interference free Palestinian state.

Until the time of an agreement settling all of the open questions or at least most of them one-sided demands are just propaganda and nothing else. Some people may swallow it.

"You first give me what I want/need most and then we'll see" is doomed to fail.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Israel Moves in.
From: CarolC
Date: 12 May 09 - 05:02 PM

I've answered that question many times. Israel should withdraw from all land it is illegally occupying (all lands it took in 1967), and leave the Palestinians alone to establish their country in peace. Short of that, Israel should annex all of the lands it took in 1967 and give all of the people living within its borders citizenship and equal rights.

Subject: RE: BS: Israel Moves in.
From: SINSULL
Date: 12 May 09 - 04:21 PM

Riginslinger asked: "What is the best course of action going forward?"
Can anyone here answer that?
Hundreds of posts for years now of "I'm right." "No. I'm right."

Any suggested solutions?

Subject: RE: BS: Israel Moves in.
From: CarolC
Date: 11 May 09 - 11:40 AM

The Palestine part of the mandate was the Palestinian national homeland. The part of Mandate Palestine what was called "Transjordan" was (and is) the Hashemite Kingdom, not the Palestinian national homeland.

I think Winston Churchill trumps Sir Alec Kirkbride. Churchill said that the Jews may find a home in Palestine, but that the indigenous non-Jewish Arabs of that area also retained a right to live there, and that the Jews were forbidden from creating a Jewish state or attempting to rule over the non-Jewish Palestinians in the area they were allowed to regard as their home.

Subject: RE: BS: Israel Moves in.
From: beardedbruce
Date: 11 May 09 - 11:30 AM

" just as it wasn't under the mandate. Under the mandate, Palestine was the Palestinian national homeland. Under the mandate, what is now Jordan was a region of Mandate Palestine, called Transjordan."


So it was part of the mandate that it was not part of???


Transjordan was the ARAB MOSLIM HOMELAND portion ( 77%) of the Mandate Palestine territory. Palestine was the JEWISH HOMELAND portion.


"How did the Arab territory of Transjordan come into being?
The 1922 White Paper (also called the Churchill White Paper) was the first official manifesto interpreting the Balfour Declaration. It was issued on June 3, 1922, after investigation of the 1921 disturbances. Although the White Paper stated that the Balfour Declaration could not be amended and that the Jews were in Palestine by right, it partitioned the area of the Mandate by excluding the area east of the Jordan River from Jewish settlement. That land, 76% of the original Palestine Mandate land, was renamed Transjordan and was given to the Emir Abdullah by the British.

...
After the partition, Transjordan remained part of the Palestine Mandate and its legal system applied to all residents, both East and West of the Jordan River, who all carried Palestine Mandate passports. Palestine Mandate currency was the legal tender in Transjordan as well as the area West of the river. This was the consistent situation until 1946, 24 years later, when Britain completed the action by unilaterally granting Transjordan its independence. Thus the British subverted the purpose of the Palestine Mandate, partitioned Palestine and created an independent Palestine-Arab state with no regard for the rights and needs of the Jewish population.

According to Sir Alec Kirkbride, the British representative in the area, Transjordan was:

... intended to serve as a reserve of land for use in the resettlement of Arabs once the National Home for the Jews in Palestine, which [Britain was] pledged to support, became an accomplished fact. There was no intention at that stage of forming the territory east of the River Jordan into an independent Arab state.
In 1925, the British added 60,000 sq. km. of desert to eastern Transjordan forming an "arm" of land to connect Transjordan with Iraq and to cut Syria off from the Arabian Peninsula. The British continued to favor exclusive Arab development east of the Jordan River by enacting restrictive regulations against the Jews, even when Arab leaders sought Jewish involvement in the development of Transjordan.
"





NOTE:"Transjordan was:... intended to serve as a reserve of land for use in the resettlement of Arabs once the National Home for the Jews in Palestine, which [Britain was] pledged to support, became an accomplished fact."

