 sj |
||
|
||
Palestine (continuation)
|
|
|
Subject: Hopefully about Palestine From: GUEST,livelylass Date: 25 Oct 11 - 09:40 AM Please forgive the start of a fresh thread, but the two or three most voluminously prolific posters on the other one are evidently not interested in discussing the supposed topic whatsoever. As such perhaps it is best to let them have it. I have my doubts as to how long Mods will see fit to allow the continuance of this thread, but live in hope! Anyway, serious issues for UNESCO and other subsiduary bodies of the United Nations following a recent vote on Palestinian admittance (yet to continue to go before the UNESCO general assembly), in the form of likely severance of all financial support from the US - a not inconsiderable sum, as it comprises something over 20% of all UNESCO funding. Isn't Democracy (or perhaps that should more rightly be Plutocracy) a grand thing? "if UNESCO admits Palestine as a member, the United States will be forced to effectively withdraw from the organization. That would be a huge financial blow to UNESCO, which receives 22% of its budget ($80 million) in dues payments from the United States. With that money, UNESCO promotes world press freedom, is the lead UN agency for the implementation of the Millennium Development Goal number 2 (universal primary eduction) and administers the World Heritage site program, among other things." http://www.undispatch.com/beyonce-knowles-and-the-looming-crisis-at-the-un |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine From: artbrooks Date: 25 Oct 11 - 10:02 AM As a commenter on that article very correctly responded: "Is it really necessary to point out that the PLO is NOT the Palestinian Authority?" In fact, the latter cannot even be considered to be a successor organization, since the PLO is still alive and very active. I don't really see any reason for those laws, if they do function as a trigger for US withdrawal, to be implemented. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine From: GUEST,livelylass Date: 25 Oct 11 - 10:11 AM Good point. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 25 Oct 11 - 10:13 AM Nobody ever gets "forced" to act as a bully. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine From: GUEST,livelylass Date: 25 Oct 11 - 10:28 AM It all depends whether or not Obama IS indeed legally bound (caveat as noted by ArtBrooks above) by prior legislature or not.. Though sadly (and without wishing to indulge in "US bashing" here) it does appear that the current Obama administration is failing - and failing dismally - to make good pre-election promises regards Palestinian statehood. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine From: GUEST,livelylass Date: 25 Oct 11 - 10:31 AM Make that the "pre-election declared position", rather than "promises". |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine From: GUEST,Don Wise Date: 26 Oct 11 - 06:36 AM Surely this belongs in the 'BS' section? |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine From: MGM·Lion Date: 26 Oct 11 - 06:45 AM But there is already a thread of identical title to this one down there. Isn't it a bit confusing that two threads of the same title should be ongoing anyhow? Lively Lass, could you not just have entitled this one 'Palestine 2' or some such to obviate our all being driven doolally! ~Michael~ |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine 2 From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 26 Oct 11 - 02:22 PM Good idea. Maybe some clone can oblige. That way there could be a discussion along side the tennis match which the original thread has developed into. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine From: Stringsinger Date: 26 Oct 11 - 03:38 PM It's good to know that American so-called leaders can't buy the UN. The recognition of Palestine by the UN represents a world-wide acceptance and repudiation of American and Israel exceptionalism. Obama and Netanyahu are on the wrong side of history and basically take an undemocratic stand, remembering that Hamas, whether we agree with their policies or not, was democratically elected. The UN in their wisdom followed a democratic tradition in their decision to accept Palestine. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine From: robomatic Date: 26 Oct 11 - 04:21 PM American leaders aren't choosing to buy the UN. Arab oil money is doing that. The democratic conduct of Hamas as you term it extends to summary street executions and waging war on its neighbor Israel in all but name. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 26 Oct 11 - 05:45 PM That kind of thing isn't "undemocratic", however unpleasant they may be. "Democratic governments" are quite capable of doing vile things - torturing people, waging murderous illegal wars, bankrolling tyrants... Stuff like that doesn't make the USA and the UK governments undemocratic. Israel has a "democratic government" for that matter and that doesn't stop it acting illegally and tyrannically. Democracy is only a first step in a long journey. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine From: Mrrzy Date: 26 Oct 11 - 07:25 PM Maybe it could be titled Palestine, really. Anyway, I was trying to rise above it by talking under them but this is a fine alternative... I'm waiting to see what the Arab Spring Fling Thing will do for the statehood question, too. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine From: pdq Date: 26 Oct 11 - 07:33 PM This is all about a name! If the term "Palestine" were replaced by another name such as Arabiana, everyone would see that there is no "palestinian people", just Arabs who live in and around the traditional home of the Jews which was incorrectly called Palestine by the Romans and (I believe) called Philistia by the Greeks. Jews have a right to name their homeland and not have others do it for them. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine From: Mrrzy Date: 27 Oct 11 - 12:30 PM Nobody's arguing with the name of Israel, pdq. And Palestine as a name for the place where the semites lived predates the split between them into arabs and hebrews, which predates the conversion of hebrews to jews, which happened in historical times. If you mind the name Palestine for the Arab half, what would you prefer? Isn't the word Israel hebrew for something? What would the same word be in Arabic? |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine From: pdq Date: 27 Oct 11 - 12:47 PM Israel is sovereign country recognized by the United Nations. It was formed in 1948. The traditional Jewish homeland dates back about 5772 years and has been variously been called Canaan, The Holy Land, the Promised Land, and yes Palestine, a name applied by the Romans about 2000 years ago as an afront to the Jews. The Greeks used a similar name: Philistia. I suggested Arabiana for Gaza and perhaps a few other Arab pockets in and around Israel. This fight is a PR masterpiece by the Arabs. They never were the rightful owners of the Jewish homeland (Canaan/Palestine/etc.) and they are recent squatters who have poured into the area in the last 900 years or so. The Arab World consists of 20 countries now. The Arab leaders call Israel Palestine and count it as their 21st Arab World Country. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine From: Jim Carroll Date: 27 Oct 11 - 01:37 PM "They never were the rightful owners of the Jewish homeland" This is the worst possible argument anyone could put up for the Israeli case in Palestine - that the Palesinians have no right to Palestine at all. It confirms the worst suspicions of those who oppose Israeli behaviour; that the Arabs are expected to vacate an area that they have occupied for 2 and a half centuries largely on the basis of a myth to make way for a "chosen people" - a recipe for centuries of bloodbath which I doubt if anybody but the most extreme Zionists support. Jim Carroll Palestine by Matt Giwer, © 2005 [Sep] We know for a fact all of the common knowledge of the origin of Palestine is false. We also know the common knowledge has been deliberately falsified by redneck Christians and their murderous zionist brethren. We do not know how long Palestine has existed. It first appears in the written record in the books Herodotus wrote of his travels in the region in the 5th c. BC. There he refers to the region as Palestine Syria seven times. And that is the spelling he used. All relationship of Palestine of the biblical Philistines is bible speculation and not based in fact. So far as anyone can tell the Philistines were as invented as the biblical Jews. The name Palestine for the region ceased to be used for about one century under Roman rule when it was broken into several administrative regions. The name was restored for the single administrative region restored after the 134AD revolt in Judea. So Palestine and the Palestinians have existed for at least 2500 years. It is noteworthy that Herodotus mentions no people in or around Palestine Syria which could be the Judeans or Israelites of the Old Testament. He also prepared lists of peoples who practiced circumcision and had related genital mutilation customs. There are no Old Testament people on this list either. There is no mention of Philistines either. So at the time of Herodotus we know the Palestinians existed but have no evidence of the people of the Bible existing. This is consistent with the creation of the first "old testament" as the Septuagint some two centuries after Herodotus by Juda Macabe. So lets say Herodotus happened to miss them. After all he was only one man and inventing his methods as he went along. After Alexander conquered the region and later all the way to the Indus valley, he had inventories made. They were to list the lands and peoples he ruled. There is no mention of any people who could have been the Jews or Judea on either inventory. Today we can more or less confirm the accuracy of the inventories but no Jews or Judeans. Of course this is not something Zionists want to hear as their political ideology is based upon the fiction of the Old Testament. The Christian literalists are not interested in any allegorical reading of the bible. Even the moderate bible "scholars" are believers and have an interest in putting the date of the first writing of the Old Testament as far back as possible. The so-called scholars are the most annoying of all. They make no credible attempt to actually date the creation of its books. There are facts of archaeology which must be shown false or accepted. They most uniformly hold it was created shortly after the most recent documented time they could not have been written. They have great scholarly debates over a few decades "shortly" after this time. They do not consider how late they could have been written nor when they were likely created. We can date them by simply applying the rule of the oldest external mention of them. By that rule the original was the Greek Septuagint towards the end of the 3rd c. BC. The Septuagint also uses Palestine. Philistine comes from the Hebrew version of the Septuagint which is first mentioned at the beginning of the 1st c. BC. The first mention it is a translation is by Josephus towards the end of the 1st c. AD. In his claim he cites the forged letter of Aristeas which recounts a magical, inspired translation. Josephus is a priest of this religion. The best "evidence" he knows of is a forgery. By all the physical evidence and by all the principles which apply to everything other than the Bible, the Palestinians long predate anyone calling themselves the people of the Old Testament. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine From: Jim Carroll Date: 27 Oct 11 - 01:45 PM Did I say 2 and a half centuries? - I meant millennia of course Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine From: MGM·Lion Date: 27 Oct 11 - 01:46 PM Who, out of interest, is this Mr Matt Giwer, and what his qualifications for so positive a polemic? Where do the books of Moses, c C13-12BC, or of Solomon {esp Song of Songs, "Daughters of Jerusalem"}, about C9BC, fit into this conceptualisation? ~M~ |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine From: jennbrooks Date: 27 Oct 11 - 02:42 PM Would the haters care to back off - or continue on the other thread - so that the issue raised by the OP can continue to be discussed? |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine From: pdq Date: 27 Oct 11 - 02:55 PM This thread was started because Jim Carroll poisoned the other thread. Now he is posting crap from Matt Giwer, and insane Holocost denier. Too bad the initial poster's wants are not being honored by allowing Carroll's drass to stay. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine From: Jim Carroll Date: 27 Oct 11 - 02:59 PM "Where do the books of Moses,..." About 2 centuries after Herodotus?? Not making a case for the Israelis pulling out of the Middle East, as apparently pdq is for the Palestinians - just perhaps that after all this time they should all learn to accept that we are in the 21st century and learn to live with the realities that that brings. "Would the haters care to back off " Am trying to stay on topic and discuss it without the hate... You don't like it, either ignore me or get me expelled. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine From: Jim Carroll Date: 27 Oct 11 - 03:22 PM Cross-posted; I know nothing of Giwer and his holocaust denying, but the view put forward rings true as far as my undarstanding goes - though I am willing to be corrected. As for my participating in this thread - the other one was polluted by a number of people, myself included - I left it to the flatulents and the incontinents a while ago. Ban one of us and you must ban us all and not just select those that agree with your viewpoint. Otherwise - message as in previous post. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine From: MGM·Lion Date: 27 Oct 11 - 03:31 PM Googling Matt Giwer, I found the following, which I copy here without comment, other than wondering if this can be one with whom the notoriously ever-progressive Mr Carroll is happy to be associated --- Israel declares there was no Holocaust Extermination: 27 million Jews survived the holocaust by Matt Giwer, © 2007 [June] .,,.,. Is Matt Giwer an Antisemite? You be the judge~~ You pathetic, primative bastards are all alike. You folks should get your sociologic parallels straight. David and Montezuma were equals. Today's Jews are adhering to a social form that died out in the civilized world thousands of years ago. By any definition today's Jews are a living anachronism that should be preserved under some endangered species act. Just as we do not disturb the strange tribes of the Amazon we should not disturb the strange tribes of Juda or David. (March 23, 1996) I don't know how to indentify jews. Why don't you tell me? The nose, the funny hats, the names, the beards, the "I want a Mercedes" whine? How are they identifiable? What identifies them? Ask three jews what is a jew and you get four opinions. Maybe you can do better. ....... |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine From: Jim Carroll Date: 27 Oct 11 - 03:54 PM Thanks for that information - I really didn't know who Matt Giwer was but the argument I put forward was one I had been given some time ago, and if it is wrong than please correct it. I have no more time for holocaust deniers than I'm sure you have. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine From: GUEST Date: 27 Oct 11 - 04:24 PM Matt Giwer appears to be an anti Semite Holocaust denier - mortified at quoting him and apologise to those I have given offence to for doing so. But it doesn't alter the fact that the Arabs have been in Palestine for millennia and only the acceptance of that fact will bring lasting peace to that area. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine From: artbrooks Date: 27 Oct 11 - 05:36 PM What is an Arab? A significant percentage of the Israeli population are Jews who are physically indistinguishable from, for instance, Christian or Muslim citizens of Lebanon or Jordan. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine From: MGM·Lion Date: 28 Oct 11 - 01:31 AM In obedience to Joe's injunction to continue in this thread: without wishing to stir up previous hostilities which we have to a considerable extent been done to deah in the old one ~ a worrying recent report [extracts & URL below] on current Italian antisemitism forwarded by a Californian Jewish friend who much concerns himself with such matters (which I don't myself in the normal course of events) saeems so germane to much we had to say there as to be worth a reference: ~M~ Runaway Anti-Semitism Trampling Italy by Soeren Kern October 27, 2011 at 5:00 am http://www.hudson-ny.org/2538/anti-semitism-italy A jarring 44% of Italians are prejudiced or hostile towards Jews, according to a new research study released by the Italian Parliament on October 17. The inquiry found that nearly half of all Italians say they feel no sympathy whatsoever toward the Jews. There has also been an exponential proliferation of anti-Semitic Internet websites and social networks in Italy. Moreover, the level of hatred against the State of Israel in many cases passes the limits of legitimate criticism of Israeli policies and aims at the destruction of the Jews. (12% of Italians) holds "contingent" anti-Semitic views such as "Jews use the Holocaust to justify Israeli policy;" "Jews talk too much about their own tragedies and disregard the tragedies of other people" and "The Jews behave like Nazis with the Palestinians." |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine From: MGM·Lion Date: 28 Oct 11 - 03:16 AM In interests of fairness, I feel I must also reproduce this supposed example of the antisemitism rubricated in above report "Jews are more faithful to Israel than to the country of their birth" as I regret to say that I believe it true of many Jews. Many of my own relations have always looked a bit uncomfortable when I have broached such a topic to them, and it was just one of the tendencies which caused me to question my own identification with my own ethnic heritage early in my adolescent/adult life. ~M~ |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine From: GUEST Date: 28 Oct 11 - 04:18 AM I don't care about Israel. I care about their repressive actions in curtailing and controlling peoples who have lived in Palestine/Israel for thousands of years before 1948--when the USA and Europe so "generously" gave someone else's homeland to European Jews. Am I angry about this? I am. Israel is on the same losing side of history as Nazi Germany, South Africa, Soviet Russia, and the string of little dictatorships strung out elsewhere. We won't see it in our lifetime, but there will be vindication for the citizens of Palestine. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine From: MGM·Lion Date: 28 Oct 11 - 04:22 AM Perfectly tenable view, Guest, certainly; but why are you ∴ so proud of it as to remain anonymous? Why not come out & identify yourself? ~M~ |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 28 Oct 11 - 02:39 PM While it is not antisemitic to believe the statement "Jews are more faithful to Israel than to the country of their birth", that is of course a statement that an antisemite would be likely to agree with. The same is true of criticisms of Israel's behaviour, and of the way that the Palestinians were dealt with at the time of Israel's establishment and since. Such criticisms are not an indication of antisemitism but antisemites can be expected to have these views. I am sure there are people who genuinely get confused about this. However basic logic sorts out the false syllogism involved. All antisemites believe A This person believes A Therefore this person is an antisemite. Equivalent to: All monkeys have eyes John has eyes Therefore John is a monkey. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine From: Mrrzy Date: 28 Oct 11 - 06:34 PM But what does the word Israel mean? |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine From: GUEST,mg Date: 28 Oct 11 - 06:52 PM I was just thinking about what Palestine means..it obviously is a great-sounding name (to me) for a country..some countries have great=sounding names in English, and some fall flat..Belgium?? flat to me. Great country, of course. Turkey..flat..but Istanbul..great name. Of course in their own languages they would have better names I am sure. But Palestine means something..like Ireland means something. Like America means something. South Africa..flat. Zimbabwe..great name. ALl of this is to my ears only. Other people would hear things differently. Greenland..flat. Ethiopia..great name mg |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine From: MGM·Lion Date: 28 Oct 11 - 11:51 PM Mrrzy Israel was a sobriquet of Jacob, meaning 'the man who fought God', from the story of Jacob and the Angel ~~ "Israel is a Biblical given name. The patriarch Jacob was given the name Israel (Hebrew: יִשְׂרָאֵל, Standard Yisraʾel Tiberian Yiśrāʾēl; "Struggled with God") after he wrestled with the angel (Genesis 32:28 and 35:10)" - wiki The Twelve Tribes of Ancient Israel were named after the twelve sons of Jacob; hence the name Children Of Israel sometimes portentously used of the Jews. And so 'Israel' as a collective name for the Jewish race, whence the name of the state ~ called in the early days of immigration, 1880s+, Eretz Yisrael = the Land Of Israel. This simply factual: no inferences to be drawn from this answer to Mrrzy's question as to whether I think it was all a good idea or not: laRGELY BECAUSE, AS WILL HAVE BEEN GATHERED, I AM NOW PROFOUNDLY AMBIVALENT ON THE MATTER. {not emphasis ~ sorry for imadvertent caps lock} ~M~ |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine From: GUEST,Teribus Date: 29 Oct 11 - 02:24 AM "I care about their repressive actions in curtailing and controlling peoples who have lived in Palestine/Israel for thousands of years before 1948--when the USA and Europe so "generously" gave someone else's homeland to European Jews. - ANON Written by someone who has not got the faintest clue about the subject he/she has chosen. Or even worse is insulting everyone's intelligence here by attempting to fence in history. For the attention of our GUEST: 1948 - The USA and Europe gave away nothing - "generously" or otherwise. Neither did the United Nations, who having accepted the reality that the Arabs of Palestine could not peacefully co-exist in a single state with the Jews of Palestine, proposed and offered a two state solution. Records show that: 1 - The Jews of Palestine accepted this solution and on the ending of the period of the League of Nations Mandate in 1948 declared the existence of their independent sovereign state which they called Israel. 2 - The Arabs of Palestine totally rejected the United Nations proposal and elected to go to war with the complete and utter destruction of the state of Israel and the annihilation of its people as their declared aim. They lost that war and Israel having successfuly defended itself endorsed its own right to exist. 3 - That the United Nations immediately recognised the State of Israel and welcomed the newly declared state into the International Organisation as a full member. Shortly after this recognition by the UN the State of Israel was independently recognised by the U.S.S.R and by the U.S.A "European Jews"?? Here our anonymous contributer elects to ignore the fact that Jews have always lived in the region commonly referred to as Palestine. During the Arab initiated riots of 1929 the Arabs of Palestine murdered, robbed and forcibly ejected the majority Jewish population of the town of Hebron - That Jewish population of that town could be traced as having lived there for over 800 years (They apparently have no rights). Modern day Jewish migration to what we commonly refer to as Palestine (There is no such country, nation, race or state) began around 1847 while the territory was part of the Ottoman Empire. The Jews who returned to the area bought land, and improved it, either by agriculture or commercially. This created employment which brought people in most of whom were Arab - a simple examination of the demographic history of the period shows this to be true. The greatest influx of Jews to the area was not caused by the events of the Second World War or indeed its aftermath. The greatest influx of Jews to the area was caused by the war that the Arabs elected to fight in 1948. After their humiliating defeat the Jewish populations of a great many Arab countries, populations who had lived in those countries for centuries, were dispossessed and extradited - the ONLY place for them to go was ISRAEL. Since their defeat in 1948 the Arabs have on several occasions attacked Israel and each and every time they have resorted to arms they have lost. Each and every time that ceasefires have been brokered and agreements entered into the Arabs have failed to comply or honour those agreements. Arab violence towards the Jews of Palestine was initiated by a lie deliberately told by an Arab in 1920 and the same continues to this day. Over the intervening years all the Jews of Palestine have learned to do and learned to do well is how to defend themselves. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine From: Lox Date: 29 Oct 11 - 06:48 AM PDQ writes of poisoning threads. And also writes this piece of toxic filth. "This fight is a PR masterpiece by the Arabs. They never were the rightful owners of the Jewish homeland (Canaan/Palestine/etc.) and they are recent squatters who have poured into the area in the last 900 years or so." Apart from being wrong it shows us exactly what language PDQ like to use to dehumanize human beings he views as less deserving of life and human rights than him. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine From: MGM·Lion Date: 29 Oct 11 - 07:00 AM In what way does that 'dehumanise' anyone, Colostolox? Neither agreeing nor disagreeing with pdq's formulation; just can't see why it should be denounced as 'toxic filth'* simply because The Great You questions its accuracy, or how any demographic is 'dehumanised' by any gloss placed on the accuracy or otherwise of their supposed history. ~M~ *{a topic you know much of, Colosto-me-dear: your stock-in-trade, one might say}, |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 29 Oct 11 - 07:58 AM I'm sure that you actually do disagree with "pdq's formulation", MtheGM. "...recent squatters who have poured into the area in the last 900 years or so" is both distasteful and daft. "...squatters who have poured into the area" is every bit as unpleasant when targetted at Palestinians as it would be when referring to Jews; and "recent" as a term for "the last 900 years or so" is unusual, to say the least. Sometimes in these discussions we find some pretty disconcerting "allies", and I think it is better to refrain from lining up alongside what they say things we disagree with. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine From: MGM·Lion Date: 29 Oct 11 - 08:45 AM Well, maybe, Kevin: but 'toxic filth'; 'dehumanise'? Oh come on. Typical of old Colostolox, mind. No sense of restraint or proportion. Tyoical of his chronic tendency to otiose overstatement and ill-natured aggressiveness. He is a piece of dehumanised toxic filth, if you like. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 29 Oct 11 - 09:19 AM He is a piece of dehumanised toxic filth I think there might be a case for suggesting that that is an example of posting with "No sense of restraint or proportion...otiose overstatement and ill-natured aggressiveness"... |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine From: Lox Date: 29 Oct 11 - 09:50 AM I guess the above does indeed illustrate the need for restraint, and possibly even the need for restraints ... |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine From: artbrooks Date: 29 Oct 11 - 11:24 AM All of the Israel vs. Palestine positions have been gone over so many times before. Does anyone want to discuss the OP's issue, or are you just interested in crapping on each other? |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine From: Mrrzy Date: 29 Oct 11 - 11:31 AM Well, how would you say He Who Fought God, or maybe He Who Fought People, in Arabic? And this is the thread for actual discussion, not the ad hominem attacks, no? |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine From: Stringsinger Date: 29 Oct 11 - 11:42 AM What records show that........? Whose records? Whether Jews lived there historically doesn't give them the right to eject Palestinians or occupy their lands. The myth that Palestinians would like to see Israel go into the sea still prevails. Actually, the Palestinians just want the right to exist in an oppressive Jewish state which is becoming less secular and democratic by the day. I get where these records are coming from.......AIPAC. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 29 Oct 11 - 12:10 PM Trying to distinguish historically between Palestinians and Jews 2,000 years ago is a bit futile, because 2000 years ago you are basically talking about the same people. The distinction today that underlies the conflict isn't about genetics, it's about history, ownership of territory, accompanied by largely shared religious traditions that have diverged over the years which provide a marker for the two sides. Here's an interesting piece making these points, by an English medical writer, coming to the conclusion The shared genetic heritage of Jews and Palestinians : "Jews and Palestinian Arabs are blood brothers - although this close genetic relationship probably stems from pre-Judaic times, rather than any more recent conversion of Palestinian Jews to Islam. And the bad news? Well, this basic story has been known for the best part of a decade now. But, perhaps unsurprisingly, it hasn't lead to the warring sides laying down their weapons and engaging in a group hug. This is a religious conflict, not a genetic one." |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine From: MGM·Lion Date: 29 Oct 11 - 12:21 PM Fat lot of restraint you have always shown in your dealings with me, Colosto you drivelling heap of piggiturd... |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine From: MGM·Lion Date: 29 Oct 11 - 12:27 PM ... tho you have recommended restraints throughout which sez a fair bit about your mindset & preoccupations, Shitbag-Shouter... |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 29 Oct 11 - 12:30 PM ""Written by someone who has not got the faintest clue about the subject he/she has chosen. Or even worse is insulting everyone's intelligence here by attempting to fence in history. For the attention of our GUEST: 1948 - The USA and Europe gave away nothing - "generously" or otherwise. Neither did the United Nations, who having accepted the reality that the Arabs of Palestine could not peacefully co-exist in a single state with the Jews of Palestine, proposed and offered a two state solution. Records show that: 1 - The Jews of Palestine accepted this solution and on the ending of the period of the League of Nations Mandate in 1948 declared the existence of their independent sovereign state which they called Israel."" A somewhat sanitised version of events during that period. Leaving out, of course, the actions of Menachim Begin et al, of "Irgun Zwai Leumi", who were murdering British soldiers with gay abandon and the tacit approval of the aforementioned Jewish community. So much so that Begin, like many other terrorists, went on to lead his country. Funny how apologists for Israeli intransigence gloss over such relatively significant events. On topic, the Arab Spring should, but probably won't redound to the benefit of those (both Arab and Jewish) who would like to see peaceful co-existence. That will only come when the belligerents on both sides lose the power to make decisions for their respective populations, and Palestine becomes, and is recognised as, a soverign state. In other words, it will require not only an Arab, but also a Jewish Spring. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine From: artbrooks Date: 29 Oct 11 - 09:59 PM Jewish and Israeli are too very different things. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine From: GUEST Date: 29 Oct 11 - 11:34 PM I thought guests could not start threads, has there been a policy change ?
-Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: GUEST,Teribus Date: 30 Oct 11 - 04:07 AM "What records show that........? Whose records?" - Stringsinger What an idiotic question - the documented records of that highly biased and ultra pro-Israeli organisation - THE UNITED NATIONS - they good enough for you Stringsinger Odd thing is those "myth" following Palestinian Arabs (excluding Hamas and Hezbollah) who have been attacking, robbing, bombing and murdering the Jewish population of Palestine for about ninety-one years now, have just recently put forward the fiction that they would now be prepared to accept the two-state option originally proposed by the UN based on the pre-Six Day War borders (which in fact were no borders at all because those self same "myth" following Palestinian Arabs did not recognise them) - Damned shame that they didn't do that in 1948 it would have saved everyone a great deal of grief. It does however beg the question that if the deal was no good then why is it acceptable now? The answer of course lies in the Arabs of Palestine's track record on previous agreements, they did not honour those - they will not honour this one. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: GUEST,Teribus Date: 30 Oct 11 - 04:32 AM Apologies - hit the wrong key: Records show that: 1 - The Jews of Palestine accepted this solution and on the ending of the period of the League of Nations Mandate in 1948 declared the existence of their independent sovereign state which they called Israel. - Teribus Elicited the following comment by Don T A somewhat sanitised version of events during that period. Leaving out, of course, the actions of Menachim Begin et al, of "Irgun Zwai Leumi", who were murdering British soldiers with gay abandon and the tacit approval of the aforementioned Jewish community. So much so that Begin, like many other terrorists, went on to lead his country. Funny how apologists for Israeli intransigence gloss over such relatively significant events. Complete and utter red-herring which has nothing whatsoever to do with the UN, or their proposed two-state solution. But in stating the above Don is being very selective himself. From 1920 until 1948 both Jews and Arabs attacked and murdered British troops in Palestine, prior to the start of the Second World War it was predominantly Arabs doing the killing and during the "Great Arab Revolt" (1936 to 1939) the Jews actually helped the British in order to defend themselves. It was only as the British tried to enforce restrictions to immigration that one of the Jewish Defence organisations turned against the British. This mind you comes from the source of a comment on the other "Palestine" thread about the deplorable presence of IDF troops in Gaza. Don T deplores the presence but ommitted to mention the reason for that presence - the indiscriminate firing of over 8,000 missiles, rockets and mortar bombs at Israeli civilian targets from territory that had been handed over to the Arabs of Palestine on the understanding that such attacks would not be launched - (Yet another example of the Arabs of Palestine not being capable of honouring any agreement they enter into). To put the scale of these attacks into perspective in the 2003 US invasion of Iraq there were only 804 missiles fired, there were only 505 bombing missions flown. The fact that the 8,000+ Hamas missiles fired into Israel resulted in so few casualties was pure good fortune, the death toll was low but not for the want of Hamas and their fellow travellers trying to kill as many innocent civilians as possible. Very pleased however to see that Don T does not refute what the UN's records do in fact say - That the Jews of Palestine accepted the 1947-UN Plan and that the Arabs of Palestine rejected it - elect to go to war and you are automatically condemned to accept the consequences. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Lox Date: 30 Oct 11 - 07:22 AM Actually it is prettyt well established by now that the Gaza Massacre of the end of 2008 beginning of 2009 was not the result of a breach of the ceasefire by Hamas, but in fact it was the Israelis who broke it. For a more thorough analysis check out the following lecture by Jewish academic Norman Finkelstein. Finkelstein If Teribus's shouting and impotent machismo intimidate you, Finkelstein is the perfect antidote. Teribus' bark is a lot worse than his bite. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 30 Oct 11 - 09:04 AM How ever would you justify "pretty well established" Lox? In your house? The missiles continued after the cease fire. They were no less deadly because "rogue groups" launched them. Israel was no less justified in trying to prevent them. The blockade did not prevent the import of missiles. They could have imported more of their actual needs instead of missiles. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 30 Oct 11 - 09:06 AM ...elect to go to war and you are automatically condemned to accept the consequences. If that means that you should not be surprised at the the consequences, that may be true enough. If it means that the consequences are justified, it would imply that terrorism is justified in many or even in most of the circumstances in which it takes place. I do not think that Hamas or Al Qaeda would quarrel with Teribus on that particular point, even if they might disagree on the definition of "elect to go to war" some of the time. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: pdq Date: 30 Oct 11 - 11:08 AM It has been mentioned many times, but the League of Nations Mandate was divided is such a way that 77% went to the new country of Jordan, one of the current 20 states of the informal Arab World. Jews were supposed to get a viable homeland, but got only 6.7% of the Mandate's land as inhabited territory for Jews, plus the Negev Desert to control. That is the "home" of the nomadic Beduin and has been an expensive proposition in terms of Israeli money invested. The British Mandate: Overview "In 1920, following the defeat of the Turks, the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, and the peace conferences after World War I, the British Mandate for Palestine was created by the League of Nations. The Mandate was international recognition for the stated purpose of "establishing in Palestine a national home for the Jewish people." The area of the Mandate was originally 118,000 square kilometers (about 45,000 square miles). In 1921, Britain took the 91,000 square kilometers of the Palestine Mandate east of the Jordan River, and created Trans-Jordan (later the Arab country of Jordan) as a new Arab protectorate. Jews were barred by law from living or owning property east of the Jordan river, even though that land was over three-fourths of the original Mandate. In 1923, Britain ceded the Golan Heights (another 1,176 square kilometers of the Palestine Mandate) to the French Mandate of Syria. Jews were also barred from living there. Jewish settlers on the Golan Heights were forced to abandon their homes and relocate inside the westerb area of the British Mandate. The total remaining area of the Mandate for Palestine, after these land deductions, was just under 26,000 square kilometers (about 10,000 square miles). The southern part of the Mandate – the desert of the Negev – was also closed by the British to Jewish settlement. The area was inhabited by 15,000 roaming Bedouins, and had no Jewish or Arab settlements in it. The balance of the Mandate, the inhabited part of Palestine, and only the part west of the Jordan, was just 14,000 square kilometers. Jewish immigration was limited by the British from time to time, especially after the periods of Arab riots and severely restricted after 1939. At the same time, Arab immigration was not restricted or even recorded. By 1948, when the State of Israel was founded, 1.8 million people lived the western area of the Mandate, estimated to be 600,000 Jews and 1.2 million Arabs. Following the war between the Jews and the Arabs in 1948, the inhabited areas of the 14,000 square kilometers were divided along cease-fire lines between Israel and Jordan/Egypt. 8,000 square kilometers, or 57% of the reduced area (which is only 6.7% of the original Mandate territory), became Israel. The rest of the area of western Palestine, 5,700 square kilometers of historic Judea and Samaria, was annexed by Jordan – and renamed the West Bank – while 360 square kilometers were occupied by Egypt and called the Gaza Strip." |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: GUEST,Teribus Date: 30 Oct 11 - 12:16 PM Last 24 hours: 40 rockets/mortars fired into Israel from Gaza IDF response - air strikes resulting in the deaths of at least 10 militants. When a "ceasefire" brokered by Egypt is supposed to be in effect. Yet another example of how incapable the Arabs of Palestine are of honouring any agreement entered into. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: bobad Date: 30 Oct 11 - 01:21 PM "The Palestinian president, in a remarkable assessment delivered on Israeli TV, said Friday the Arab world erred in rejecting the United Nations' 1947 plan to partition Palestine into a Palestinian and a Jewish state." Huffington Post |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: pdq Date: 30 Oct 11 - 02:06 PM "... the Arab world erred in rejecting the United Nations' 1947 plan to partition Palestine into a Palestinian and a Jewish state." More correctly stated: "...into an Arab and a Jewish state". There are already 20 states in the Arab World recognized by the United Nations. What was called "Palestine" in the 1920 Mandate is now divided into at least three Arab countries plus Israel. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Lox Date: 30 Oct 11 - 08:44 PM Keith, Pay attention. The assertion was made that Palestinians break their agreements and can't be trusted. This assertion was false. You may twist and turn and filibuster as much as you like as to whatever excuse you think is best, but Hamas stuck to their side of the Bargain. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 31 Oct 11 - 02:36 AM There is no doubt that Palestinians launched anti personnel missile attacks on the ordinary people and children of Israel, from Gaza, in breach of the cease fire, and of international law. You may assert that it was done without Hamas connivance, but not that it is "pretty well established." Most people, like me, believe it had their tacit approval, if not active participation. We know they exert tight control over tunnel imports, because they impose taxes on them. We also know that they have never criticised or condemned a single one of the thousands of launches since signing the cease fire. (And neither has Jim. "Every little helps." Right Jim?) |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Jim Carroll Date: 31 Oct 11 - 04:23 AM "right Jim?" Do you really want to add my voice to this Keithy - I'd have thought.... never mind. Bit busy at present, but compared to the massacres (that didn't happen) the well-armed and trained forces with their tanks, and heavy artillery (not forgetting the chemical weapons) against a poorly armed and untrained third world people..... Unlike you and your pro-Zionist apologists, I have sided with nobody and believe (along with the U.N (apart from the US and UNESCO) that a peaceful solution will only be arrived at when the Palestinians are dealt with at the conference table as equals rather than waving bits of paper and hiding behind an ancient pseudo-historical myth to dislodge an entire people from their homeland (starting with the Bedouins - or maybe that was made up as well). In the meantime, as Turpitude has pointed out, everyone has the right to defend themselves, especially against religious fanatics with nuclear capability. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: MGM·Lion Date: 31 Oct 11 - 04:41 AM They were not poorly armed nor untrained in 1948. They were the embodied regular armies of 6 [count them ~ SIX] hostile Arab states who all simultaneously invaded the newly declared, UN-authorised, sovereign state of Israel from different directions ~ including the British-trained [by Brigadier Glubb "Pasha"] Arab Legion of Transjordan: & got their backsides well & truly kicked right back out again from Dan to Beersheba by what was indeed a not that highly trained or well armed, but dedicated, defending army all the way from Dan to Beersheba. And they and their pathetic antisemitic sympathisers like Carroll, who wished they had succeeded in rendering the area Jüdenrein, have been squealing like stuck pigs ever since. ~M~ |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: MGM·Lion Date: 31 Oct 11 - 04:47 AM ... which is not, I say again, to say that Israel in its present form is other than a grievous disappointment to those of us who rejoiced then. We are not rejoicing now at the state, in both senses, that Netanyahu & his like have reduced it to. But they have been driven to it regrettably. As even Carroll-the-Prejudice has admitted {not ignoring his doctrinaire & tendentious qualifications, however} "everyone has the right to defend themselves". |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Jim Carroll Date: 31 Oct 11 - 04:58 AM "They were not poorly armed nor untrained in 1948. " No they weren't, but it is no longer 1948 and unless we want our children's children to be struggling with the bloodbaths, it's about time this is recognised. Nobody comes out of this mess with a clean track record and nit-picking about who did what to whom when solves nothing. Do we have to continue this "Carroll-the-Prejudice" "Mike the racist apologist, hypocrite" childishness - it gives these discussions a decidedly schoolyard flavour? But maybe you are more comfortable in your colostomy/flatulent mode! Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: MGM·Lion Date: 31 Oct 11 - 05:10 AM ---religious fanatics with nuclear capability.--- & he seems to mean Israel here; and there is some truth in the charge ~ hence some of our disappointment: the religious parties are far too influential and sufficiently popular (in a democratic process, do not forget however) to have to be included in any coalition; which is a great shame. BUT they have none of the official standing of the Mullahs in those countries - you know which they are -where Sharia is established by government decree or popular acclaim. When was the last adultress stoned in Israel? Under King David IIRC ~ or perhaps under Pilate; I don't expect the one Jesus rescued was the only one. But that was then: the daily RIGHT NOW stonings and beheadings and amputations and floggings in Riyadh and Dahran and Jeddah have not their counterparts in Tel-Aviv or Haifa. No thanks to Carroll, mind. They would soon be back if he & his antisemitic mates had their way. ~M~ |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: MGM·Lion Date: 31 Oct 11 - 05:17 AM X-posted "Do we have to continue this "Carroll-the-Prejudice" "Mike the racist apologist, hypocrite" childishness - it gives these discussions a decidedly schoolyard flavour?" .,,. No we don't, Jim; happy to drop it if you are. But, even tho this is no longer 1948, the Sharia-abuses I rubricate above are ongoing in too much of the present Arab world, are they not ~ so-called "Spring" notwithstanding? And do you not even consider the danger of their adoption in any state with a Hamas Hezbollah influence elected by the will of the populace that might be established? |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: MGM·Lion Date: 31 Oct 11 - 06:15 AM Jim: And let us now try to recover this halcyon time ~~ Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: Backwoodsman - PM Date: 27 Feb 11 - 01:41 AM The recent posts by Jim and Michael are a perfect example of how two people with diametrically opposed viewpoints, a firm grasp of the English language and decent writing skills can carry on an intelligent, civilised discussion which, whilst probably never leading to agreement between them, at least stands a chance of coming to a successful accomodation. A pleasure to read. Certain other contributors should also read them.........and learn No reason we cannot recapture that sort of relationship, with a bit of goodwill both ways. Apologies, so far as called for, for my excesses. Shall hope for, and assume, the same from your side. Best ~Michael~ |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Lox Date: 31 Oct 11 - 06:32 AM "Most people, like me, believe it had their tacit approval, if not active participation." Funny, because the Israeli ministry of foreign affairs stated that: "Hamas was careful to maintain the ceasefire" and "Hamas enforced the ceasefire on the rogue terrorist organizations with a great deal although not complete success" You will find this at 7.50 in the Finkelstein lecture that you have ignored. So who is making shit up ... 1. The Israeli foreign ministry? 2. A Jewish doctor of political science with special expertise in the Israel/Palestine conflict who earned his doctorate at princeton, whose parents were both Jewish concentration camp survivors (his father was in Auschwitz)? 