Subject: RE: BS: Israel Moves in.
From: CarolC
Date: 11 May 09 - 11:19 AM

And Jordan is not the Palestinian national homeland today, either (it is the Hashemite Kingdom), just as it wasn't under the mandate. Under the mandate, Palestine was the Palestinian national homeland. Under the mandate, what is now Jordan was a region of Mandate Palestine, called Transjordan.

_____________________________


If we're going back to the real origin of the conflict, rather than referring just to the start of the conflict that was being referred to in the post I was responding to - the war that involved Arab armies from other countries fighting in Palestine - then the start would be when the European Jews started displacing Palestinians from their homes and livelihoods and boycotting their labor.

Subject: RE: BS: Israel Moves in.
From: Riginslinger
Date: 11 May 09 - 08:18 AM

Assuming you're right, Bruce, and I concede you know a lot more about it than I do, we can't change anything that has taken place in the past. What is the best course of action going forward?

Subject: RE: BS: Israel Moves in.
From: beardedbruce
Date: 11 May 09 - 07:44 AM

"It's not possible to credibly claim that the Arabs in surrounding countries started a conflict that had already been underway in the form of the ethnic cleansing of hundreds of thousands non-Jewish Palestinians by Jews, using terrorism and outright massacres, and taking over Arab cities and villages for several months before Israel declared its independence. I know people like to try to make it look like the conflict started after Israel declared its independence, but that has been thoroughly disproven"

No, it started in 1923 or so, as has been pointed out repeatedly.

Subject: RE: BS: Israel Moves in.
From: beardedbruce
Date: 11 May 09 - 07:39 AM

If we're going to go by Mandate Palestine, then Jordan, the Palestinian Arab Homeland, has no right to exist whatever.

Subject: RE: BS: Israel Moves in.
From: Riginslinger
Date: 10 May 09 - 04:01 PM

This is an endless question. Recorded history doesn't go back far enough to determine who was there first.

Subject: RE: BS: Israel Moves in.
From: CarolC
Date: 09 May 09 - 09:11 PM

It's not possible to credibly claim that the Arabs in surrounding countries started a conflict that had already been underway in the form of the ethnic cleansing of hundreds of thousands non-Jewish Palestinians by Jews, using terrorism and outright massacres, and taking over Arab cities and villages for several months before Israel declared its independence. I know people like to try to make it look like the conflict started after Israel declared its independence, but that has been thoroughly disproven.

So the reality is that the Jews who became the government of the state of Israel were the ones who started the warfare during the months leading up to Israel's declaring its independence, and any territory it took during that time was taken in violation of the very United Nations initiative cited by the above poster. People can't both point to the UN borders and legitimately claim a right to violate them at the same time. It is illegal under international law for Israel to acquire territory by force, so it is illegal for Israel to transfer members of its own population into any territory outside of the pre-'67 borders. However, it is true that the pre-'67 borders are internationally recognized, and this is why so many people are saying that Israel needs to pull back to the pre-'67 borders, rather than to the borders outlined by the Partition plan.

The Jews who had been living in the area that is now Israel and occupied Palestine uninterrupted since biblical times are definitely indigenous to the area. Those are Mizrahim. The European Jews have no claim on that area whatever based on area of origin, and the Sephardim have some claim, by virtue of having been there for a while, but it is not as great as the claim that the indigenous Mizrahim, and the non-Jewish Palestinians have on the area.

The non-Jewish Palestinians (along with those Mizrahim whose families never left the area) are not squatters, their families having live in that area and having farmed it for thousands of years.

If people are going to point to the Jews of color who live in Israel as evidence of a lack of racism on the part of Israeli Jews of European origin, they are being very dishonest. The Jews of color in Israel are terribly discriminated against, and they were brought there to do the kinds of work that the European Jews didn't want to do, but that they didn't want non-Jews to be doing, either. So it most definitely is a racial matter, and a matter of European supremacism.

The Palestinians in the occupied areas definitely have a strong connection to the land they have lived on and farmed for thousands of years. It's true that some of the Palestinians who are now in the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem were not born in those places. This is because they were born in the area that is now Israel.

By the way, these attempts to deny the real history of the Palestinians is also form of racism and it is cultural genocide. And it is a practice that has been entirely discredited.

I was reading a news item the other day that describes how one of the docents at the Israeli Holocaust Museum was fired because he pointed out to visitors, as they were exiting a building where it opens out to the peaceful scene overlooking the area, that the site of the destroyed Arab village of Deir Yasin, where the first massacre of the Nakba took place (several months before Israel declared its independence), could be seen from where they were standing there in the Holocaust Museum.

Really, hasbara fictions, like those posted in an above post, no longer have the power to mislead and brainwash people. There's just too much proof out there that entirely discredits he entire hasbara narrative.

Subject: RE: BS: Israel Moves in.
From: robomatic
Date: 09 May 09 - 08:10 PM

When folks make a claim of a legal right that transends warfare, they are trying to conjure some legal rights on the one hand, and to ignore the practical results of warfare on the other. The United Nations put together some border partitions in 1948 which were adjusted by a conflict initiated by bordering Arab states. In 1967 this happened again. The fact that someone recognizes Israel's 1967 borders now is much less significant than if they'd recognized 'em before, well, 1967. And why 'Palestinians' should have definite borders when Israelis do not is basically unfair. If Israel's borders are not recognized and are not secure, then why should anyone else's be?

The basic unfairness going on is that the basic concept of Israelis is they are the Palestinians, not the descendants of, for want of a better word, squatters. They regard themselves as the 'indigenous'. This attitude existed long before the modern state of Israel.

As for the assumption but actual accusation that this is a white versus non-white issue, that is a calumny brought in by various folks to make this a racial issue. There are plenty of black and brown Jews in Israel. (Come to think of it, there are plenty of all shades of Arabs in Israel). Where one sees some major racism are places like Sudan and Somalia where Arabs are treating blacks in ways that no one should treat animals.

The inhabitants of Gaza and the West Bank have been maintained there not so much by their desire to reclaim lost lands, but the lack of the surrounding Arab States to offer them new places to settle and maintain whatever constitutes their 'culture' that might distinguish it from any other culture. This is the nature of the 'genocide'. They are being maintained as a suffering multitude precisely with the aim of a genocide on the residents of the State of Israel. This is pretty obvious when you consider that the Arab 'Palestinian' way of life has been deterred by where they live, not how they live. If Israel gave way for the occupation of Israeli lands by these folks (most of whom were not born there) the genocide that would occur would be of the Jewish way of life there, and perhaps a great deal of the Jews there as well.

Subject: RE: BS: Israel Moves in.
From: CarolC
Date: 09 May 09 - 06:07 PM

And by the way, I did mention the main complaint that academics have with Sand' book when I said this in my original post on the subject...

it appears that Israeli historians seem to find it rather insulting for anyone to suggest that they didn't know about this all along

So the accusation that I've been cherry picking and that I don't care about academic honesty is as lame as all of the other smears and attacks coming from that poster.

Subject: RE: BS: Israel Moves in.
From: CarolC
Date: 09 May 09 - 05:45 PM

However, let's discuss the rights of Israelis. What rights do they have? Do they have the right to commit genocide and ethnic cleansing? No. They don't have that right. Do they have the right to dispossess an entire people and to completely thwart a peoples' right to self determination? No, they do not have that right.

Do they deserve the same rights as anyone else who is accused of committing these things? Yes, they do have those rights.

They have a right not to be subjected to collective punishment, so any Israelis who are not complicit in the above listed crimes have a right to be left alone.

Israelis have as much right to live where they are now as I have to live where I am now. But they don't have any more right to discriminate against the indigenous people of that region than I have to commit acts of discrimination against Native Americans.

Israelis have the same exact rights as anyone else... no more, no less.

Subject: RE: BS: Israel Moves in.
From: CarolC
Date: 09 May 09 - 05:38 PM

If I had a nickle for every time the above poster told me they would have nothing further to do with me...

Please carry out the threat this time.

Subject: RE: BS: Israel Moves in.
From: Peace
Date: 09 May 09 - 05:35 PM

Yes, I did read the review. Now you go read it again. My interest is academic honesty--something you seem not to care about. You cherry pick. I have always found it strange that you have never posted anything that even suggests Israelis have rights. So, imo, your interest is not anything to do with fairness. Ist is to do with the destruction of Israel.

You are so filled with haterd for Israel that you prove yourself to be what you are. A petty person. I will have no further interaction with you. It's like trying to reason with a disease. Have this and any other Israelbashing thread you want. When you attract the Stormfront folks you will have succeeded. A pox on you, Ms Carol Cunningham Dale. I hope your hatred consumes you.

Subject: RE: BS: Israel Moves in.
From: CarolC
Date: 09 May 09 - 05:22 PM

LOL

I wonder if the person who provided a link to Israel Bartal's review of Sands' book actually bothered to read the review. Bartal is one of the people who are taking issue with Sands' assertion that the historians in Israel didn't know about the information in Sands' book all along. Bartal maintains that Israeli historians have always known what Sands writes about in his book.

Subject: RE: BS: Israel Moves in.
From: CarolC
Date: 09 May 09 - 05:08 PM

Commentary on The Myth of the Jewish Exile from the Land of Israel: A Demonstration of Irenic Scholarship by Yisrael Yuval, here...

The Magnes Zionist

Subject: RE: BS: Israel Moves in.
From: Peace
Date: 09 May 09 - 04:48 PM

Inventing an invention

By Israel Bartal

Review of Sands' book here.

Subject: RE: BS: Israel Moves in.
From: CarolC
Date: 09 May 09 - 04:42 PM

This is very interesting. I've just been reading some things coming from Israeli historians who are saying that there never was a Jewish exile from what is now Israel and occupied Palestine. They're saying it's common knowledge among historians in Israel that the myth of exile was fabricated by anti-Semitic Christians to show Jews that they had earned God's punishment. They're saying that the Jewish religion has, at times in its past, gone though periods of proselytizing and that most Jews today do not have any ancestral connections to Israel and occupied Palestine. And they also are saying that there were migrations out of the Middle East long before the question of the Romans came up that were by choice and not because of expulsion.

I had thought that perhaps these ideas were possibly coming from sources that might be questionable, but now it appears that Israeli historians seem to find it rather insulting for anyone to suggest that they didn't know about this all along.

Two books on the subject are When and How Was the Jewish People Invented? by Shlomo Sand, and The Myth of the Jewish Exile from the Land of Israel: A Demonstration of Irenic Scholarship by Yisrael Yuval.

Subject: RE: BS: Israel Moves in.
From: Riginslinger
Date: 08 May 09 - 10:14 PM

Here's the larger problem:

http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_4671.shtml


http://www.etherzone.com/2009/raim042209.shtml

Subject: RE: BS: Israel Moves in.
From: Lox
Date: 08 May 09 - 04:42 PM

"The skit"

So its a skit?

Ok - in a highly charged political context art often proliferates and flourishes where other things don't.

Being art, it usually isn't literal, but often makes a point via various mediums, ranging from satire and black humour to metaphor and caricature.

I don't speak Arabic so I don't know how the language is being used and I have no knowledge of Palestinian theatrical traditions.

So I would be hasty to make any kind of judgements about the "skit" described.

It is also illuminating to observe the comments underneath. There are none confirming or denying the accuracy of the translations.

But all of the above is really totally unimportant compared to the following.

When I checked out the websource for the video, palwatch.org, I found a brand new site under construction.

I also note that it is in fact .org.il

so it is a new israeli site dedicated to "watching palestinians".

Basically it is built by Israelis with an already formed clear Bias against palestinians, who have "translated" Arabic for a website frequented (if the comments on the youtube vid are any indication) by Israelis who already hold palestinians in contempt.

mmm hmmm

The last one of these that I commented on was MEMRI, a website whose accuracy and impartiality have been seriously contested and whose reliablity as providers of source material makes wikipedia look authoritative.


These videos do not serve as evidence of anything other than the stubborn determination of the poster to use whatever spurious support he can find for ...

... well what for ...

... what was the point ...

... an implication that palestinians are loonies, thickos and liars?


Which brings me to my next point.

I've noticed that in a few recent posts, some posters have ceased to refer to Hamas, but have chosen instead to refer to palestinians as a whole.

I also noticed that those who have a problem with the Israeli administration have consistently referred to that administration and its defence force and not generalized about Israelis or Jews.

Subject: RE: BS: Israel Moves in.
From: bobad
Date: 08 May 09 - 03:38 PM

Hamas Blood Libel: Jews drink Muslim blood
by Itamar Marcus and Barbara Crook, Apr. 5, 2009

Jews drink the blood of Muslims and believe that God wants Jews to hate Muslims, according to a Hamas TV skit. Performed before a live audience at the Islamic University in Gaza, the segment features actors playing a father and son, in traditional Hasidic Jewish garb, discussing their God mandated hatred of Muslims.

The skit opens as the father instructs: "We Jews hate the Muslims, we want to kill the Muslims, we Jews want to drink the blood of Muslims." It is later explained that Jews wash their hands before prayer, not with water, but with Muslims´ blood: "We have to wash our hands with the blood of Muslims."

Blood libels were a tragic part of Jewish history, as Jews were accused of using the blood of non-Jews for ritual purposes, especially the baking of Matzah for Passover. Blood libels created deep hatred and were an effective trigger for numerous pogroms and the murder of thousands. The Hamas accusation that Jews drink Muslim blood comes the week before Passover, the anniversary of many horrific blood libels.

Following is the full Transcript:

Father: "We Jews hate the Muslims, we love killing the Muslims. We Jews love to drink the blood of Muslims and Arabs.
[Turns to the audience:] Are you Arabs? Are you Muslims?
I hate you! Yes, I hate you, to please the Lord.

To please the Lord…"
...
Father: "Shimon, look, my son, I want to teach you a few things. You have to hate the Muslims."
Son: "I don't like them, I hate them."
Father: "You have to drink the Muslims' blood.
…
I repeat: You have to hate the Muslims."

Son: "I hate the Muslims."

Father: "You have to drink the Muslims' blood."
...
Father: "You have to stand next to me and pray, my son."
Son: "One moment and I'm coming."
Father: "Where are you going, my son?"
Son: "To wash [with water]."
Father: "To do WHAT?"
Son: "To wash before prayer."
Father: "Muslims do this, not us!
...
We have to wash our hands with the blood of Muslims."

CLICK TO VIEW VIDEO

Subject: RE: BS: Israel Moves in.
From: bobad
Date: 08 May 09 - 03:32 PM

Hamas to kids:
Death is honor and victory

by Itamar Marcus and Barbara Crook, Apr. 3, 2009

Hamas continues its compelling message to children that death, not life, is the prime value. The following lyrics have been appearing regularly in a song on the children's program Tomorrow's Pioneers on Hamas TV: "Teach the children that death is honor and victory. Through death, we seek to bring the dawn and the day." [Al-Aqsa TV (Hamas), March 20, 2009]

While the words are being sung, a young girl throws darts shaped like missiles at a target shaped like the Star of David, promoting another repeating Hamas message - violence against Israel. When the target is hit and the Star of David falls, the young girl raises her hands in victory.

CLICK TO VIEW VIDEO

Subject: RE: BS: Israel Moves in.
From: CarolC
Date: 08 May 09 - 02:55 PM

If we're going to go by Mandate Palestine, then Israel has no right to exist whatever. Because according to the Mandate, the Jews were forbidden to establish a Jewish state in the area that they were allowed to regard as their home.

Violence in defense of their lands is not a violation of the peace. Until Israel ends the occupation, the Palestinians, under international law, have a right to defend their territory.

Subject: RE: BS: Israel Moves in.
From: beardedbruce
Date: 08 May 09 - 02:52 PM

1600

Subject: RE: BS: Israel Moves in.
From: beardedbruce
Date: 08 May 09 - 02:52 PM

"it cannot be said that the Palestinians don't want peace."

It can , because they have repeatedly demonstrated BY THEIR ACTIONS that they do not want a peaceful solution as long as Israel exists.

Subject: RE: BS: Israel Moves in.
From: beardedbruce
Date: 08 May 09 - 02:50 PM

"The Palestinians have already given up most of their land as it is"

False statement.

Of Mandate Palestine, the area that is presently in Arab hands exceeds 75%. Including the West Bank and Gaza, it includes above 90% of the Mandate territory.

So, "MOST" is a slight exageration, even for you.

Subject: RE: BS: Israel Moves in.
From: CarolC
Date: 08 May 09 - 02:44 PM

Nevertheless, despite the attempt to divert the point I was making away from the point I was making (Oslo being an attempt to change the subject), the Palestinians are under no obligation to give up any more of their land. Israel hasn't got any right to expect them to give up any more of their land. The Palestinians have already given up most of their land as it is. Israel has no right to expect them to give up any more of it.

Subject: RE: BS: Israel Moves in.
From: CarolC
Date: 08 May 09 - 02:37 PM

And by the way, the UN and the international community recognize Israel's pre-1967 borders. Those are the legal borders of Israel. If the Palestinians use force to defend their land, that is not an act of aggression, so it cannot be said that the Palestinians don't want peace. Israel is the belligerent who is occupying another peoples' land, and colonizing it so it is Israel who is violating the peace. By the standard used above, that would entitle the Palestinians to forcibly occupy Israel until it was willing to agree to live in peace.

Subject: RE: BS: Israel Moves in.
From: beardedbruce
Date: 08 May 09 - 02:35 PM

But with Oslo, haven't the Palestinians agreed to end the violence, limit guns to police, and allow free access to holy places, amend their covenant, etc...?

On the Palestinian police force:
"As a Palestinian police officer, I will not hesitate to give my gun to anyone who approaches me and tells me he is going to commit an attack against the army or the settlers. I will even kiss the gun before and after the operation."

- a P.L.O. recruit from Ramallah for the Palestinian police (Iton Yerushalayim, 10 December 1993)


On the right of Jews to visit holy places in Judea, Samaria and Gaza:
"We expect the Israelis to give us back these holy places... We believe in freedom of religion. But Jews won't have rights there because these are our places."

- Hasan Tahboub, head of the P.L.O.-backed Supreme Muslim Council (The Jerusalem Report, 16 December 1993)


On the continuation of the intifada:
"Reteach the enemy the lesson of the intifada."

- from a leaflet distributed in Ramallah by Fatah, Yasser Arafat's faction of the P.L.O. (Iton Yerushalayim, 10 December 1993)

"The intifada will continue, as will the carrying of weapons in the territories and outside of them."

- Farouk Qaddumi, head of the P.L.O.'s Political Department, in a speech at a ceremony marking the closing of the P.L.O.'s radio station in Algiers (Yediot Aharonot, 10 August 1994)


On the ultimate goals:
"Our enemy is a lowly enemy. The Palestinian people know there is a state that was established through coercion and it must be destroyed. This is the Palestinian way."

- Farouk Qaddumi, head of the P.L.O.'s Political Department, in a speech at a ceremony marking the closing of the P.L.O.'s radio station in Algiers (Reuters, 10 August 1994; Yediot Aharonot, 10 August 1994)

They will fight for Allah, and they will kill and be killed, and this is a solemn oath. . . . Our blood is cheap compared with the cause which has brought us together and which at moments separated us, but shortly we will meet again in heaven. . . . Palestine is our land and Jerusalem is our capital.

- Yasser Arafat, from Arafat and the Uses of Terror, by Jonathan Torop, Commentary Magazine -- May 1997

"We will fight until a Palestinian state is established."

- Yasser Arafat, Chairman of the P.L.O., in a letter congratulating Saddam Hussein on Iraqi Independence Day (Yediot Aharonot, 24 July 1994)


"No Palestinian will ever be extradited to Israel. A decision has been made to this effect, and it is inconceivable to think that such a thing would ever happen."
- PA "moderate" Hanan Ashwari, confirming the PA's intention to violate a key Oslo obligation (Voice of Palestine, quoted by Arutz 7, Aug 14, 1997)


Still Waiting for PA Compliance
...the Israeli cabinet agreed on its expectations of the Palestinian Authority, prerequisites for a further Israeli withdrawal from areas of Judea-Samaria.The PA reacted by accusing Israel of "new tricks"--a line parroted by some media commentators--and that Israel was making it impossible for the PA to comply. But all of the obligations were agreed upon and signed into accords years ago. In return for these undertakings, the PA has achieved a mini-state, with control over major cities and scores of villages in Judea-Samaria and Gaza. The obligations Israel is insisting the PA meet, include:

* The revision of the PLO Covenant, most of whose 33 clauses contain references to Israel's destruction or call for violence against Israel
As early as September 1993, Arafat wrote in a letter to the late Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin that: "The PLO affirms that those articles of the Palestinian Covenant which deny Israel's right to exist, and the provisions of the Covenant which are inconsistent with the commitments of this letter are now inoperative and no longer valid. Consequently, the PLO undertakes to submit to the Palestinian National Council for formal approval the necessary changes in regard to the Palestinian Covenant." In return for that undertaking, Rabin recognised the PLO and agreed to negotiate with it.

In April 1996, the PNC voted for a six-month deadline for a legal panel to draft a new charter for the PLO. However, the deadline passed, with no panel ever having convened.

Last February, a month after documents attached to the Hebron Protocol obligated the PA to "complete the process of revising the Palestinian National Charter", the PA chief negotiator Abu Mazen said there was no need to amend the Covenant as the required changes had already been made.

However, the allegedly amended Covenant has never been published or made available, and is generally believed not to exist.

Israel wants the PNC's legal committee to "issue a statement specifying which articles have been annulled in accordance with the April 1996 PNC decision. Then, the PNC itself must reconvene and pass a new resolution affirming the statement by its legal committee concerning which specific articles in the Covenant have been changed."

* Reduce the size of the PA police force.

Israel accuses the PA of deploying nearly 36,000 policemen in areas under its jurisdiction, exceeding the limit prescribed by the Oslo accords by more than 50 per cent (other sources, including a PA human rights group, has put the true figure at closer to 85,000). Moreover, the PA has failed to give Israel a complete list of all police recruits for review and approval.

* Restrict official PA activities to areas under PA control

Israel has repeatedly demanded that the PA stop operating in Jerusalem. It wants an end to the activities in the capital of all PA officials, including those on the Temple Mount carried out by the PA's "Minister for Religious Affairs" Hassan Tahboub and Islamic Mufti Ikrama Sabri. It has repeated its call for Faisal Husseini's "Ministry for Jerusalem Affairs" to stop its activities at Orient House, the eastern Jerusalem building dubbed the "unofficial PLO HQ" in the city, and for an end to PA security services' operations in Jerusalem.

* The obligation to fight terror and prevent violence

Israel focused in January on three specific areas where the PA had failed to honour its commitments:

Preventing incitement and hostile propaganda. The government presented more than 80 statements made by PA officials and PA media in the past year "which constitute incitement to violence and hostile propaganda against Israel they have praised Hamas terrorists, threatened Israel with war, and accused Israel of injecting Palestinians with the AIDS virus, poisoning Palestinian food products and threatening to destroy the Al-Aksa mosque."

Israel said it expected officials to stop engaging in and encouraging incitement against Israel. "PA employees, preachers in mosques and others who incite to violence against Israel must be dismissed from their posts, prosecuted and punished. The PA must also end incitement to violence against Israel in the official Palestinian media (including radio and television).

"The PA should undertake a comprehensive public education campaign regarding the rejection of violence and terror and normalisation with Israel."

Transfer of terror suspects to Israel. The government named 34 individuals Israel has asked be handed over to face trial, including PA Police Chief Ghazi Jabali, wanted for instructing PA policemen to ambush and fire at Israelis; suspected killers of Israeli civilians; and suspected masterminds of bombings which cost scores of lives. To date, the repeated extradition requests have been ignored.

Confiscation of illegal firearms. Israel wants the PA "to systematically confiscate all illegal weapons and punish those illegally bearing arms. The PA must also act to prevent the smuggling of weapons into Palestinian-controlled areas by all elements, including by senior Palestinian officials and VIPs. PA officials caught smuggling weapons must be removed from their posts. Any weapons and explosives in PA possession or in Palestinian-controlled areas which violate the terms of the accord must be transferred to Israel."

- from the Canadian Friends of the International Christian Embassy in Jerusalem

Subject: RE: BS: Israel Moves in.
From: CarolC
Date: 08 May 09 - 02:34 PM

Israel is in violation of international law. It is illegal under international law for a country to colonize land that it has occupied by force. It is illegal for a country to move its own citizens into such occupied territory. It is required of such and occupying country, to protect the civilians of those areas, and to ensure their safety and viability. Israel is in violation of international law on all of those counts. And it is also in violation of UN resolutions requiring it to end its occupation of those areas.

Subject: RE: BS: Israel Moves in.
From: CarolC
Date: 08 May 09 - 02:30 PM

*Gaza and the West Bank were never the Israelis to concede.

Subject: RE: BS: Israel Moves in.
From: beardedbruce
Date: 08 May 09 - 02:30 PM

"After eleven rounds of talks in the summer of 1993, the Israelis and Palestinians reached a provisional agreement on partial autonomy in the occupied territories. This so-called "Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements" (DOP) was not a regular peace treaty. It was an agreement that set out specific steps to reach a permanent solution to the conflict and established a five-year timetable over which to complete them.

The accords reached at Oslo set forth a process by which Israel would transfer portions of the West Bank and Gaza Strip to the control of a new body, the Palestinian Authority, which would be elected by the Palestinian people. The authority would guarantee Israel's security by fighting terrorism. This would enable the parties to build enough trust and confidence to proceed with negotiations on the "final status" that was to occur in 1999. Many of the most controversial issues between the two sides, including the future of Jerusalem, were left for the final status talks. The accord set up a joint Israeli-Palestinian economic cooperation committee to carry out economic development programs in the West Bank and Gaza, critical to the success of Palestinian autonomy.

On 13 September 1993, the DOP was formally signed. United States President Bill Clinton hosted the official signing ceremony. Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres and PLO official Abou Abbas signed the accords, granting self-government to Palestinians in the Israeli-occupied Gaza Strip and West Bank, while Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and PLO Chairman Yasir Arafat shook hands, a historic gesture. Clinton's statement that "Today marks a shining moment of hope for the people of the Middle East; indeed, of the entire world" captured the monumental nature of the event.

In September 1995, the Oslo Accords were followed up with an interim agreement (Oslo II), which expanded Palestinian self-rule by the withdrawal of the Israeli military from six large West Bank cities. The Israeli Army was replaced by Palestinian police forces, and elections for a Palestinian Counsel were held in 1996, during which Yasir Arafat was elected.
"

Subject: RE: BS: Israel Moves in.
From: CarolC
Date: 08 May 09 - 02:29 PM

Gaza and the West Bank were never theirs to concede.

Subject: RE: BS: Israel Moves in.
From: CarolC
Date: 08 May 09 - 02:29 PM

The Palestinians have most definitely signed such a treaty.

Subject: RE: BS: Israel Moves in.
From: beardedbruce
Date: 08 May 09 - 02:25 PM

"The only people who have never made any concessions are the Israelis, who have only taken what belonged to others, and never, ever conceded a thing."


Sorry, territroy occupied in defending against attack can be held until a PEACE treaty is signed. Since the Palestinians have no desire for peace, and have never signed such a treaty, why should Israle give up ANY of the occupied territory?

But in fact, Israel HAS- Gaza and the West Bank. so your statement " never, ever conceded a thing." is not true.

Subject: RE: BS: Israel Moves in.
From: CarolC
Date: 08 May 09 - 02:25 PM

I should have said, no killings by the PLO.

Subject: RE: BS: Israel Moves in.
From: CarolC
Date: 08 May 09 - 02:24 PM

There were no killings of Israelis by the PA for about two years after Oslo was signed, and they policed their own people on behalf of Israel during that time.

Subject: RE: BS: Israel Moves in.
From: beardedbruce
Date: 08 May 09 - 02:23 PM

"The Palestinians did comply with Oslo for a couple of years. "

Oh??



Care to mention what part of their obligations they complied with??