3. Or Keith? Who do catters know to have the worst track record of making shit up ... Hmmm ..... ... I'm getting a nagging sense of Deja Vu ... this reminds me of a thread about Pakistanis cultural tendency to paedophilia where someone was making shit up ... |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Jim Carroll Date: 31 Oct 11 - 06:36 AM "Jim: And let us now try to recover this halcyon time" Would very much apprciate it - as much as we disgree on some issues, I very much value and respect your input on this forum. Really not able to become too invoved in this Traveller talk to write (plus temprmntal keyboard) Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: MGM·Lion Date: 31 Oct 11 - 06:51 AM -I very much value and respect your input on this forum- ~~ Thank you: & likewise as you know. ~Michael~ |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 31 Oct 11 - 08:21 AM Lox, "Hamas was careful to maintain the ceasefire" and "Hamas enforced the ceasefire on the rogue terrorist organizations with a great deal although not complete success" I listened well past that bit Lox. I would like to know the context of the first quote. Sarcasm? And also the second quote. How can hundreds of missile launches be described as "a great deal" of "success" in maintaining a ceasefire. It is certainly not "pretty well established" as you claim Lox. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 31 Oct 11 - 08:22 AM A ceasefire in one conflict at any rate... Let's hope it's less fragile than too many other ceasefires. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Lox Date: 31 Oct 11 - 08:50 AM The context of the first quote was a foreign office report. I don't know of foreign office reports from any nation that are written in a sarcastic way. If you are suggesting that the Israeli foreign office writes reports in a sarcastic way, then you are either accusing the Israeli foreign office of being irresponsible and childish or you are ... ... ta daaaa .... ... making shit up to cover your ass. So keith - are you accusing the Israeli foreign ofice of telling lies? |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 31 Oct 11 - 08:54 AM Put up the quote in context Lox and we will see. Jim, how can firing missiles loaded with ball bearings at civilians possibly be construed as "self defence" ??! |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 31 Oct 11 - 09:36 AM Surely by the same peculiar logic by which the assault on Gaza which led to the death of so many non-combatants was presented as "self defence" by Israel. The two sides seem to have a remarkably similar way of justifying what they do. It's just that one side has far more weaponry and kills far more people. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 31 Oct 11 - 10:31 AM Not the same logic at all. The Israelis claimed that their incursion was in response to the rain of missiles, and did succeed in reducing the number of launches. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Mrrzy Date: 31 Oct 11 - 11:54 AM Hey, we're in! Anybody see the news? And you ad hominem folks, use the other thread, please. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: MGM·Lion Date: 31 Oct 11 - 11:58 AM Mrrzy ~ out of interest ~ who "we"? |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: MGM·Lion Date: 31 Oct 11 - 12:03 PM ... and who, pray, is going to tell Hamas that indiscriminately firing missiles into populated areas is neither Educational, Scientific, nor Cultural? |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Lox Date: 31 Oct 11 - 12:50 PM You know what Keith, I'll trust the accuracy of a Jewish Doctor of Political science with a list of credentials and peer reviewed research papers as long as as my arm,, whose special expertise is the Israel Palestine conflict over Keith A from Hertford any day of the week. One is a serious, proven and recognized academic, and the other is prone to making mistakes and generalizing about people of various races in a disparaging way. In this case Keith has taken to supporting the view expressed by teribus that Palestinians are untrustworthy people who break agreements. Previously he defended the view that Pakistanis are perverse people with a propensity for pedophilia. I recommend a good watch of the video I posted folks - it is a lot more informative than anythng said by teribus or keith. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 31 Oct 11 - 01:53 PM ""Jewish and Israeli are too very different things."" I agree with that, but I am responding to those who have insisted that Israel is a "Jewish State", indicting their belief that Jews are a racial rather than a religious grouping. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 31 Oct 11 - 03:01 PM Previously he defended the view that Pakistanis are perverse people with a propensity for pedophilia. That is a malicious lie Lox. Your doctor had an agenda, and he may have taken something out of context. I make no claim but would like to see the quotes in context. That is all I said. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: GUEST,mg Date: 31 Oct 11 - 03:23 PM Do the Palestinians have an anthem? That is first order of business if not..something proud but peaceful of course. Singable, beautiful anthems are very important (ours is unfortunately neither). Next..a logo..with olive trees or branches and oranges perhaps. Next..some letterhead. Next an official website, which I presume they must have. Ready for business. mg |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: GUEST,mg Date: 31 Oct 11 - 03:59 PM It seems they ahve a very nice unofficial perhaps anthem..most words are not at all offensive..some are a little militaristic perhaps...this is from the one on you tube with lyrics. There are other songs that are also said to be an anthem that are way more militaristic...hopefully those will nto be used as an anthem. They also need a P.O. (oops...) box somewhere and some flagships registered in other countries. Do they have a soccor team? That always helps. mg |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 31 Oct 11 - 04:07 PM ""Most people, like me, believe it had their tacit approval, if not active participation."" An assertion which you soundly castigated when it was made concerning certain massacres which the Israelis chose not to prevent. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: GUEST,mg Date: 31 Oct 11 - 04:08 PM Good news. Soccer team..played Thailand ..first game in 50 years in some regard. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DxN8v6-a2cc |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 31 Oct 11 - 04:32 PM ""The fact that the 8,000+ Hamas missiles fired into Israel resulted in so few casualties was pure good fortune, the death toll was low but not for the want of Hamas and their fellow travellers trying to kill as many innocent civilians as possible."" Not only disingenuous, but factually inaccurate. 1. The missiles, having no guidance beyond being pointed in the direction of Israel, cannot be said to be targetted at anything or anybody in particular. They were, in point of fact, so inaccurate that 8000+ managed to cause, I believe, 11 fatalities in about eight years. 2. Unguided missiles would seem to be a very inefficient way of attempting to kill "as many innocent civilians as possible", given the number of willing suicide bombers available. Those missiles for the most part landed in open fields and at best scared a few goats. All in all, hardly sufficient justification for the bloody and violent responses. If you want to bring up the slaughter of large numbers of innocent civilians, take another look at those responses. I would be less disgusted if Israel were just once to express regret for that collateral damage, but all I hear is excuses and rationalisations for the (so called) "necessity". Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 31 Oct 11 - 05:19 PM The missiles were accurate enough to aim at towns, and they all were. They have killed and maimed people of all ages. No country on earth would allow that to happen without taking action. The number of Jews killed (not "Zionists" just Jews) is not large compared to the number of missiles fired, but as Jim put it, "every little helps." |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: GUEST,Teribus Date: 31 Oct 11 - 05:35 PM Don T I am impressed with the equanimity and total disregard to safety, of not only yourself but your family and loved ones, you would undoubtedly display in the face of such a barrage. Ah but of course Don you are not in the firing line are you, so you can dismiss them as harmless fireworks. The UN don't though do they Don, they decry the firing of these weapons into Israel indiscriminately as a war crime. Tha fact that the death toll is so light as I stated was not for the want of trying on the part of the Arabs of Palestine. The suicide bombers and snipers have been kept from killing Israelis and out of Israel by the Wall and the check points which is why they exist Don. If someone fired even one rocket into the UK (let alone 8,000) I would expect the UK to respond forcibly in such a manner as to deter those responsible from any further firing. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 31 Oct 11 - 05:52 PM From BBC . "Since 2001, when the rockets were first fired, more than 8,600 have hit southern Israel, nearly 6,000 of them since Israel withdrew from Gaza in August 2005. The rockets have killed 28 people and injured hundreds more. In the Israeli town of Sderot near Gaza, 90% of residents have had a missile exploding in their street or an adjacent one. The range of the missiles is increasing. The Qassam rocket (named after a Palestinian leader in the 1930s) has a range of about 10km (6 miles) but more advanced missiles, including versions of the old Soviet Grad or Katyusha, possibly smuggled in, have recently hit the Israeli city of Beersheba, 40km (25 miles) from Gaza and brought 800,000 Israelis into range." Three of the dead were infants, and many of the hundreds of injured are children with life-changing injuries. "Every little helps." |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 31 Oct 11 - 06:17 PM The Israelis claimed that their incursion was in response to the rain of missiles. I can't see how that claim if the Israeli government to have been acting in self defence in response to attacks differs in any significant way from the reasons that would be given by those within Gaza who have fired those missiles. The difference lies in the scale of the violence and the number of civilians who died as a consequence. It's also relevant that the violence from Israel is carried out by government forces, whereas the responsibility for the missiles during the ceasefire is less clear, and the Hamas administration claim to have been trying to stop this happening. (I too would like a source for that quote "Hamas enforced the ceasefire on the rogue terrorist organizations with a great deal although not complete success") |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 31 Oct 11 - 06:28 PM Breaking News UNESCO recognises Palestine as a full member |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 31 Oct 11 - 06:52 PM ""Ah but of course Don you are not in the firing line are you, so you can dismiss them as harmless fireworks."" Much as you dismiss White Phosphorus aimed into civilian areas as "illuminations or smoke screens". Ever had a phosphorus burn T?.........I have, albeit in a laboratory situation, but I can still feel that burning through my wrist to the bone. ""6,000 of them since Israel withdrew from Gaza in August 2005."" So who are all those people still in disputed residence in 2011? ""Three of the dead were infants, and many of the hundreds of injured are children with life-changing injuries. "Every little helps.""" And how many dead or maimed children are there in Gaza Keith, or are they not as important in your scheme of things, as whitewashing anything the IDF does, as justifiable defence? Until people like you stop trying prove that all blame attaches to the Palestinians, and recognise the indefensible ruthlessness of the IDF, progress toward peace remains a pipe dream. At bottom this is the David and Goliath story with Goliath armed with nuclear missiles. As I said earlier, both sides have to want peace for this to end, and it won't happen without compromise on the part of Israel, as well as Palestine. And there is no evidence to support that the word "compromise" is in the Israeli vocabulary. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: artbrooks Date: 31 Oct 11 - 08:50 PM Returning to the original topic, after the UNESCO vote admitting Palestine, the US State Department said that US funds would be withheld: "Today's vote by the member states of UNESCO to admit Palestine as member is regrettable, premature and undermines our shared goal of a comprehensive just and lasing peace in the Middle East," said State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: GUEST,mg Date: 31 Oct 11 - 09:40 PM That is nuts. mg |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: GUEST,Teribus Date: 01 Nov 11 - 01:49 AM WP not used as an incendiary only as smoke (If you are talking about the mnitions used in Gaza December 2008/January 2009) Why was it fired again Don T? Oh yes because Hamas were using their own population as human shields, and deliberately sighting military units in sensitive civilian locations - a war crime, another one that you see fit to ignore. No rockets = No attacks No Israelis killed = No Palestinians killed Hamas founding charter says what about the State of Israel and the Jews? The Israeli constitution says what about the Arabs. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 01 Nov 11 - 02:41 AM Kevin, I can not accept your comparison of the incursion and the missiles. The missiles came first and as indiscriminate attacks on civilians were war crimes and recognised as such by Amnesty and UN. The incursion was launched to attack and destroy the missile facilities, which were cynically sited in densely populated areas, another war crime. In accordance with the Law of Armed Conflict, the Israelis sacrificed the advantage of surprise by giving warnings to residents of the areas where attacks were going to be made. There were no indiscriminate attacks on civilians at all. The smoke is not supposed to be deployed in civilian areas, but Hamas was not supposed to fight from such areas. IDF accepted the local commander was wrong to use it, and should have accepted additional deaths to his own people. If I lost a son or daughter for want of screening from their enemies I might have stronger views. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 01 Nov 11 - 02:46 AM First 100! Don, you posted, ""6,000 of them since Israel withdrew from Gaza in August 2005."" So who are all those people still in disputed residence in 2011? Do you deny that Israel used troops to force all its settlers out of Gaza (at gun point) in 2005? |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Jim Carroll Date: 01 Nov 11 - 04:40 AM "Previously he defended the view that Pakistanis are perverse people with a propensity for pedophilia." Sorry Lox - he didn't - He single-handedly put forward the view that ALL MALE Pakistanis are culturally implanted with a tendency towards paedophelia Get it right Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 01 Nov 11 - 04:51 AM Malicious lie Jim. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: MGM·Lion Date: 01 Nov 11 - 04:53 AM --That is nuts. mg ~~~ ,., Wowie, mg, that's telling 'em. I can feel the Pentagon quiver as the State Department quake from here! ~M~ |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Lox Date: 01 Nov 11 - 05:48 AM Not My doctor Keith, Princeton University's doctor - his research is impeccable. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Lox Date: 01 Nov 11 - 06:02 AM If anyone wishes to question the credibility of Finkelstein oor ask Finkelstein what his sources are they should write to him. Beyond that, his proven track record of peer reviewed accurate and expert research at the highest and most rigorous level is enough of a guarantee for me. He is Jewish, his parents were holocaust survivors and most of his family on his fathers side were murdered in concentration camps, so there is simply no question of any agenda other than a desire, (once again, proven by peer review at the very highest and most rigorous level) too report information accurately and truthfully. There is nobody on this forum who has the academic or moral authority to question either his integrity or accuracy. If you wish to pursue that line of thought, you should either contact him, or look up the source which he very explicitly gave - the Israeli foreign ministry's report on the ceasefire. Aside from this, I am still laughing at Keiths absurd idea that the Israeli foreign ministry report was written iin sarcastic language. Sorry but what a twat! |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: GUEST Date: 01 Nov 11 - 06:16 AM "Malicious lie Jim." Then help us out and cut'n paste who else said that "All male Pakistanis...cultural implant". I can't find it Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: GUEST,livelylass Date: 01 Nov 11 - 06:51 AM I was pleased to see the results of the UNESCO vote yesterday, less pleased to see the US response. But surprised by neither. The question now in this unfolding game of chess, is where from here? As said previously there has already been talk of an Israeli annexation of the West Bank, though I haven't seen such talk repeated in news thus far. As for now, one wonders what the consequences of withdrawal of US aid shall mean for stability and peace in the area however? A thoughtful, and I believe unusually sympathetic, opinion piece in the Jerusalem Times on the potentially damaging consequences of US/Israeli economic punishment of the Palestinian bid for UN recognition: http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Article.aspx?id=243936 "Palestinian logic to go to the UN was based on their sound assessment that no negotiated agreement could be reached with the current Israeli government. ... The US, with support of the Israeli government, is using a diplomatic "stick" against the Palestinian Authority. US Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, who chairs the House Committee on Foreign Relations, is using her prerogative to put a hold on more than $200 million already approved to be allocated to the Palestinians. Most of that money has already been authorized and contracted out through the auspices of the USAID mission in Tel Aviv responsible for supporting Palestinian state-building and economic development in the West Bank and Gaza. ... The immediate impact of this is the firing of many young Palestinian academics working for various US contractors and for Palestinian nongovernmental institutions. The USAID mission is also in the process of immediately scaling down, and soon many of its staff are likely to receive notices that their employment is suspended or canceled. ... The Palestinian economy is already in a fragile state. Losing over $200 million in one blow, with the extra burden of increased unemployment of young academics, could cause considerable social unrest. ... This would be a disaster; it would make the Palestinian security services look entirely like an arm of the Israeli occupation, delegitimizing their very existence. ... The US legislator holding back the funds to the Palestinian Authority is playing with fire that could easily erupt inside of Israel. There is no desire in the West Bank for a deterioration of the situation into another round of violence. President Abbas remains fully committed to a non-violent approach to achieving statehood. No, he does not do what Israel would like him to do, but he is acting as the Palestinian president in Palestine's best interests, as he and his colleagues understand it. US and Israeli punishment of Abbas for not "behaving" is dangerous and foolish." |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: GUEST Date: 01 Nov 11 - 06:52 AM Yesterday the "land of the free and the home of the brave" (bank-roller to some of the worst dictators, terrorist states and organisations in history) has voted to withhold a $60m dollar paymrnt it was due to make next month to UNESCO following a democratically held vote (107 for 14 against, 54 abstentions) to admit Palestine as a member. Funny old world!! Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 01 Nov 11 - 06:58 AM Jim, the cultural explanation for the offending came from others. I merely reported it. It was not my explanation. I do not have the knowledge to produce such an explanation. There was no mention of paedophilia at all. You have had this explained to you many times. You know you are lying, and the motive is malice. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 01 Nov 11 - 07:00 AM Are these two twats going to be allowed to hijack this thread as well as the one they already got closed? |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 01 Nov 11 - 07:22 AM The crazy thing is that Palestine's membership of UNESCO, and its proposed membership of the UN, actually amount to a formal recognition of Israel. Israel and the US are more or less on the same side as Hamas in this particular dispute. I don't think anyone has found a coherent reason for the Israeli position on this, which of course determines the position of the USA in falling in line. ................... "The missiles came first" - there is no clear "first" in this conflict, Keith. Both sides can always point to some action of their opponents as the justification for every "response". You seem to seem to see this as justified so far as Israel's actions are concerned. I see it as unjustified from either side. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: GUEST,livelylass Date: 01 Nov 11 - 07:28 AM JimC: "Yesterday the [US] has voted to withhold a $60m dollar paymrnt it was due to make next month to UNESCO following a democratically held vote (107 for 14 against, 54 abstentions) to admit Palestine as a member." This action will have twin consequences, including the loss of US voting rights and influence within UNESCO. If the US continues to make good threats of withdrawal of monies from all subsiduary bodies of the UN (and Abbas will be presenting the Palestinian application for membership, to as many of those as exist I believe) which vote to admit Palestine, it risks alienating itself - and diminishing it's international influence - further and further from the international community. In fact such concerns have been voiced from within the Obama administration itself (can't recall source offhand). |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: MGM·Lion Date: 01 Nov 11 - 07:38 AM Jerusalem Post, lively lass, not Jerusalem Times. I feel strongly about this error because my father spent a year as the paper's News Editor! ~Michael~ |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: MGM·Lion Date: 01 Nov 11 - 07:49 AM ---Yesterday the "land of the free and the home of the brave" (bank-roller to some of the worst dictators, terrorist states and organisations in history) has voted to withhold a $60m dollar paymrnt it was due to make next month to UNESCO following a democratically held vote (107 for 14 against, 54 abstentions) to admit Palestine as a member. Funny old world!! Jim Carroll--- .,,. For once I agree entirely, Jim. In fact, not even 'for once'. Another example of the Israeli intransigence which has driven me from any sort of support for, or identification with, that State ~~ with the sole exception of an unavoidable distaste for having the words Nazi or Holocaust used in any context in its regard... But this sort of US/Israeli bullying is likely, as that Jerusalem Post article points out, to be thoroughly counter—productive & invocative of the Unintended Consequences Law. ~M~ |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Lox Date: 01 Nov 11 - 07:50 AM If by hijack you mean call you out for sticking up for a racist and inaccurate generalization about palestinians, then I don't think anyone is likely to have a problem. Perhaps making unsupported assertions about the character of palestinians, or defending them is the hijack and the expert testimony pointing out the lie in those assertions is another passenger telling the hijacker to sit down and shut up. And yes Keith, unlike Jack Straw, Normal Finkelstein is an "expert" and his testimony qualifies as "expert testimony". But how typical anyway of Keith to use any tactic he can to silence his political opponents when they provide information which shows he is wrong. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: MGM·Lion Date: 01 Nov 11 - 08:18 AM Re my last post in support of Jim's denunciation of the US action in withholding UNESCO funds ~~ I had better made clear that this is not to be read as unqualified support for the concept of Palestinian statehood and UN membership, which is a far more problematic issue on which I am thoroughly ambivalent. The older I get, the more I find myself bedevilled and up to a point mentally paralysed by a horrible ability to 'see both sides'of so many questions, of which this-here is an example... ~M~ |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Lox Date: 01 Nov 11 - 08:46 AM Further to the conversation between Jim and MtheGM US decision to blackmail UNESCO It seems that America is happy to be a part of a democratic organization, but only so long as it does what America says. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 01 Nov 11 - 08:49 AM Kevin, taking the starting point as the cease fire, the rockets came before each reprisal strike. Lox, I am not aware that I am "sticking up for a racist and inaccurate generalization about Palestinians" I would like you to justify that outrageous slur. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 01 Nov 11 - 08:52 AM But how typical anyway of Keith to use any tactic he can to silence his political opponents I have never done this either. Try to justify it Lox. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Lox Date: 01 Nov 11 - 09:00 AM Yes you are keith, I pointed it our earlier - I joined this thread on one single point - Teribus' claim that Palestinians break their agreements and implication that they can't be trusted. Thats it - plain and simple. You have taken issue with my rebuttal of this point and are desperately trying to find fault with my rebuttal. When you have been unable to find a rebuttal, you have expressed skepticism of it. In other words, you doubt that Teribus is in error. In other words, you are sticking up for his assertion. It ain't rocket science and anyone can see it because they have eyes and a brain and they aren't prejudiced against palestinians. Even Teribus knows better than to stick up for his own assertion, though his silence says that he still wouldn't trust a palestinian ... ... cue list of reasons why palestinians are dishonest etc etc etc |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 01 Nov 11 - 09:09 AM Lox, Dr. F made some points. There are people of similar calibre taking the opposite view. That was not the case for my experts. I am making no claims about Palestinian people. Are you claiming that no Palestinian organisation has ever broken an agreement? |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Lox Date: 01 Nov 11 - 09:23 AM "That was not the case for my experts." I didn't notice you referring to 'your' experts ... "Are you claiming that no Palestinian organisation has ever broken an agreement? " Why not read my posts and find out. I don't think anyone could have specifically explained their purpose more clearly than I explained mine in my last post. You're just spouting hot air now I'm afraid - not even lies ... |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: GUEST Date: 01 Nov 11 - 09:43 AM "It was not my explanation." Still no cut-'n-paste - didn't think so. Forget it Keith - you've dug deep enough Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: MGM·Lion Date: 01 Nov 11 - 09:47 AM Seriously, Jim ~~ On this one, why don't you 'forget it'? You don't have to have the very last word, you know ~~ you are not Keith's mother-in-law! ~M~ |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 01 Nov 11 - 10:09 AM I have not dug at all Jim. How many threads have you raised this in now, after the original was closed because of your obsessions? How many apologies have you made for doing it?? Here is your last one again. : 21 Oct 11 - 07:12 AM livelylass As far as I'm concerned I have said what I have to say on this matter, I see nothing to change my mind and stand by all I have said As far as I'm concerned - it is finished here and I apologise that it has interrupted this thread Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: GUEST,livelylass Date: 01 Nov 11 - 10:34 AM Now that the US has indeed made good its threats of severancing monies both to UNESCO and Palestinian state-building projects, wondering how far this story below will go? No fresh reports as yet, that I could source from a cursory search, so linking to this old Haraaretz article from mid September. Meanwhile I've no idea whether or not this bill has yet to be passed .. anyone? U.S. Republicans submit resolution supporting Israel's right to annex West Bank PS: "Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: MtheGM Date: 01 Nov 11 - 07:38 AM Jerusalem Post, lively lass, not Jerusalem Times. I feel strongly about this error because my father spent a year as the paper's News Editor! ~Michael~" Jerusalem Post, quite so M! Apologies for the error. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: GUEST,livelylass Date: 01 Nov 11 - 10:39 AM Blast, make that 'Haaretz' |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: GUEST,livelylass Date: 01 Nov 11 - 10:45 AM Ah, further to my comment below in reply to Jim, just noted this recent article in Haaretz. After UNESCO, Abbas will be approaching sixteen further subsidiary bodies of the UN. http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/with-unesco-membership-granted-palestinians-seek-to-join-16-more-un-agencies-1.393 |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Jim Carroll Date: 01 Nov 11 - 10:48 AM "Seriously, Jim ~~ On this one, why don't you 'forget it'" Sorry Mike - and all" I really am too busy at present to be involved with this, as much as it interests me. Tried to get on with what I have to do but I was dragged back in by a question aimed directly at me by Keith - should have let sleeping grumps lie. I really have finished with this side of things - for now. Sorry once more - it won't happen again Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 01 Nov 11 - 10:51 AM How dare you blame me for your deranged obsession interrupting yet another thread! My question to you was about your comment on the Israeli casualties in the missile attacks, valid and relevant to this thread. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: MGM·Lion Date: 01 Nov 11 - 11:00 AM And, actually, Keith ~ equally seriously:~ You don't have to have the very last word either, do you? You are no more Jim's mother-in-law than he is yours, eh? Regards to Keith & Jim ~Michael~ |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 01 Nov 11 - 11:30 AM Lox, I force myself to read your posts. Why not just answer the question? Are you claiming that no Palestinian organisation has ever broken any agreements? |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: GUEST,livelylass Date: 01 Nov 11 - 12:05 PM Couldn't find the source for my earlier statement that concern has been expressed from within the Obama administration that the severance of funds -and consequently loss of paid-up membership voting rights- to UNESCO and potentially all sixteen fellow UN subsidiary agencies, could promote both increasing alienation of the US from the wider international community, and corresponding diminishment of political influence over same. However, one Professor Julian Cole makes some quite interesting observations on the matter, on his Middle East blog here*: http://www.juancole.com/2011/11/unesco-palestine-vote-isolates-us-further.html "Since a law passed by Congress in the 1990s forbids the US from funding UN bodies that recognize Palestine, the Obama administration has no choice but to withdraw the $80 million a year it gives UNESCO, which is a fifth of the agency's budget. But what this step really means is that the US loses influence over UNESCO, and indeed, it might well lose its membership in the organization. UNESCO may have to close some offices and lose employees. Or someone else, such as Saudi Arabia or China, might pick up the $80 million, gaining influence over UNESCO at US expense. If the move becomes common, the US could end up further and further isolated and helpless. What if the International Atomic Energy Agency recognizes Palestine as a member? If the US cuts it off, it loses a key arena within which it has been pressuring Iran over its nuclear enrichment program. And so on and so forth." * personally making no claims here as to either this bloggers academic credentials or his stated 'impartiality' |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: GUEST,livelylass Date: 01 Nov 11 - 12:12 PM Starting to make a habit of this sloppy accreditation.. Please note: Prof. JUAN Cole - NOT Julian! |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 01 Nov 11 - 12:14 PM US influence was ineffective in preventing the recognition. What is it worth to US. UNESCO will miss its cash more than US will miss its "influence." |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Lox Date: 01 Nov 11 - 12:28 PM "Are you claiming that no Palestinian organisation has ever broken any agreements? " Why I won't answer this question? Because it has nothing to do with Teribus' assertion that palestinians are untrustworthy. Unless you are trying to argue that Teribus is right and hoping that an answer to that question will serve as evidence that he is right. It obviously matters to you to defend the notion that palestinians are untrustworthy. Why? |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: GUEST,livelylass Date: 01 Nov 11 - 12:29 PM "UNESCO will miss its cash more than US will miss its "influence."" Perhaps.. Personally my opinion is the US is in a lose lose situation right now and it's huge debts and increasing international alienation, mean it's only a matter of time before it's position as a (or indeed 'the') primary world power is entirely sunk, thus forcing a withdrawal from the world stage. Arguably, this would only be a good thing for USAians. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 01 Nov 11 - 12:46 PM l.lass, I agree that is the way it is heading anyway. Lox, I told you I make no claims about the people of Palestine. What exactly is your issue with my contribution here? Please be specific. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 01 Nov 11 - 12:49 PM Lox, refusing to answer a question is an admission of inadequacy. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 01 Nov 11 - 02:11 PM ""Lox, Dr. F made some points. There are people of similar calibre taking the opposite view. That was not the case for my experts."" Since Dr. Finkelstein is Jewish, for that statement to have any credibility at all, "people of similar calibre" would, of necessity, have to include at least one Palestinian supporting Israel's actions. Do you have that Palestinian up your sleeve Keith? I thought not. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: GUEST Date: 01 Nov 11 - 02:26 PM Israel and the Apartheid Slander Op-ed from today's New York Times by Richard J. Goldstone, a former justice of the South African Constitutional Court, who led the United Nations fact-finding mission on the Gaza conflict of 2008-9. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: MGM·Lion Date: 01 Nov 11 - 02:27 PM ""Lox, Dr. F made some points. There are people of similar calibre taking the opposite view. That was not the case for my experts."" Since Dr. Finkelstein is Jewish, for that statement to have any credibility at all, "people of similar calibre" would, of necessity, have to include at least one Palestinian supporting Israel's actions. .,,. The logic of this statement eludes me ~~ no new phenomenon, mind, re Don's posts. ~M~ |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Lox Date: 01 Nov 11 - 02:57 PM "Lox, I told you I make no claims about the people of Palestine. What exactly is your issue with my contribution here? Please be specific. " Are you senile? I responded to Teribus. You questioned my response to him. It turned out you don't have any grounds for questioning my contribution. Yet we are still talking. So I should be asking you. What is your issue with my contribution here? |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 01 Nov 11 - 03:00 PM The US, by its actions over the UNESCO vote has done itself no favours. 1. By actually supporting Israel's intransigence, it has made it very difficult, if not impossible, for peace talks to proceed. 2. It has removed its capacity to influence UNESCO proceedings for the foreseeable future. 3. It has seriously damaged its pretensions to be the most democratic society on the planet. 4. By all of the above, it has lost any credibility as a champion of democracy world wide. A great pity and an affront to the founding fathers. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Stringsinger Date: 01 Nov 11 - 03:07 PM "The democratic conduct of Hamas as you term it extends to summary street executions and waging war on its neighbor Israel in all but name." You might say the same for Israel and the US which is waging war on Palestine. Summary street executions? Wasn't that done to bin Laden and Gadafi? What ever happened to the democratic position of habeas corpus where as we did in the Nurenberg Trials, put the criminals up before an international court? Now we just assassinate them. By summary street executions, Israel is exempted? This is specious. Hamas was duly elected and this is a democratic process regardless of how they operate today. The US is no longer capable of being an honest broker to the peace process here. The UN's decision underscores that point. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 01 Nov 11 - 03:10 PM ""The logic of this statement eludes me ~~ no new phenomenon, mind, re Don's posts."" No suggestion of the same rapprochment recently offered to Jim then. If Keith decides that Finkelstein, who is Jewish and opposed to Israel's actions and intransigence, has merely ""made a few points"", but is cancelled out by others' opinions, surely it is not unreasonable to suggest that one of those others would need to be a Palestinian opposing Palestinian attitudes and/or actions. If that is not the case, just how does Keith's offhand dismissal of an acknowledged expert have any credibility. Now do you understand? Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: MGM·Lion Date: 01 Nov 11 - 03:28 PM Don ~ Rapprochement by all means if agreeable to you. I hate being on permanent bad terms with anyone. Despite any poss appearances to contrary I am not a naturally contentious person...! Re your putative pro-Israeli Palestinian; it would clearly be desirable for the resolution of the situation if one could be produced, and would indeed provide a fine balance to Finkelstein's contribution. But that hardly SFICS makes it an absolute sine-qua-non for Keith's point to which you were responding to have any validity; 'twas therein I found the deficiency in logic. Best wishes ~Michael~ |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: GUEST,mg Date: 01 Nov 11 - 03:39 PM I disagree that refusing to answer questions is an admission of anything. I personally do not answer questions on demand. I decide if and when and to whom. mg |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 01 Nov 11 - 03:39 PM Don, I do not regard the race of the expert as significant. My point was that experts on both sides of this dispute are ten a penny. Lox imagines that by finding one anti-Israel "expert" he has ended the debate. It would not take many minutes to find a pro-Israel "expert" Lox, I still do not know why you are angry with me. What have I posted, specifically, that was wrong? |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 01 Nov 11 - 03:41 PM mg, I think that refusing to answer suggests you have no answer. I never refuse a question. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Lox Date: 01 Nov 11 - 04:03 PM Keith, The only reason we are talking is because you questioned my rebuttal of Teribus' assertion that Palestinians can't be trusted. If you have finished sticking up for him then there is nothing more to say. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: GUEST,mg Date: 01 Nov 11 - 04:06 PM I also could mean you could be tolerating abuse in some cases, or you prefer to not correspond with someone who is rude or overbearing. Do as you prefer. mg |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 01 Nov 11 - 04:18 PM No Lox. You posted this, (30 Oct 11 - 07:22 AM ) "Actually it is prettyt well established by now that the Gaza Massacre of the end of 2008 beginning of 2009 was not the result of a breach of the ceasefire by Hamas, but in fact it was the Israelis who broke it." I then asked you how you could justify your assertion that it is "pretty well established" A perfectly reasonable response. Just normal debate. What is wrong with you? |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 01 Nov 11 - 04:34 PM What is wrong with you? Now that is a question which might challenge anyone who has promised to ask any question... I'm not quite sure how it would ever be possible to prove that anything is "pretty well established" to the satisfaction of anyone who firmly disagrees. Look at climate change, after all. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 01 Nov 11 - 05:16 PM I agree your second para Kevin. Re first part, in the context of why he was in such a stew about my contributions. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: artbrooks Date: 01 Nov 11 - 05:22 PM With the most recent announcement that Canada has also cancelled its contribution to UNESCO, I assume that one can now insert 'Canada' everywhere "the US' is mentioned above? |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Lox Date: 01 Nov 11 - 05:48 PM "I then asked you how you could justify your assertion that it is "pretty well established"" And I answered by providing you with expert testimony from norman finkelstein who in turn quoted the Israeli foreign ministry. ... here we go round the mulberry bush ... tra-la-la-la-laaa ... or should I say the vortex into keiths ego ... |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Lox Date: 01 Nov 11 - 05:51 PM PS - I'm not in a stew - I'm laughing at your vain attempt to wrestle yourself out of a straightforward situation by way of distraction, obfuscation and your usual disingenuous posturing as a neutral party. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Lox Date: 01 Nov 11 - 05:58 PM Artbrooks, Disappointing as it may be that Canada should have such contempt for democracy and international institutions, you are completely right. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Lox Date: 01 Nov 11 - 06:00 PM McGrath, Or Evolution. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Lox Date: 01 Nov 11 - 06:09 PM "UNESCO will miss its cash more than US will miss its "influence." " mm hmmm? It seems to me that that influence was worth regular payments, the next of which was meant to be about $60,000,000. Obviously UNESCO thinks that that level of influence can't be bought. Obviously they are sticking to their own constitution in which member votes count more than bribes. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 01 Nov 11 - 06:32 PM Lox, I am baffled by your wild posting. Whatever did this mean? "I responded to Teribus. You questioned my response to him. The only reason we are talking is because you questioned my rebuttal of Teribus' assertion that Palestinians can't be trusted. If you have finished sticking up for him then there is nothing more to say." |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Mrrzy Date: 01 Nov 11 - 06:38 PM I'm very happy they were recognized by *somebody*, and I think it's about time the US learned that money can't buy everything. Anybody who wants to talk about what someone said about the Palesteins should be said in this thread. Anybody who wants to talk about what someone already said about *them* should say, I'm rebutting in the other thread, and then do so. Please. That is why there are two threads. And anybody who wants to be the first to say something about somebody rather than about what they have said should say, I have a personal comment in the other thread, and then put it there. Please and ditto. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 01 Nov 11 - 07:14 PM Those sound like good ground rules, Mrrzy. However the other thread has been closed for posting purposes... |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: artbrooks Date: 01 Nov 11 - 07:27 PM Perhaps we need a PermaThread entitled "Ad Hominem insults and snarky responses". |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Lox Date: 01 Nov 11 - 08:50 PM Let me take you by the hand Keith. Why did i post to this thread? I posted to rebutt Teribus' implied assertion that Palestinians cannot be trusted. So once I did that why did I keep posting? Because you questioned the soundness of my rebuttal and I had to justify it, which I did with an expert witness. So why am I still in discussion with you now? Good question - you have said nothing to add to our discussion since you failed to find fault with my rebuttal. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Lox Date: 01 Nov 11 - 09:24 PM To clarify, my comments at 5.48PM and 5.51PM on 1/11/11 re not Aimed at Artbrooks, but at Keith. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: GUEST,livelylass Date: 02 Nov 11 - 02:12 AM "From: artbrooks Date: 01 Nov 11 - 05:22 PM With the most recent announcement that Canada has also cancelled its contribution to UNESCO, I assume that one can now insert 'Canada' everywhere "the US' is mentioned above?" Most certainly! Particularly as Canada has long identified itself as one of the world's staunchest supporters of Israel. At least Harper (and importantly unlike Obama, considering the supposed US's position as an 'honest broker' in all of this) makes no play or pretense of being in any way neutral or unpartisan however. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 02 Nov 11 - 02:17 AM Lox, I am sorry if I am keeping you in the thread against your will. Just go mate. No-one cares. Do you believe that "expert witnesses" can never be challenged? Get over yourself! There are many "experts" on both sides of this, and yours came with no sources for his assertions. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: GUEST,livelylass Date: 02 Nov 11 - 02:44 AM I have read repeatedly that Israeli feeling is not in tandem with US actions. Indeed does Israel really need an ideologically based confrontation spear-headed by it's supposed allies right now? Is this really Netanyahu and the Israeli right pulling the strings or to what extent is the US right (and a fully complicit Obama administration) escalating the situation all by itself? Or is it Folie a deux? Israel now vigorously upgrading its illegal settlements program: the very issue which stalled peace talks in the first place. Considering combined factors of the Arab Spring, a growing international consensus and the US's increasingly weakened position as a leading world democracy, one wonders if Israel & the US are committed to a form of mutual suicide. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Lox Date: 02 Nov 11 - 05:54 AM "There are many "experts" on both sides of this, and yours came with no sources for his assertions. " Yes he did - you are genuinely exhibiting signs of dementia - This has been said 3 times at least - his source was the Israeli Foreign Ministry report on the ceasefire. And as for your experts? I still haven't seen you refer to them. You can challenge who you like, I urge you to contact him. So far you haven't challenged him - what you have done is question the authority of his assertion - and you have not provided any grounds for this other than 'the Israeli report might have been sarcastic'. This is extraordinary - I believe you have a genuine problem, if you are serious then something is causing extraordinary myopia. If you are doing this for fun, then you have extraordinary persistence that indicates a whole other problem. But one thing is for sure - you are adding nothing to our discussion. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Jim Carroll Date: 02 Nov 11 - 06:39 AM US response to UNESCO's democratically accepted decision to agree to Palestine's membership = attempts to blackmail into submission to the tune of $60m Israel's decision is to speed up the building of 2,000 houses on The West Bank A matched pair I think Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 02 Nov 11 - 06:52 AM Lox, Israel's position is that it was Hamas who broke the cease fire. That is why Kevin and I were surprised that such a report might exist and asked to see the comments in context. Can we please? |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Lox Date: 02 Nov 11 - 07:11 AM No experts then eh? Didn't think so. Finkelstein is an impeccable researcher and academic whose accuracy and method have been proven time and time again at the highest and most rigorous level. I have seen him say in an interview, when asked his opinion, that he did not see his opinion as important. His job as a researcher was to investigate the facts and present them accurately. So I have no reason to doubt him. If you doubt him, then it is up to you to go and verify his sources. That is why he gives them, so that people can check them out if they doubt them. That is how academic research works. I don't doubt him, you do. So it is up to you to challenge him yourself if you wish to persist. Til then, unless you have something else to add (like your alleged expert witnesses), his expert testimony stands as the authoritative view on this thread, not yours or teribus'. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 02 Nov 11 - 08:01 AM http://www.danielpipes.org/blogPlenty of experts like this. Here are his credentials. Daniel Pipes is president of the Middle East Forum and Taube distinguished visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution of Stanford University. His bi-weekly column appears regularly in the National Review and in newspapers around the globe, including the Jerusalem Post and Yisrael ha-Yom (Israel), Al-Akhbar (Iraq), Die Welt (Germany), La Razón (Spain), Liberal (Italy), National Post (Canada), and the Australian.. His website, DanielPipes.org, offers an archive of his work and an opportunity to sign up to receive e-mails of his current writings. With 60 million page visits, it is of the Internet's most accessed sources of specialized information on the Middle East and Islam. CBS Sunday Morning says Daniel Pipes was "years ahead of the curve in identifying the threat of radical Islam." "Unnoticed by most Westerners," he wrote, for example, in 1995, "war has been unilaterally declared on Europe and the United States." The Boston Globe states that "If Pipes's admonitions had been heeded, there might never have been a 9/11." The Wall Street Journal calls Mr. Pipes "an authoritative commentator on the Middle East" and the Washington Post deems him "perhaps the most prominent U.S. scholar on radical Islam." He received his A.B. (1971) and Ph.D. (1978) from Harvard University, both in history, and spent six years studying abroad, including three years in Egypt. Mr. Pipes speaks French, and reads Arabic and German. He has taught at the University of Chicago, Harvard University, the U.S. Naval War College, and Pepperdine University. He served in various capacities in the U.S. government, including two presidentially-appointed positions, vice chairman of the Fulbright Board of Foreign Scholarships and board member of the U.S. Institute of Peace. He was director of the Foreign Policy Research Institute in 1986-93. Mr. Pipes discusses current issues on television on such U.S. programs as ABC World News, Crossfire, Good Morning America, News-Hour with Jim Lehrer, Nightline, O'Reilly Factor, and The Today Show. He has appeared on leading television networks around the globe, including the BBC and Al-Jazeera, and has lectured in twenty-five countries. He has publicly debated leading figures, including Noam Chomsky and Ken Livingstone. Mr. Pipes has published in such magazines as the Atlantic Monthly, Commentary, Foreign Affairs, Harper's, National Review, New Republic, Time, and The Weekly Standard. More than a hundred American newspapers have carried his articles, including the Los Angeles Times, New York Times, Wall Street Journal, and Washington Post. His writings have been translated into thirty-six languages and have appeared in such newspapers as ABC, Corriere della Sera, The Daily Telegraph, Le Figaro, Neue Zürcher Zeitung, and The Sydney Morning Herald. Mr. Pipes has written twelve books. Four deal with Islam: Militant Islam Reaches America (2002), The Rushdie Affair (Birch Lane, 1990), In the Path of God (Basic Books, 1983), and Slave Soldiers and Islam (Yale University Press, 1981). Three books concern Syria: Syria Beyond the Peace Process (1996), Damascus Courts the West (Washington Institute, 1991), and Greater Syria (Oxford University Press, 1990). Four deal with other Middle Eastern topics: The Hidden Hand (St. Martin's, 1996) analyzes conspiracy theories among Arabs and Iranians. An Arabist's Guide to Colloquial Egyptian (Foreign Service Institute, 1983) systematizes the grammar of Arabic as spoken in Egypt. The Long Shadow (Transaction, 1989) and Miniatures (2003) contain some of his best essays. Conspiracy (Free Press 1997) establishes the importance of conspiracy theories in modern Europe and America. Mr. Pipes edited two collections of essays, Sandstorm (UPA, 1993) and Friendly Tyrants (St. Martin's, 1991). He has edited two journals, Orbis (1986-90) and the Middle East Quarterly (1994-2001). Mr. Pipes sits on five editorial boards, has testified before many congressional committees, and worked on five presidential campaigns. Universities in the United States and Switzerland have conferred honorary degrees on him. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Lox Date: 02 Nov 11 - 08:18 AM Great he sounds like a serious academic ... ... you've omitted to show any of his expert opinions on who broke the ceasefire between Hamas and the Israeli Government in Nov 2008 though ... Or perhaps we should have a "list famous researchers credentials" competition ... |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 02 Nov 11 - 08:43 AM Follow the link Lox. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 02 Nov 11 - 10:26 AM Jim, "UNESCO's democratically accepted decision" ignores the built in anti-Israel bias in UNESCO and other UN bodies. http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/israel-slams-absurd-unesco-decision-on-jerusalem-west-bank-holy-sites-1.321868 l.lass, an ideologically based confrontation spear-headed by it's supposed allies right now? ..is the US right (and a fully complicit Obama administration) escalating the situation all by itself? Or is it Folie a deux? Remember, this dispute was engineered by the Palestinian movement. US is only responding to it. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 02 Nov 11 - 10:33 AM Efforts to delegitimize Israel have also been part of the record of the specialized agencies, especially UNESCO, the UN's Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. In the 1970s, the Arabs in UNESCO raised questions about archaeological excavations in Jerusalem. Director-General A.M. M'Bow sent a specialist, Belgian Professor Raymond Le Maire, to investigate. Le Maire found the digs were carried out in accord with established international standards. Muslim holy places were protected, and archaeological relics from all periods of antiquity were preserved. Le Maire's report was suppressed by M'Bow, and UNESCO voted sanctions against Israel. UNESCO again displayed its double standard towards Israel when it refused to criticize archeological and other digs conducted by the Muslim Waqf in the Temple Mount area during the early fall of 2000. Despite UNESCOs criticism of Israel, going against the investigation by their own expert, when the Waqf engaged in work which may have destroyed priceless archeological artifacts relating to the Second Temple, the same UN body remained silent. http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_faq_palestine_un_anti_israel_bias.php |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 02 Nov 11 - 11:30 AM But what on Earth is there "anti-Israel" in supporting membership of UNESCO, which would appear to be in Israel's interests, since it involves accepting being a fellow member with Israel? Disagreeing with a self-defeating and stupid policy of tyhe current Israel government is not the same as being "anti-Israel". Is it "anti-American" to be against the death penalty? Or "anti-Arabia" to be in favour of women being allowed to drive cars? |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 02 Nov 11 - 12:32 PM Israel opposed the move. Votes always go against Israel. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 02 Nov 11 - 01:16 PM ""Lox imagines that by finding one anti-Israel "expert" he has ended the debate. It would not take many minutes to find a pro-Israel "expert""" You illustrate my point rather well Keith, when you say ""Don, I do not regard the race of the expert as significant. My point was that experts on both sides of this dispute are ten a penny."" You do not find any significance in a Jew objecting to Israel's attitude and actions, and assert that his race is irrelevant and experts who disagree are ten a penny. Dirt cheap experts, and not one Palestinian among them. Certainly makes Finkelstein's evidence more credible to me, and his integrity likewise since he rises above the old mantra of both US and Israeli governments "My country, right or wrong", and says "NO1 That isn't right. You could learn something from him, if you opened your mind to the possibility that Israel is neither honourable, nor truthful in this matter. Don T, |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 02 Nov 11 - 01:19 PM Mike, thank you. Rapprochment it is then. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 02 Nov 11 - 01:37 PM ""Israel opposed the move. Votes always go against Israel."" If I were in that position, I'd be examining the reasons for my unpopularity with a view to improving matters, not exacerbating the situation by going around kicking shins. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 02 Nov 11 - 02:09 PM Voting against a policy of Israel counts as "anti-Israel" - then presumably voting with Israel in this case would have counted as being anti almost everyone else... Still waiting for anyone to suggest some reason why the policy of Israel in regard to UN and UNESCO membership for Palestine makes any sense at all, or why Palestine membership would do anything to harm the interests of Israel. And while we are about it, is there anyone who thinks that the prospects of peace or the interests of Israel are helped by the extension of illegal settlements in occupied territory? |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 02 Nov 11 - 02:43 PM Don, a Palestinian who supported Israel might find it more healthy to keep his views to himself. Don, why Israel is so unpopular, from my last link. Worth a read, this just an extract. Since 1948, when a UN resolution set the State of Israel on its way, the UN has has been a part of the on-going evolution of the struggle between Israel and the Palestinian Arabs with binding and non-binding resolutions, peace keeping forces, peace conferences and investigations. Unfortunately, an alliance between Arab states, third-world countries hostile to the developed world, and Cold War politics backed by the former Soviet Union, have created a UN environment that is uniquely hostile to Israel. While Tibet, Cambodia, Rwanda and other world problem areas have come and gone, often without significant comment or action by the UN, Israel has been repeatedly targeted, investigated, denounced, and condemned by one-sided UN agencies or committees with no scintilla of objectivity while at the same time Israel has been denied full participation in UN functions. Meanwhile, nations with horrible human rights violations such as Iraq, Libya, Iran, Afghanistan, and Syria have escaped criticism from any UN forum. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 02 Nov 11 - 02:56 PM I note you said you always answer questions, Keith - so take that last post of mine as addressed to you for that purpose. ...................... The regimes in power in all those countries you mentioned there, Keith have indeed been guilty of human rights violations towards their own citizens - however none of them are in occupation of foreign territories, including imposing settlements with hundred of thousands of settlers, and rigidly restricting the freedom of travel of the native inhabitants to move around within their own land. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 02 Nov 11 - 03:32 PM Blimey Kevin. I was only asking for a yes or no answer. Why Israel and US are so opposed to Palestine becoming a member of UN, I am ashamed to admit I am not sure. If no-one else can help I will look it out. Your list of Israeli abuses. I think those other states are much worse offenders, and Israel would make a case for why it feels it needs to restrict some movements. The "occupied territories" were not occupied in any imperialist invasions, but in a desperately fought battle for survival that was nearly lost. Vast amounts of such have been handed back already. The settlements are a big issue. A couple of posts will not cover it. Not ducking the question, but that is the best I can do. Happy to discuss in more detail. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Jim Carroll Date: 02 Nov 11 - 04:02 PM "Jim, "UNESCO's democratically accepted decision" ignores the built in anti-Israel bias in UNESCO and other UN bodies." There is now bias on the part of UNESCO - it does not exist nor act as a single unitary body - it is made up of representatives of various states. The vote was 107 for 14 against, 54 abstentions - that is 107 nations supporting the statehood of Palestine compared to 14 against. A similar situation exists in the United Nations - neither act as a single unit, but as a representatives of nations opposed to US and Israeli policy Weaseling out of this opposition by a majority of world representatives by crying "bias" is nonsensical If there is any 'bias' it is that of the world against the expansionist behaviour of Israel and the blackmailing and political and economic bullying of the United States. As Livelylass pointed out, the US would do well to recognise this fact. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 02 Nov 11 - 04:24 PM So no identified reason why membership of the UN and UNESCO for Palestine would be against the interests of Israel, but voting for it counts as being "anti-Israel". I don't know how oublic opinion breaks down over this in Israel - butr it's interesting to see that in the USA, it appears that it actually runs runs in favour of Palestinian statehood. What Keith might call "anti-Israel. From this Israeli source: "The US and the Philippines showed the highest rates of opposition to UN recognition with 36% each. However, 45% of those surveyed in the US and 56% of those in the Philippines cast their vote in favor." |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Jim Carroll Date: 02 Nov 11 - 04:25 PM Should have been "no bias" of course Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 02 Nov 11 - 04:45 PM Here's what Noam Chomsky had to say about Alan Dershowitz: Dershowitz is not only a remarkable liar and slanderer, but also an extreme opponent of elementary civil rights. That is crystal clear from the correspondence, reproduced below. Dershowitz flew into a fury over the exposure, and ever since has produced a series of hysterical tirades and lies concerning some entity in his fantasy world named “Chomsky,â€쳌 who lives on “planet Chomsky.â€쳌 That is his standard style when he is exposed, reaching truly grotesque levels in his efforts to discredit Norman Finkelstein (and even his mother, probably a new low in depravity) after Finkelstein’s meticulous documentation of Dershowitz’s astonishing lies in his vulgar apologetics for Israeli crimes. (From here) |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Lox Date: 02 Nov 11 - 05:03 PM I followed the link. I typed 'control+F' I searched for the words "ceasefire", "november" and "2008". None of those words appeared anywhere in the article. I read the article. It said nothing about the Ceasefire of 2008. So yet again you have failed to offer anything of any relevance or interest. When you find some expert testimony or evidence that contradicts the Israeli Foreign ministry report, be sure and let us know. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 02 Nov 11 - 06:25 PM Lox, you must have missed the first sentence. Extract- "..murders and abductions carried out by Palestinians, and as the Israel Defense Forces enter Gaza in response to these acts as well as rockets landing on Israeli towns.." That describes the most serious possible breaches of the ceasefire Lox, and not by Israel. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: GUEST,livelylass Date: 03 Nov 11 - 04:39 AM Somewhat off-topic but pertaining to Israel and the current Middle-East situation: Israel test-fires missile capable of reaching Iran |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: GUEST,livelylass Date: 03 Nov 11 - 04:50 AM Keith A: "Remember, this dispute was engineered by the Palestinian movement. US is only responding to it." That is certainly a perspective. I'm more inclined to agree with Baskin's assessment in the Jerusalem Post which I previously linked to on this thread - but I'm not here to 'win' any arguments on the matter: "The Palestinian logic was soundly based on their assessment that there was no possibility of reaching a negotiated agreement with the current government of Israel. Every day, Israeli settlement building progressed, taking away more land from what they believe is part of the future Palestinian state. More than 18 years of failed peace processes convinced them that they need to create a "game changer" so that they could preserve the chances for creating a real Palestinian state in the future." |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 03 Nov 11 - 05:18 AM but I'm not here to 'win' any arguments on the matter: Just so ll. What some here can't see is that this is not the enlightened v the ignorant. There really are two sides to this dispute and there are informed, intelligent people, including "experts" on both sides. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 03 Nov 11 - 06:04 AM Re the missile, some kind of action against Iran by the West is looking increasingly likely. See Iran/Korea thread. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Lox Date: 03 Nov 11 - 06:34 AM I see - so which particular dispute is he referring to ... ... none - its a general comment ... So where is the specific assertion that Hamas broke the ceasefire of 2008? Where is the Government report supporting this? You said Finkelstein had given no source ... You haven't even shown me Pipes saying that Hamas broke the 2008 ceasefire, let alone refer to any documentation official or otherwise. Teribus was wrong to say that Palestinians can't be trusted, and I was right to call him out on it. And you have provided no reason or evidence that remotely begins to deal with my response to him. Your comments are so far beyond farcical that I can only conclude that you are suffering from a compulsive disorder. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Lox Date: 03 Nov 11 - 06:34 AM 200 |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 03 Nov 11 - 06:46 AM Lox, he said "Israel Defense Forces enter Gaza in response to these acts " "These acts were thus prior to the incursion but after the ceasefire. We both know that the cease fire broke down without needing to consult experts anyway. When after the ceasefire were Finkelstein's quotes made Lox? It was not broken at once. A year later? A week? The next day? Later the same afternoon? We do not have the quotes in context or any idea when they were made, so they shed no light at all. Finding an "expert" for or against Israel does not further this debate one inch Lox. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 03 Nov 11 - 06:49 AM Pipes' piece is 2006, so you are right, it does not refer to the 2008 ceasefire. My other comments stand. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: MGM·Lion Date: 03 Nov 11 - 07:06 AM Keith ~ I early learned that trying reason against the entrenched, dont-confuse-me-with facts, assumptions of Colostolox the ShitbagShouter is a waste of effort. IIWY I shouldn't waste another moment on him, ~M~ Note to Al, Kevin and some others who appear ill-at-ease with my mode of referring to this gadfly-Catter: OK, I drop the piggidroppings bit; but considering the time and emphasis and pertinacity he has expended,unapologetically & motivelessly SFAICS,(if any motive he consistently refuses to divulge it despite frequent enquiries) on accusing me, inaccurately, of stinking due to an ill-fitting colostomy bag, and explicitly expressing his delight at its having irritated me, I feel my "Colostilox the ShitbagShouter" to be a completely concise, compact, coherent, congruous, convenient, correct, compatible cognomen. Any objections to that one ~~ tough-ɷɷ! |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 03 Nov 11 - 07:35 AM I think it has to be assumed that one purpose of many of the actions of the Israel regime (extending settlements, carrying out some military actions) is to ensure that the conflict is continued. The same would appear to be the case for those firing missiles from Gaza. Whether these are under the control of Hamas has never been satisfactorily proved. It takes two to tango. Two partners. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Lox Date: 03 Nov 11 - 08:26 AM There is only one source of factual evidence here on the subject of the 2008 ceasefire and that is The Israeli Foreign office report on the ceasefire, as reported by a proven expert in the field. Those are the facts. MtheGM is busy stirring his bitter soup and as such remains a waste of time. And Keith says the following. "We both know that the cease fire broke down without needing to consult experts anyway." Mm hmm ... and who broke it? Well according to the only evidence on here it was not Hamas. Oh no ... wait ... keith posted some 'expert testimony' ... but it turned out to be irrelevant ... at which point he decides conveniently that we don't need any ... "When after the ceasefire were Finkelstein's quotes made Lox?" He has provided this information in many speeches including the one posted and has also published it, every time quoting his source as the Israeli foreign ministry report. "Finding an "expert" for or against Israel does not further this debate one inch Lox. " Oh really? But I guess it did when Jack Straw and Lord Ahmed supported your views about Pakistanis eh? ... ... but then of course you were only reporting their "expert" testimony weren't you ... impartially like ... ...Despite their having never been recognized as having any expertise ... As for 'pro Israel/anti Israel', Finkelstein is a Pro Israeli Jew - who recognizes that current Israeli Government policy is damaging Israels interests in an unprecedented way whilst also engaged in the murder of palestinian civilians including thousands of children. I am astonished at your double standards and farcical dishonesty. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 03 Nov 11 - 08:55 AM So when were Finklestein's quotes made Lox? Exactly how long after the ceasefire? Who first broke the ceasefire? It depends what actions you consider a breach. There will never be agreement on it. I did put up a number of experts on the prejudice thread. They knew about BP culture because they were part of it. I was not aware of anyone contradicting them. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: MGM·Lion Date: 03 Nov 11 - 08:58 AM This, from Lox, is a perfectly tenable view ~~As for 'pro Israel/anti Israel', Finkelstein is a Pro Israeli Jew - who recognizes that current Israeli Government policy is damaging Israels interests in an unprecedented way whilst also engaged in the murder of palestinian civilians including thousands of children.~~ But as to this otoh ~~MtheGM is busy stirring his bitter soup and as such remains a waste of time.~~ Well, see what I mean? Al, Kevin ~ you've been busy defending the little ShitbagShouter: let's hear it for him again, shall we? ··· |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: GUEST,livelylass Date: 03 Nov 11 - 09:46 AM Lox: "As for 'pro Israel/anti Israel', Finkelstein is a Pro Israeli Jew - who recognizes that current Israeli Government policy is damaging Israels interests in an unprecedented way" Quite. Which is precisely the same position maintained by Chomsky likewise (influential to Finklestein's own perspective and work). But those who denounce both as 'leftist traitors' or 'self-hating Jews' or invoke some other form of ad hominem abuse, never acknowledge this clearly stated 'pro-Israel' position. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 03 Nov 11 - 11:27 AM I dislike stuff like "MtheGM is busy stirring his bitter soup" as much as I do "little Shitbag Shouter", and I would never dream of defending either. But that quote from Lox does indeed seem tenable to me, though expressed in an inflammatory way. Israel's Government policy does indeed damage the interests of the Israeli people, Jewish or non-Jewish (and I note that you, MtheGM has indicated that you judge it that way), and it has indeed led to the death of thousands of children over the years. The crucial difference here should be between those who think that violence in this conflict is justified, at least by one side which they favour, and those who do not. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 03 Nov 11 - 12:10 PM The crucial difference here should be between those who think that violence in this conflict is justified, Some would say that violence is never justified. I believe it is not justified by hate or revenge. I think that the rocketing of towns, and suicide bombing of buses full of people going to school and work, are motivated by hate and revenge. I believe that violence can be justified in self defence. I believe a degree of violence is acceptable to prevent or reduce such attacks ,though not indiscriminate violence. You can argue that Israel's action have been disproportionate, and we could debate that. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 03 Nov 11 - 03:03 PM Talk of self-defence in this context is misleading. The violence is self-defeating to ordinary people on both sides. It serves to ensure that the violence by the other side continues. I suppose it is possible that that is not the intended outcome, but the longer this process continues the less likely that seems likely to be true. That is particularly true when it comes to acts which appear deliberately intended to ensure that a ceasefire breach is escalated. Non-violent resistance by Palestinians can be a real threat to the status quo, which is why those who attempt to act in this way,including Israeli supporters. It does not seem like a matter of disproportion, but of calculation. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: GUEST,mg Date: 03 Nov 11 - 03:09 PM I don't have all the facts, but putting those settlers in as human shields is wrong wrong wrong. Some are from other countries, if I understand correctly, and their hyperenthusiasm is being exploited. If you need a DMZ, use it for grazing or national parks or green space or water storage or something but not for something designed to get people, especially children, killed. mg |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 03 Nov 11 - 03:22 PM I accidentally deleted a bit if my last post. Here goes again: Talk of self-defence in this context is misleading. The violence is self-defeating to ordinary people on both sides. It serves to ensure that the violence by the other side continues. I suppose it is possible that that is not the intended outcome, but the longer this process continues the less likely that seems likely to be true. That is particularly true when it comes to acts which appear deliberately intended to ensure that a ceasefire breach is escalated. Non-violent resistance by Palestinians can be a real threat to the status quo, which is why those who attempt to act in this way, including Israeli supporters, meet a brutal response. It does not seem like a matter of disproportion, but of calculation. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Lox Date: 03 Nov 11 - 03:30 PM Indded it is hard to see how evicting residents of East Jerusalem and housing settlers there, or indeed evicting farmers on the west bank and building settlements there constitutes self defence. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Lox Date: 03 Nov 11 - 03:33 PM As for the notion that the Gaza Massacre of 2008-2009 was self defence, Finkelsteins collection of Israeli Soldiers eyewitness testimonies pretty clearly demonstrates what an utter nonsense that idea is. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 03 Nov 11 - 04:17 PM Bloody Sunday was "self defence" too. So was the Iraq War. I'm trying to think of a war that wasn't claimed to be "self-defence" by whoever started it... |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Lox Date: 03 Nov 11 - 04:40 PM Funny - Keith supports those notions as well to the absolute bitter end ... |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Lox Date: 03 Nov 11 - 04:46 PM The Guardian today reported on the possibility of a war in Iran. Lets not be under any illusions as to the reason why though. Here's US Spokesman John Bolton Admitting All Of These Wars Are For Oil |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 03 Nov 11 - 05:14 PM Kevin, I am not aware of anyone claiming Bloody Sunday was self defence. I am surprised you thought it helpful to open that can of worms. When Israel removed its troops and settlers from Gaza, the rain of missiles began. Would you deny them the right to take action to reduce the attacks on their citizens? How is it not self defence, provided it is not indiscriminate or disproportionate? How is launching a missile loaded with ball bearings indiscriminately at a town self defence? |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 03 Nov 11 - 05:37 PM I'm trying to think of a war that wasn't claimed to be "self-defence" by whoever started it... Do Hamas claim that their operations against the people living in Israel are "self defence" Kevin? I think they claim it is to further their stated aim of destroying the state of Israel. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Jim Carroll Date: 04 Nov 11 - 03:50 AM "Kevin, I am not aware of anyone claiming Bloody Sunday was self defence." For decades the excuse given for the slaughter of 13 unarmed civil rights demonstrators, (plus 14 wounded), by British troops was that some of the demonstrators were armed and that there were IRA snipers in the vicinity - now admitted to be a lie. I believe you've even put forward similar excuses for the massacre yourself (another lie, no doubt). Not surprised you don't want to open that particular "can of worms". It is common for belligerant and agressive forces to make such claims and treat civilian casualities as 'expendable' - the Americans have even invented a phrase for it - "collateral damage". You have also attempted to excuse this in the past by describing the Gazans as 'Hamas hostages' who 'got in the way of Israeli fire'. The deliberate targeting of civilians by Israeli troops has bacome commonplace - one Israeli ex-minister has been declared a war criminal and is unable to enter Britain because of such actions. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 04 Nov 11 - 06:28 PM I imagine that Hamas would say that they were defending the people of Palestine against the Europeans invaders who have displacd them and who continue to subjugate them, or something like that. It's always "self defence". Settlers in America were engaged in self defence against the Native Americans. And the Native Americans were engaged on self-defence when they attacked the settlers. In the cobntext of America the imbalance of power and numbers was so great that the "self-defence" of the settlers pushing west was able to be "successful." But in the context of Palestine/Israel and the Middle East that is not the case. "Self defence" can pretty certainly be recognsed to be self-defeating in the long run - for both sides. Peole who support the violence carried out by either side are no true friends to that side. People who oppose it are no enemies. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Lox Date: 04 Nov 11 - 06:59 PM You don't have to imagine it McGrath - there is a mountain of evidence all over the net showing that people in Gaza view the rockets as the only alternative they have. I am not commenting on whether this is right or wrong, I am just saying that it is what people living in Gaza say - they are defending themselves. Do I feel its right to fire rockets at civilians? No I don't. I think it is unacceptable. But from an academic point of view, I tend to be inclined to see it the way finkelstein does - that it is a form of protest where there are no alternatives that work, and the only other apparent option is to bend over and take it. Peaceful protest happens every day in Gaza and is met with violence every time, yet both the large scale peaceful proesting and the disproportionate and often lethal response generally goes unreported. Violence is inflicted against palestinians by settlers every day in East Jerusalem and on the west bank against farmers and their property and crops, and the IDF stands by and watches and allows it, and it goes unreported. If you are slowly being strangled and nobody is helping, you will eventually start kicking. The rockets have succeeded in keeping the issue in the news and the world is paying attention to the debate. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 05 Nov 11 - 05:49 AM We will have to disagree on that. I do not accept that indiscriminately firing rockets specifically constructed to cause damage to people, in their homes and schools, is a legitimate form of protest. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 05 Nov 11 - 06:20 AM I would have posted this reply here, but the thread had been closed. 04 Nov 11 - 04:57 PM there were IRA snipers in the vicinity - now admitted to be a lie. Now known to be true. I believe you've even put forward similar excuses for the massacre yourself (another lie, no doubt). No, I have never claimed it was self defence. Who here ever has? The deliberate targeting of civilians by Israeli troops has bacome commonplace I am not aware of this, please substantiate. The deliberate targeting of civilians by Palestinian fighters has been a commonplace for years. Do you need that substantiated? |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 05 Nov 11 - 06:31 AM From BBc site yesterday, why Britain France and Germany will not support application. The UN diplomat said Britain, France and Colombia stated their positions in a private meeting of the Security Council committee dealing with the Palestinian application. The diplomat said Germany also declared it could not support the Palestinian bid, without clarifying whether it would abstain or vote against. In real terms this does not matter, because the Americans have already made it clear they would veto the Palestinian request. But in political and moral terms it does: the Palestinians were hoping to show they could isolate the Americans by getting majority support on the Security Council. That looks unlikely now. A source in Britain's Foreign Office says William Hague will explain the decision to parliament on Wednesday. Britain and France support Palestinian statehood in principle. But they have expressed concern that a Palestinian bid to become a UN member state right now could harm chances of reviving the peace process. There is also general concern here that a Palestinian confrontation with the Americans on this issue could ignite violence in the Middle East. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 05 Nov 11 - 07:02 AM If David Cameron and William Hague say something, it must clearly be correct... ..................... "No, I have never claimed it was self defence. Who here ever has?" It is completely irrelevant what you or anybody there might have said or failed to say. What is relevant is that the British Government did repeatedly back the claim that the soldiers on Bloody Sunday were defending themselves. The point I was making is that "self defence" is always used to justify violence. It may well be that this is a perfectly sincere claim - but that does not mean it is an accurate expression. "Self defence" which results in continuing and escalating violence in response is no defence. And that is the situation in the Holy Land. It is true that, as Lox wrote their, non-violent resistance by Palestinians (often with the backing of Israeli sympathisers) is met by violent repression, and goes unreported. But that does not mean that violence is a better alternative. The rockets fired at random merely provide a useful diversion which takes attention away from more relevant forms of resistance, and provides an opportunity for Israel's revanchists to strike once more, and so guarantee that the conflict continues to be carried out in their language |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 05 Nov 11 - 07:37 AM We agree that claims of self defence are sometimes spurious. It is spurious claim it is self defence when you commit atrocities against ordinary families. It is reasonable to claim that actions taken to prevent atrocities being committed against your people, are self defence. (IMO) |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Lox Date: 05 Nov 11 - 07:40 AM Well Keith, Once again, you have neglected to read before responding. I didn't say Rockets were a legitimate form of protest - I recognized that it may be the only action available to Palestinians. As I said, "Do I feel its right to fire rockets at civilians? No I don't. I think it is unacceptable." But I am at a loss to suggest an alternative given that negotiation and peaceful protest, not to mention sticking to the terms of the ceasefire and according to Israel doing their very best to uphold it, seem to be doing nthing to either win sympathy or to release the stranglehold that Israel is inflicting. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Jim Carroll Date: 05 Nov 11 - 07:58 AM "there were IRA snipers in the vicinity - now admitted to be a lie." Stop editing out what I said. "For decades the excuse given for the slaughter of 13 unarmed civil rights demonstrators, (plus 14 wounded), by British troops was that some of the demonstrators were armed and that there were IRA snipers in the vicinity - now admitted to be a lie." It was a lie that the presence of snipers was the reason for the massacre - that's what I said and that's what I meant - and that's what the Saville report said. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: MGM·Lion Date: 05 Nov 11 - 09:44 AM "demonstrators were armed and that there were IRA snipers in the vicinity - now admitted to be a lie." It was a lie that the presence of snipers was the reason for the massacre - that's what I said and that's what I meant - and that's what the Saville report said.""""" .,,. Without getting too much involved in this particular aspect of the controversy, which is one of my 'can see both sides' comment-inhibitory situations; I think in interest of justice that it was, to say the least, a bit ambiguous as to what part of it you were denouncing as a lie, Jim. ~M~ |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Jim Carroll Date: 05 Nov 11 - 10:06 AM Without taking this too far off thread - the presence of 2 snipers (one of them possibly Martin McGuinness) - it has been a long-running issue in defence of the Bloody SUNday massacre; - would have been a bit daft to suggest, particularly in the light of past arguments. It's all in one sentence, which Keith chose to cut in half - nowt ambiguous about it. Having dismissed the massacres and human rights atrocities carried out by Israel as lies, turning chemical weapons into fireworks, ignoring Israel's proposal to drive the Bedouins out of their homeland..... Keith appears to e going through a straw-grasping stage. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 05 Nov 11 - 10:16 AM If David Cameron and William Hague say something, it must clearly be correct... How glibly you dismiss this information. It is fair to say, Kevin, that you, Lox and Jim have given unequivocal support for the membership application. A couple of days ago, you admitted that you had no idea what reasons Israel was putting forward against it, and not one of your team was able to enlighten you either. You did not need to know. If Israel is against it, you are for it, and vice versa. How can we not see this as blind, irrational prejudice against Israel? I am sure that the governments and diplomatic corps. of Britain, Canada, France and Germany have looked at both sides, and guess what? They agree with Israel. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 05 Nov 11 - 10:19 AM "Having dismissed the massacres and human rights atrocities carried out by Israel as lies, turning chemical weapons into fireworks, ignoring Israel's proposal to drive the Bedouins out of their homeland..... Keith appears to e going through a straw-grasping stage." I have no reply! |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 05 Nov 11 - 11:23 AM So far as I can see the only reason presented by Hague or anyoner else for opposing Palestrinian membership of the UN is that the Israeli government are against it. However a recent public opinion poll indicated that as much as 70 per cent of Israelis would be willing to accept such statehood. So that counts as "blind, irrational prejudice against Israel"... |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 05 Nov 11 - 11:27 AM I imagine those Israelis have looked at both sides and come to a rational decision based on the evidence as they see it. Unlike those here. Hague has not given his reasoning yet. Wednesday in Parliament. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 05 Nov 11 - 11:30 AM However a recent public opinion poll indicated that as much as 70 per cent of Israelis would be willing to accept such statehood. Please clarify if the poll was about this issue of UN membership. Statehood is the long term goal of everyone isn't it? |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 05 Nov 11 - 01:51 PM You must have some reason for opposing Palestinian statehood over and above the fact that the present Israeli government is opposed to it, Keith. Or rather, if that is your only reason, it would seem to indicate a measure of blind, irrational prejudice. ............................ As for "Statehood is the long term goal of everyone isn't it?" The continued\extension of the illegal settlements in the West Bank would appear to throw doubt on that. It would appear the the Israeli government may be hoping to achieve something on the lines of pseudo-states comparable to the Bantustans, or the Native American reservation, in patches of the West Bank divided by expanded settlements. This would have the advantage over straight annexation of the West Bank that it would keep the Palestinian population out of the electorate. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Jim Carroll Date: 05 Nov 11 - 01:52 PM "Statehood is the long term goal of everyone isn't it?" Statehood should be left to the UN - not 2 self-interested nations Israel (aggressively expansionist) and the US (financially and politically predatory) especially as the human rights records of both leave much to be desired. United Nations responsibilty should never be allowed to be hi-jacked by financial, political and military bullying Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Mrrzy Date: 05 Nov 11 - 02:48 PM You said it, Jim Carroll! |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Jim Carroll Date: 05 Nov 11 - 04:14 PM Just seen that Israel has arrested 2 aid ships (1 Irish) attempting to break the blockade - probably the crudest and earliest form of repression is trying to blackmail the population as a whole (men, women and children) into submission by cutting off everyday essentials for living. At least they haven't killed anybody, like they did last time, but it's early days yet. No what were people saying about Palestinian aggression!!! "It is reasonable to claim that actions taken to prevent atrocities being committed against your people, are self defence." Yeah - right!!!! Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 05 Nov 11 - 04:51 PM actions taken to prevent atrocities being committed against your people, are self defence But not when the effect is to make such atrocities more likely to happen. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 06 Nov 11 - 02:09 AM You must have some reason for opposing Palestinian statehood over and above the fact that the present Israeli government is opposed to it, Keith. Or rather, if that is your only reason, it would seem to indicate a measure of blind, irrational prejudice. I have no opinion about it. I would need to know more, because I am not driven by blind, irrational prejudice |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Jim Carroll Date: 06 Nov 11 - 03:44 AM "because I am not driven by blind, irrational prejudice" Sabra and Shatila and other massacres, white phosphorus, murderous incursions into Gaza, maintaining a cowardly blockade, expulsion of the bedouins....... (not to mention cultural implants) Hmmm Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 06 Nov 11 - 04:28 AM Jim, on all those issues I simply put the Israeli side of the story. The side you do not want to know, hear or think about. Sabra and Shatila for instance. I asked you what evidence you had for your assertions, and I posted the Israeli version of events. Where is the prejudice? I also reminded you of another massacre at the camps carried out by a Muslim militia, but you expressed no opinion about that one. White phos. for instance. I merely provided factual information, and the only opinion I expressed was to deplore its use in Gaza. Where is the prejudice? Kevin, that survey was absolutely nothing to do with the issue of membership, but you dropped it in as if it was. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 06 Nov 11 - 05:17 AM The survey appears to indicate that in opposing recognition of Palestine as a member state of the UN and UNESCO the Israeli government (and the USA etc) are not acting in accordance with majority Israeli opinion. ........................... I have no opinion about it. I somehow think you deceive yourself there, Keith. It would still be interesting to have some suggestion of any grounds for the Israeli government's opposition which hold water. "We want to be able to use the issue to negotiate with" is not a very good argument, especially in the context of extensions of settlements, which appears to be a way of blocking negotiations. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Jim Carroll Date: 06 Nov 11 - 07:05 AM "Jim, on all those issues I simply put the Israeli side of the story. " You now appear to be moving into "Itwasn't me that said it but some eminent expert" mode You have conistently argued Israels case, you have defended massacres facilitated by Israeli "a failure to prevent", have openly denied that documented massacres even happened, you have downgraded and ignored the effects of chemical weapons used on civilians as smokescreens, you have ignored the fact that an Israeli minister has been found a war criminal and us unable to enter Britain, you have ignored the attempts to starve the Palestinians into submission, you have defended the US veto at the Untited Nations Don't you dare claim that I don't want to know the Israeli case - I know it and I believe them to be a terrorist state committing atrocities against civilians for over sixty years - and unlike you, I find that fact unaccebtable. I don't give a toss for either Israeli or Palestinian extremeism - unlike you, I have never supported either, though I have at one time or another, tried to understand both. My main concern is ending this bloodshed, and that will not be achieved by backing one side against the other Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 06 Nov 11 - 07:16 AM Kevin, I can assure you I have no opinion on the membership. Jim, You have conistently argued Israels case, I have tried to put the Israeli case to provide a measure of balance. you have defended massacres facilitated by Israeli "a failure to prevent", No I have not. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 06 Nov 11 - 07:20 AM The survey appears to indicate that in opposing recognition of Palestine as a member state of the UN and UNESCO the Israeli government (and the USA etc) are not acting in accordance with majority Israeli opinion. I do not agree that the survey about future statehood can be extrapolated to prior membership. The Israeli government is answerable to its people, and will have to seek re-election by them, unlike certain other governments. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Jim Carroll Date: 06 Nov 11 - 08:19 AM "No I have not." Oh for ****'* sake - YES YOU HAVE You've even gone as far as to say that there were "no massacres" Want me to dig that one out? Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 06 Nov 11 - 08:35 AM When stuck in a hole, stop digging... |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 06 Nov 11 - 12:09 PM The massacres are well documented. You posted the Wiki piece about them, but deleted the warnings that there was no evidence for some of the accusations. I pointed out your deception, and posted the Israeli version of events. An unprejudiced person would be happy for both sides of the story to be told. You were not happy though. Oh my goodness you were unhappy. You are steeped in prejudice. You are a very prejudiced person. Kevin, I do not understand your comment about digging. Please explain. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 06 Nov 11 - 12:20 PM Here's a clue... |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 06 Nov 11 - 12:26 PM Please be specific how it relates to me Kevin, so that I have something to reply to. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Jim Carroll Date: 06 Nov 11 - 01:03 PM "You posted the Wiki piece about them, but deleted the warnings that there was no evidence for some of the accusations." All the accounts of Shatila and Sabra have been verified as having be facilitated by the Israelis driving the killers to the site, opening the gates to let then in, standing by and letting them get on with the slaughter, and providing illumination so they could see who they were killing that is a matter of historical record What was (but is no longer) in doubt is whether the Israelis actually took part in the slaughter; Robert Fisk's evidence indicates that there was a strong possibilty that they did; and he produced eye-witness accounts that they were actually inside both of the camps while the slaughter was going on; they watched the refugees being taken away to be murdered and saw the women being raped - that is what you have described as "failing to prevent". Begin was in line to be tried for the Israeli part in the massacres, but was made Prime Minister instead. This is what you have given your support to. All the other massacres that you have had pointed out to you, also a matter of historical record you have supported by your "no massacres" claim. I deleted nothing deliberately (that was your practice when you tried to prove Pakistanis to be cultural perverts still no cut-'n- paste - this has always been a matter of historical record, accepted by all - except you. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 06 Nov 11 - 01:38 PM How can you state that something is "a matter of historical record" If it is why has Wiki been waiting so long for someone to provide citations for the claim? Can you put up anything that justifies your assertion and refutes Israel's version of events. I read Fiske's pieces on this and they do not provide it. This is what you have given your support to. I have not. Fiske's "eye witnesses" were produced years after the event and were to enable a prosecution in Belgium. Why did that never happen? |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 06 Nov 11 - 01:46 PM Israeli version The Lebanese Christian Phalangist militia was responsible for the massacres that occurred at the two Beirut-area refugee camps on September 16-17, 1982. Israeli troops allowed the Phalangists to enter Sabra and Shatila to root out terrorist cells believed located there. It had been estimated that there may have been up to 200 armed men in the camps working out of the countless bunkers built by the PLO over the years, and stocked with generous reserves of ammunition. When Israeli soldiers ordered the Phalangists out, they found hundreds dead (estimates range from 460 according to the Lebanese police, to 700-800 calculated by Israeli intelligence). The dead, according to the Lebanese account, included 35 women and children. The rest were men: Palestinians, Lebanese, Pakistanis, Iranians, Syrians and Algerians. The killings came on top of an estimated 95,000 deaths that had occurred during the civil war in Lebanon from 1975-1982. The killings were perpetrated to avenge the murders of Lebanese President Bashir Gemayel and 25 of his followers, killed in a bomb attack earlier that week. Israel had allowed the Phalange to enter the camps as part of a plan to transfer authority to the Lebanese, and accepted responsibility for that decision. The Kahan Commission of Inquiry, formed by the Israeli government in response to public outrage and grief, found that Israel was indirectly responsible for not anticipating the possibility of Phalangist violence. Israel instituted the panel's recommendations, including the dismissal of Gen. Raful Eitan, the Army Chief of Staff. Defense Minister Ariel Sharon resigned. The Kahan Commission, declared former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, was "a great tribute to Israeli democracy....There are very few governments in the world that one can imagine making such a public investigation of such a difficult and shameful episode." Ironically, while 300,000 Israelis demonstrated in Israel to protest the killings, little or no reaction occurred in the Arab world. Outside the Middle East, a major international outcry against Israel erupted over the massacres. The Phalangists, who perpetrated the crime, were spared the brunt of the condemnations for it. By contrast, few voices were raised in May 1985, when Muslim militiamen attacked the Shatila and Burj-el Barajneh Palestinian refugee camps. According to UN officials, 635 were killed and 2,500 wounded. During a two-year battle between the Syrian-backed Shiite Amal militia and the PLO, more than 2,000, including many civilians, were reportedly killed. No outcry was directed at the PLO or the Syrians and their allies over the slaughter. International reaction was also muted in October 1990 when Syrian forces overran Christian-controlled areas of Lebanon. In the eight-hour clash, 700 Christians were killed-the worst single battle of Lebanon's Civil War. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 06 Nov 11 - 02:32 PM This is a another of your silly backward leaps Jim. We are repeating exactly our previous exchange, and the events you have brought up yet again are from 30 years ago anyway. What do you think of Israel's objections to the UN membership. Do you even know what they are yet. Of course, a prejudiced person does not need to know any facts. Israel is just always wrong. Right Jim? |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Jim Carroll Date: 06 Nov 11 - 02:47 PM I didn't do it guv - 'onest!!! Fisks witnsses said exactly what I claim they said - Fisk even pointed out (from eyewitness statements) that the bodies were buried under the stadium which was dekliberately built. The independant enquiry said exactly what I claimed they said. The press and news reported at the time that it happened as I said it happened. Historical records describe it as happening the way I described it happening. But the Israelis say they didn't do it - so they couldn't have done it. Henry Kissenger!!!! Tricky Dicky Nixon;'s poodle - we are scraping the bottom of the barrel for our witnesses. Having previously claimed that you did not reduce Israels part in the massacres to 'failing to stop them' you are now claiming that Israel's part in the massacres was 'failing to stop them'. You haven't even referred to the other massacres you claim didn't happen. This becomes farcical. I'll leave you to your lies and distortions in defence of war criminals (not mentioned the Israeli minister who can't enter Britian becaues she has been found to be guilty of presiding over war crimes). You are a real piece of work Keith; do you think you might have a cultural; impalnt?. Jim Carroll BTW the final estimated body count was around 3,500 |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 06 Nov 11 - 03:30 PM Fisks witnsses said exactly what I claim they said - Fisk even pointed out (from eyewitness statements) that the bodies were buried under the stadium which was dekliberately built. Not the ones he reported at the time. The ones that turned up 10 years later maybe. The independant enquiry said exactly what I claimed they said. What "independent enquiry?!! I have asked you many times now. You have never once replied. The press and news reported at the time that it happened as I said it happened. Show us Jim. Fiske was the only journalist who was there in the immediate aftermath. Historical records describe it as happening the way I described it happening. Produce one then please Jim I am not saying you are wrong Jim. I am saying that it is disputed and you have no actual evidence at all. And yet you are certain! Prejudice? |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 06 Nov 11 - 03:34 PM What do you think of Israel's objections to the UN membership. Do you even know what they are yet. No reasons that I can understand. The USA appears to object because they see it as getting in the way of negotiations because it's opposed by the Israeli government. But why the Israel government sees it as blocking negotiations, that's a bit of a mystery. But I've repeatedly asked if someone could come up with some reasons. Maybe they actually exist. The only other objection I've heard is the Hamas one, that it involves accepting the partition of Palestine, and recognising the existence of Israel. And I somehow don't think that is an objection shared by the Israeli government. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Lox Date: 06 Nov 11 - 03:43 PM "Lox [has] given unequivocal support for the membership application." Keith, You're on drugs or something mate - Total fabrication. I expressed an issue with US contempt for the United Nations. You clearly share that contempt, as you have stated that the world (with the exception of the 7 or so US puppets who have fallen dutifully in line) is biased against Israel. Clearly none of those countries can be trusted any more then palestinians. Only Americans, Israelis and their band of terrified aid recipients are unbiased and can be trusted and this is the only rational explanation for everyone elses horror at the massacre of the inmates of the Gazan Ghetto, and their outrageous biased sympathy for the 350 children who were killed and the hundreds of children who were maimed. Yes Keith - those are the views you sell. Snake oil is useless on a thread cos people can go and see for themselves. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Lox Date: 06 Nov 11 - 03:48 PM For keith the saying would be better described as follows: When in a hole, deny the existence of the hole. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 06 Nov 11 - 04:04 PM Lox, I did include you as having "given unequivocal support for the membership application." I am sorry if I got that wrong. For the record then, Lox does not unequivocally support the application. Like me, he is keeping an open mind. Kevin, will you keep an open mind until you know, or will you continue to give unequivocal support for the membership application anyway? |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 06 Nov 11 - 05:40 PM I've looked for reasons why Israel should see Palestinian membership as a threat, and I haven't found any. If you have found some, Keith state them. In their absence their seems no are to disagree with the wishes of most Palestinians, and of most countries. And it would appear, most Israelis. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 06 Nov 11 - 05:43 PM 've looked for reasons why Israel should see Palestinian membership as a threat, and I haven't found any. If you have found some, Keith state them. In their absence there seems no reason to disagree with the wishes of most Palestinians, and of most countries. And it would appear, most Israelis. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Stringsinger Date: 06 Nov 11 - 05:54 PM Israel wants to bomb Iran. World War III could come out of this. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Mrrzy Date: 06 Nov 11 - 06:36 PM WW III is already happening, or haven't you heard of terrorism ? |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 06 Nov 11 - 06:43 PM ""Don, a Palestinian who supported Israel might find it more healthy to keep his views to himself. Don, why Israel is so unpopular, from my last link. Worth a read, this just an extract."" Firstly, there are many Palestinians who live outside the reach of Hamas, so that comment is nonsense. Secondly, why is it that you only read the output of pro Israel sources, and remain wilfully unaware that there are others of equal, or even superior credibility, with very different experiences to recount? Your bias is so patently obvious that it robs you of any vestige of objectivity. While the rest of us are saying that both Palestine and Israel need to change their stance, you are fanatically supporting every instance of Israeli aggression and decrying any Palestinian action, right or wrong. In fact, I'm having difficulty in finding any acknowledgement on your part of Palestine's right to exist. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 06 Nov 11 - 07:02 PM ""There really are two sides to this dispute and there are informed, intelligent people, including "experts" on both sides."" Well, the only one you have found to counter the Israeli Foreign Office report quoted by Finkelstein is Dershowitz, who is ""....not only a remarkable liar and slanderer, but also an extreme opponent of elementary civil rights......his standard style when he is exposed, reaching truly grotesque levels in his efforts to discredit Norman Finkelstein (and even his mother, probably a new low in depravity) after Finkelstein's meticulous documentation of Dershowitz's astonishing lies in his vulgar apologetics for Israeli crimes."" If that's the best example of a voice in opposition that you can manage, you really are up to your hocks in the poo. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 06 Nov 11 - 07:30 PM ""A couple of days ago, you admitted that you had no idea what reasons Israel was putting forward against it, and not one of your team was able to enlighten you either. You did not need to know. If Israel is against it, you are for it, and vice versa. How can we not see this as blind, irrational prejudice against Israel?"" A couple of days ago you were insisting that Israel had accepted the "Two State Solution". Now that Palestine wants that status, all of a sudden Israel doesn't. Israel doesn't want two states, and never has wanted it. The reason is simple. As long as Palestine has no voice in the UN, Israel can do pretty much what it likes and Palestine cannot stop it. No wonder the Palestinians have been driven to violence. At least if Palestine were a member, both would be bound to interact on a diplomatic level, and that is the last thing the Israeli government wants. Wilful, deliberate Israeli prejudice against Palestine? Yes. I think so. Don T. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 07 Nov 11 - 01:26 AM Kevin, I've looked for reasons why Israel should see Palestinian membership as a threat, and I haven't found any. If you have found some, Keith state them. In their absence their seems no are to disagree with the wishes of most Palestinians, and of most countries. And it would appear, most Israelis. You may not have found any, but USA, Britain, Canada, Germany and France have, and find them compelling. Not being prejudiced myself, I am keeping an open mind until the reasons are known.(Wednesday for UK) On what grounds do you state that most Israelis disagree with their elected government on this? Don, it is true I have only given the Israeli side of the argument. I think that there are more than enough of you giving the other side. What is wrong with considering both sides of any debate? |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 07 Nov 11 - 04:43 AM BTW, I have never, ever mentioned Dershowitz! |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: GUEST,mg Date: 07 Nov 11 - 01:42 PM Paying for justice? http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/ap-exclusive-palestinians-face-steep-court-fees-14897794 |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 07 Nov 11 - 02:04 PM I have only given the Israeli side of the argument. But you haven't, Keith, so far as UN/UNESCO membership is concerned. You say you are "keeping an open mind". To quote GK Chesterton "Merely having an open mind is nothing. The object of opening the mind, as of opening the mouth, is to shut it again on something solid." |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 07 Nov 11 - 03:21 PM What else can an unprejudiced person do but keep an open mind until the facts are known. Whereas, you and Jim have made your minds up already. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 07 Nov 11 - 03:39 PM What kind of "facts" are you talking about Keith? The government of Israel (along with Hamas)is opposed to recognition of Palestine as a state. That is a fact. Meanwhile its actions in continuing to extend illegal settlements on occupied territory would appear to indicate that it wishes to avoid any genuine negotiations. Those illegal settlements are what is called "facts on the ground". |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 07 Nov 11 - 04:51 PM Kevin, I was discussing the application for UN membership. I thought we all were. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 07 Nov 11 - 05:00 PM Yosi Klein Alevi, BBC site. Twice in the last decade Israeli leaders - Ehud Barak in 2000 and Ehud Olmert in 2008 - have accepted Palestinian statehood. Dozens of settlements would have been uprooted and others concentrated in blocs along the border, in exchange for which Palestine would have receive compensatory territory from within Israel proper. The result would have been a contiguous Palestinian state in the equivalent of the territory taken by Israel in the 1967 Six Day War, with Jerusalem as a shared capital. Palestinian leaders effectively said no. That's because the deal would have required one significant reciprocal concession: confining the return of the descendants of Palestinian refugees from the 1948 war to a Palestinian state. Internal collapse The main obstacle to an agreement, then, is not territory or settlements but the Palestinian insistence on the "right" to demographically destroy the Jewish state. Absurdly, the Palestinian leadership is demanding that Palestinians immigrate not only to a Palestinian state but also to a neighbouring state, Israel. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 07 Nov 11 - 05:31 PM ""Furthermore, as Gideon Levy accurately wrote in Ha'aretz – as Dershowitz surely discovered in his Google search -- the IDF kidnapping of civilians the day before the capture of Cpl. Shalit strips away any "legitimate basis for the IDF's operation" -- and, we may add, any legitimate basis for support for these operations."" Example above of Israeli "self defence". The kidnapping of two civilians (identified by non Hamas neighbours as a doctor and his brother named Muamar) and subsequent claims that they were terrorists, apparently in retaliation for the "kidnapping" of Corporal Shalit, an Israeli soldier captured by the Palestinians twenty four hours LATER!! Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 07 Nov 11 - 06:02 PM ""Don, it is true I have only given the Israeli side of the argument. I think that there are more than enough of you giving the other side. What is wrong with considering both sides of any debate?"" Another example of your inability to read what others say, choosing instead to reply to what you would have preferred them to say. Check back on my posts in this thread (which you obviously could not be arsed to read fully), and you will find that in almost all of them I have been saying that both sides in this conflict will need to change their attitudes if peace is to be achieved. Jim and Lox have both posted in similar terms, and even Mike has expressed misgivings about Israeli actions, while deploring also Palestinian excess. This is what you call anti Israel bias? Yet your input is predominately anti Palestine, and you don't recognise even the possibility that Israel might be partly responsible for the Palestinians' attitude. I truly do not believe that you have the capacity to understand balanced argument, let alone present one. As to your other comment, I know that YOU didn't bring Dershowitz into the conversation, but thus far he is the only one who seems willing to take on Finkelstein, and between Finkelstein and Noam Chomsky he is taking a thorough shellacking. Your ten a penny opposing "experts" seem to consist of just one noted liar, against two PRO Israel genuine experts, who believe that Israel is taking the wrong path. You do seem to be rather outnumbered. Could it be that you need to re-think. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 08 Nov 11 - 12:56 AM I have provided the Israeli perspective which no-one else has provided for some time. Why do you object to me doing that? |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 08 Nov 11 - 12:58 AM ....and what makes pipes a liar? |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 08 Nov 11 - 01:18 AM I had forgotten about the Muammar brothers. FWIW here is what Wiki says. An Israeli spokesman confirmed the detentions, said that both men were members of the militant group Hamas intending to carry out imminent attacks on Israel and stated "These Palestinians were transferred to Israel where they will be questioned".[3][2] A spokesman for Hamas confirmed that the brothers were sons of a member but denied that the men detained were involved in Hamas.[2][3] This event was followed by capture of Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit on June 25, 2006 and further incidents in the 2006 Israel-Gaza conflict. This is claimed by Noam Chomsky[4] and Jonathan Cook for the Media Lens website[5] to be the first incident in the 2006 Israel-Gaza conflict and the following 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: MGM·Lion Date: 08 Nov 11 - 04:54 AM DonT ~~ Why "even" Mike? I have been emphatic throughtout that, despite my genetic ancestry and my youthful activities, I hold no brief for present-day Israel: the greatest disappointment of my life, probably; a betrayal of all those youthful hopes. But I feel bound nevertheless to point out yet again that it was the Arab world that rejected, with violent aggression most hardly repelled by valiant and dedicated resistance, the 1948 settlement that the provisional and then actual government of Israel had accepted; & that I fear there are influential elements among the Palestinians that would not honour any settlement reached by their 'leaders', but would persist with their openly declared aim of 'driving Israel into the sea'. And that Jim, whom you cite as an ally, really does appear to me to object to the very existence of Israel absolutely ab initio and has never AFAICS denied this, & is ∴ full as biased in the anti-Israel direction as you are all joining together in chorus to accuse Keith of being in the pro. ~Michael~ |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Lox Date: 08 Nov 11 - 06:12 AM Talking of Liars ... ... here's a turn up for the books ... Sarkozy and Obama bitch about Netanyahu ... "I can't stand him anymore, he's a liar," Mr Sarkozy said in French. "You may be sick of him, but me, I have to deal with him every day," Mr Obama replied. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: GUEST,Teribus Date: 08 Nov 11 - 08:06 PM Why should the members of the United Nations reject the application of Palestine for full membership? Simple. What other members of the United Nations have joined the organisation with the clearly stated political mandate and aim that dictates the total destruction of another member state? I can think of none. The United Nations exists as an organisation to promote peace, understanding and reconciliation amongst its members. Israel and the Arabs of Palestine must bi-laterally reach an accommodation that guarantees peace, understanding and reconciliation BEFORE Palestine can become a full member. If not, then all you guarantee is a war. The two sides for some 63 years have squandered every single opportunity given them. By all means grant Palestine full membership, then as a state responsible for the actions of its citizens, when attacks against Israel occur launched from Gaza, or the West Bank (as undoubtedly they will) then Israel will retaliate as it has done in the past, except that now it will launch its attack, justifiably, against an enemy STATE - and this time no-one should intervene until it is settled once and for all. Your Palestinians will lose as they have done in the past, except that this time there will be no turning back the clock to resume the game at the beginning as has happened for the last 63 years. I am heartily sick of it, chose war and violence as the Arabs of Palestine have done since 1921 - Then accept the consequences. As an independent sovereign state chose aggression and you are totally unprotected and open, quite rightly, to censure from the rest of the world. Choose any nation, or race, in the world and threaten it with annihilation, or extinction and they will laugh and think that you are joking, not so Israel because that nation was born out of just such an attempt. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Jim Carroll Date: 09 Nov 11 - 03:18 AM "And that Jim, whom you cite as an ally, really does appear to me to object to the very existence of Israel absolutely" Please do not resort to Keith's tricks of misrepresenting what people say and believe Mike - that really would be beneath you - you've done enough damage to your 'reasonable' image by underwriting his racist vomitings. I have never at any time opposed the existence of the State of Israel - my objection has always been the viciously aggressive and expansionist nature of that state, its proven war crimes and its treatment of the Arab population as a whole - all of which you have chosen to praise with faint damns, despite your lip-service criticism. I have always been a supporter of an Israeli State and am appalled to see it degenerate into a terrorist one in order to push out its borders. If that is not been my argument from the outset, please point out where it has been otherwise. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: MGM·Lion Date: 09 Nov 11 - 04:26 AM Indeed, Jim; I think I have misrepresented you and I apologise. To explain: I have been right back over both threads (!); and find I was disputing with you and Richard simultaneously last September on the previous one; and I have a feeling that my memory might have confused some of his posts at that time with yours; and that he, and not you, was the one who was disputing Israel's very right to exist; which I have managed to find no example of your having done, much as we might have disagreed as to proportions of blameworthiness &c. I repeat ~~ sorry. Most inefficient of my memory, which has been severely reprimanded and told to do better in future! ~Michael~ |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: MGM·Lion Date: 09 Nov 11 - 04:36 AM Not that I accept, mind you,Jim, that my criticisms have been 'lip-service' or merely 'faint damns'. I repeat that Israel is one of the greatest, if not THE greatest, disappointment[s] of my life, and I hold no brief for it since ~ the straw that broke my back some years ago ~ the uprooting of those olive-groves: a symbol to me of the way that the state I had devoted so much of my youth working to bring into being and to support in its infant struggles was no longer worthy of ANY support or approval on my part whatever. Not 'faint damns', not 'lip-service': just that. Which is in no way contradicted, that I can see, by my deploring of the reaction of the surrounding Arab world in 1948; or my doubts as to the putative outcomes of the present Arab population's achieving the 'statehood' it seeks. These attitudes are not incompatible, so far as I perceive the matter. ~M~ |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Lox Date: 09 Nov 11 - 04:39 AM Well Teribus, Coming from you, who stated that settlements were a legitimate way of dealing with the expanding population problem of Israel, which you described as living room, (the german for which is Lebensraum)such comments are meaningless. So Israel defends itself by annexing land and by massacring civilians. What a perfect candidate for your peaceful UN. Only that UNESCO don't agree with you - they see the palestinian state as being a legitimate participant in the UN ... but that of course is because the whole world hates Jews right? They don't have brains and hearts, they just spend all their time thinking about how to annihilate Jews. What other reason could there possibly be right? |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Jim Carroll Date: 09 Nov 11 - 05:08 AM Apology accepted Mike - but I really dont think "great disappointments fits the bill here. Apropos of nothing really: From the Irish Times this morning. Jim Carroll SWASTIKAS SPRAYED ON HOME OF ISRAELI PEACE CAMPAIGNER HARRIET SHERWOOD in Jerusalem The home of a prominent Israeli peace campaigner has been vandal¬ised. Death threats and swastikas were spray-painted on walls and a nearby vehicle, amid alarm among human rights groups about increasingly hostile and violent actions against them. Police confirmed they were investigating the attack on the Jerusalem home of Hagit Ofran, who works for Peace Now, an Israeli organisation which moni¬tors settlement activity in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. The graffiti included the words "Hagit Ofran RIP"; "Rabin is waiting for you", a reference to the fate of assassinated Israeli prime minister Yitzhak Rabin; and "price tag", the signature of extremist set-tlers who carry out operations in revenge for moves to demolish unauthorised West Bank outposts. The names of two recently disman¬tled outposts were also sprayed on walls. It is the second such attack on Ms Ofran's home in two months. On Sunday, Peace Now's offices were evacuated after a telephone call warned of an imminent bomb attack. "The building will explode in five minutes," the caller said. Staff found the words "price tag" had been sprayed on the building. "We are looking at who could be behind this action," police spokesman Micky Rosenfeld said yesterday. Extremist settlers were among the suspects, he added. Ms Ofran said the perpetrators were trying to intimidate activists. "The discourse in Israel has become truly dangerous," she told Haaretz newspaper. In a statement, Peace Now said: "The responsibility for price tag attacks is [prime minister Binyamin] Netanyahu's. The incite¬ment and the harsh words of the coalition members in favour of illegal outposts and against the jus¬tice system and left-wing organisa¬tions is seeping into the ground and giving support to the price tag vandals." The attack came as Mr Netan¬yahu announced he was sup¬porting two parliamentary Bills to curtail the foreign funding of Israeli human rights organisa¬tions. Groups targeted by the Bills have said the legislative move is an attempt to silence them and restrict their work. A human rights worker who asked not to be named said: "There is a public atmosphere of trying to stop human rights activity. You see it in the Knesset [Israeli parliament] in these Bills and statements from politicians who claim these organisations are actually helping terror." - (Guardian service) |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: MGM·Lion Date: 09 Nov 11 - 05:16 AM What would you prefer to "disappointments", Jim? |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Jim Carroll Date: 09 Nov 11 - 07:48 AM Not for me to tell you how to debate Mike - I was "disappointed" not to win the pub quiz last night. And don't think for one moment that you are the only one to see some of your lifelong dreams and beliefs disappear round the U-bend Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: MGM·Lion Date: 09 Nov 11 - 08:47 AM Life is full of disappointments great & small, Jim ~ of course. But to rubricate something, as I have done here, as the greatest one of my life ~~ well, what more could I add to that? ~M~ |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Stringsinger Date: 09 Nov 11 - 01:56 PM So the UN in its wisdom has recognized Palestine and the US is having a tantrum over UNESCO. This isn't new. Israel has hardened it's arteries and it's interception of a peace flotilla is just another example of Netanyahu dictatorship. As Chomsky says, it's the US playbook. Support a dictator until they go over the top and then decide to go against them. How long will it take for Netanyahu to go over the top? Will he start WWIII by nuking Iran? |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 09 Nov 11 - 03:35 PM UN has not recognised Palestine. UNESCO, where tin-pot dictatorships outnumber liberal democracies, has. Peace flotilla? Was that the one full of activists hoping to die killing Jews? |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: GUEST,Teribus Date: 09 Nov 11 - 04:51 PM "Well Teribus, Coming from you, who stated that settlements were a legitimate way of dealing with the expanding population problem of Israel, which you described as living room, (the german for which is Lebensraum)such comments are meaningless." - Lox Care to provide the quote from any of my posts where I have stated that Lox. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Lox Date: 09 Nov 11 - 05:34 PM no worries teribus - it was a previous thread and I called you out on it at the time, but you slunk off and ignored it. It shouldn't take too long - thankfully we have "control+F" to help us find these things. All I have to do is load a thread and search for 'lebensraum' and I'll find it ... ... lets see how long it takes me. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Lox Date: 09 Nov 11 - 05:35 PM PS ... 300 |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Lox Date: 09 Nov 11 - 05:42 PM 5 minutes Subject: RE: BS: Hamas rockets fired into Israel. From: Teribus - PM Date: 11 Aug 10 - 12:19 AM Mousethief you have not answered my questions at all: Question 1: for all those chattering on about stealing land every three months: "Why not what are the Palestinians doing with it? Sweet FA as far as I can see." Answer 1: If you're not using your back 40 acres, I can steal it from you? Sweet. That's just fucked up, dude. Well no it is not actually Dude, if you live in a very small country with an increasing population, there is no land that can be allowed to go to waste. In other words, Teribus, in your view Israel are justified in annexing more land on the basis that they need more room, more living space ... the german word for which is lebensraum. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Teribus Date: 10 Nov 11 - 01:00 AM Troubled with English Comprehension Lox?? "if you live IN a very small country with an increasing population, there is no land that can be allowed to go to waste." You talk about annexation and throw in the German term "lebensraum" both require that a country increases in size. You cannot annex something that is already located within your borders (famous example from modern History Germany's annexation of Austria or the Sudatenland - did Germany become greater in size or remain the same size Lox?) Taken in context of the period of time being referred to in the post you are currently gloating over and patting yourself on the back about (1948 to 1952) Israel did not in fact increase in size, Palestine on the other hand did shrink but that land was stolen from Palestinian Arabs by Egypt (Gaza) and by Jordan (East Jerusalem & the West bank) and on that stolen land the Egyptians and the Jordanians shut the Palestinian Arabs up in refugee camps. Hit you Control+F again Lox and do a search and come up with the German terms for robbing people of their property, their businesses, their goods and forcibly removing them by deportation. In the wake of their losing the 1948 war with the fledgling state of Israel 820,000 Jews suffered exactly that fate at the hands of Arabs. The Israelis did not shut them up in refugee camps and whine about the loses suffered, they welcomed them in (largest influx of Jews into Israel/Palestine ever - all caused by the actions of the Arabs of Palestine and their neighbouring Arab allies) and the country prospered. Also look at the maps of Palestine around 1947 and look at the areas that belonged to no-one it is described as being "Government Land". Prior to 1918 any land in what became known as Palestine was held on sufferance from the Ottoman rulers who could take it over as and when they wished. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 10 Nov 11 - 01:07 AM It shouldn't take too long - thankfully we have "control+F" to help us find these things. All I have to do is load a thread and search for 'lebensraum' and I'll find it ... Are you still searching for "lebensraum"?? How long now Lox? |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Jim Carroll Date: 10 Nov 11 - 02:50 AM "UN has not recognised Palestine." The UN would recognise Palestine if it was allowed but is prevented from doing so by the US who has declared it will veto any such decision - there's democracy for you. I suppose it's a step up from napalming them into submission (or "bombing them back into the Stone Age, as General Westmorland once put it in reference for another 'fight for freedom and democracy'" "UNESCO, where tin-pot dictatorships outnumber liberal democracies" And yet another three cheers for peace and co-operation. "Was that the one full of activists hoping to die killing Jews? " And another excuse for continuing to starve the Palestinians into submission. Suppose it's a waste of time asking for examples of any aid ships setting out to "die killing Jews" - so far it's been the Israelis killing the aid-bringers? Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 10 Nov 11 - 03:11 AM If, as reported earlier, Canada, France, Germany and UK all oppose, US will not need to use its veto. Jim, do you deny that many activists on the Marmara declared their intention to die killing Jews? Do you deny that Israel delivered all the aid to Gaza anyway, but it turned out to be junk that the Gazans did not want or need. So "another excuse for continuing to starve the Palestinians into submission" hardly applies. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Jim Carroll Date: 10 Nov 11 - 04:23 AM "Do you deny that Israel delivered " Yiou are delivering Israel's message again -as you have been from the beginning The aid workers who were killed by Israeli troops were armed with what you and your apologist friends have described as weapons of "self defence" We have mett some of the Irish aid workers - ordinary Irish people whose only concern is a humanitarian one. That there maybe terrorist nutters who will attempt to hijack these events ifs always the case - that there is a government of terrorist fanatics who will attempt to acquire land by military suppression is a far greater crime against humanity - and yes, starving the Palestinians into submission very much applies - and that's the way the civilised world views it. "US will not need to use its veto" The fact that they have stated that they are prepared to use it is an indication that they will need to - let's see shall we. Giving the right to veto to a country like the US with its human rights record is a farce anyway, which puts into context your accusation that bodies like the UN and UNESCO are biased against Israel. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Lox Date: 10 Nov 11 - 04:56 AM What a load of cobblers. Teribus, you stated that if someone else isn't using their land and you need more, then you have a right to go and take a piece. Your comments came in this context. Mousethief said "Let's talk about the Israelis, too. Do they want peace? The Palestinians aren't encroaching on a new piece of Israeli land every 3 months." referring to CURRENT settlement issues. So in the context of CURRENT settlement issues, the following exchange took place: "Mousethief you have not answered my questions at all: Question 1: for all those chattering on about stealing land every three months: "Why not what are the Palestinians doing with it? Sweet FA as far as I can see." Answer 1: If you're not using your back 40 acres, I can steal it from you? Sweet. That's just fucked up, dude. Well no it is not actually Dude, if you live in a very small country with an increasing population, there is no land that can be allowed to go to waste." In other words Teribus, you stated that the settlements are fine because Israel needs to expand. And that, in German, is called Lebensraum. Nice to see the tough guy plead "context" when he's banged to rights - but tough luck, guy, the context was very clear. Unless perhaps your English comprehension needs work ... hmmmm? And now here comes Keith to save the day - Richard Hammond to Teribus' Jeremy Clarkson ... |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 10 Nov 11 - 05:44 AM Yiou are delivering Israel's message again -as you have been from the beginning I know. Sorry Jim. You would prefer only one side of the story was presented. Much less challenging and confusing to your simplistic, leftist paradigm. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Jim Carroll Date: 10 Nov 11 - 05:49 AM "And now here comes Keith to save the day" Complete with his hackneyed support for the inhuman targetting of non-combatants yet again by Israel - 'aid bringers are terrorists' -'goods not wanted by besieged Palestinians' - I'll bet the same arguments were being put forward at Troy And the veto isn't needed because Israel will win the vote anyway... Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 10 Nov 11 - 05:53 AM support for the inhuman targetting of non-combatants yet again by Israel Not true. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Jim Carroll Date: 10 Nov 11 - 06:16 AM "Not true. " What's not true - Israeli atrocities or your supporting them (as is your wont) Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 10 Nov 11 - 06:50 AM I do not accept that civilians are targeted, and I certainly would not support such a crime. (You do not object to rocket attacks on civilians though.) |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 10 Nov 11 - 07:38 AM I do not accept that civilians are targeted I presume by that you mean that though the weapons have indeed aimed at targets who were civilians(including many many children) , you believe the claims of the people who fired them that they were intending to kill people who were not civilians. I somehow doubt that you would accept similar claims by people directing weapons at Israelis... ..................... A suggestion for a more constructive discussion. Jim writes a post fairly summarising the case for Israel as he understand it, and Keith writes a post fairly summarising the case for Palestine. "Fairly" being the operative word. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Jim Carroll Date: 10 Nov 11 - 09:03 AM "I do not accept that civilians are targeted, and I certainly would not support such a crime." The filmed and press releases of the Gaza incursions have made it quite clear that civilians have been targeted; this includes attacks on hospitals and schools. You in fact defended this on previous threads by claiming that Hamas had taken refuge in civilian areas and were using civilians as "hostages", as if the killing of hostage was in any way acceptable at any time - which it was by you (and the Israelis of course). You have not only defended lethal attacks on civilians and relief workers, but you have now trivialised the blockade by claiming that the aid being brought at the risk to the lives of the volunteers, was unwanted and useless - which makes the Israelis' efforts to oppose the aid a rather stupid waste of time, effort, a risk to the lives of Israeli troops - and incredibly bad press to the whole of Israel - all a bit of a mess really, don't you think? Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 10 Nov 11 - 09:37 AM It was not a hostage situation, but was a military action under the Law of Armed Conflict. Under that law, it is a crime to make defensive positions in civilian areas. The attacker must give prior warning of the attack, which Israel did, and must seek to minimise civilian casualties. The particular aid brought by the flotilla was delivered to a border crossing where the Gazans left it for months. The Gazans were desperate for cancer and heart drugs, but were brought only out of date tamiflu which, long after the winter epidemic, could not be given away. Deny any of that Jim? |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Jim Carroll Date: 10 Nov 11 - 09:58 AM "It was not a hostage situation, but was a military action under the Law of Armed Conflict." It was a miliary incursion aimed at driving Palestinians out of their homes and then buldozing entire streets to the ground - as was shown by the BBC documentary earlier this year - Hamas offered resistance to this as was their duty as an elected leadership). If the Israelis can take measures in self-defence, so can the Palestinians. Even if it had been "armed conflict", the deliberate killing and putting at risk of civilians in the prevailing circumstances was inexcuseable - as was the use of white phosphorus (non- chemical of course!!) in the confines of a hospital (and backed up by photographed evidence of horrific burns - including to the faces of children) So at last, we have it right, from the ass's mouth - hostages are expendable? "The particular aid brought by the flotilla was delivered to a border crossing where the Gazans left it for months." Then the Istarelis are eejits for continuing with a blockade of rubbish goods? The fact that "The Gazans were desperate for cancer and heart drugs" is proof of the inhumaity of the Israeli blocked - surely this is something they could have assisted with rather nany (at best) delaying them with a blockade - assuming that they would be let through anyway - the Israeli record indicates otherwise. Not going to fast for you - or using too many words, am I? Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 10 Nov 11 - 10:01 AM Of course under your interpretation of the Law of Armed Conflict, Keith, the Warsaw Ghetto Rising, and the Warsaw Rising itself were both criminal actions. Not to mention a lot of the stuff that was done on the ground during the Battle of Britain. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 10 Nov 11 - 10:37 AM Then the Istarelis are eejits for continuing with a blockade of rubbish goods? They did not. They only insisted on checking it for war materiel before delivering it to Gaza. Kevin, the Warsaw rising was a rising of the people against an occupying army. The Battle of Britain was centred on the RAF aerodromes. Civilians would have been evacuated from defended towns and cities if the invasion had happened. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 10 Nov 11 - 10:50 AM I'm not the one saying the Warsaw Rising or the Warsaw Ghetto Rising were criminal because they involved "defensive positions in civilian areas". |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: GUEST,beardedbruce Date: 10 Nov 11 - 11:07 AM Note the DATE: The Warsaw Rising or the Warsaw Ghetto Rising were BEFORE 1949, right??? But I note that not ANY of Jim's comments address the fact that the Palestinians have violated the same rules , by statements of the UN, that Jim is claiming without reasonable cause that Israel violates. I have to presume that Jim does not consider Israelis or Jews to be human beings that these laws apply to, but ONLY the Palestinian are to be considered such. The Geneva Conventions comprise four treaties, and three additional protocols, that establish the standards of international law for the humanitarian treatment of the victims of war. The singular term Geneva Convention denotes the agreements of 1949, negotiated in the aftermath of the Second World War (1939–45), which updated the terms of the first three treaties (1864, 1906, 1929), and added a fourth treaty. The articles of the Fourth Geneva Convention (1949) extensively defined the basic rights of prisoners (civil and military) during war; established protections for the wounded; and established protections for the civilians in and around a war zone. The treaties of 1949 were ratified, in whole or with reservations, by 194 countries.[1] The Geneva Convention defines the rights and protections of non-combatants, thus: " Protected persons are entitled, in all circumstances, to respect for their persons, their honour, their family rights, their religious convictions and practices, and their manners and customs. They shall, at all times, be humanely treated, and shall be protected, especially against all acts of violence or threats thereof and against insults and public curiosity. Women shall be especially protected against any attack on their honour, in particular against rape, enforced prostitution, or any form of indecent assault. Without prejudice to the provisions relating to their state of health, age and sex, all protected persons shall be treated with the same consideration by the Party to the conflict in whose power they are, without any adverse distinction based, in particular, on race, religion or political opinion. However, the Parties to the conflict may take such measures of control and security in regard to protected persons as may be necessary as a result of the war. " —— Article 27, Fourth Geneva Convention (1949) Moreover, because the Geneva Conventions are about people in war, the articles do not address warfare proper — the use of weapons of war — which is the subject of the Hague Conventions (First Hague Conference, 1899; Second Hague Conference 1907), and the bio–chemical warfare Geneva Protocol (Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare, 1929). |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 10 Nov 11 - 11:26 AM I'm not the one saying the Warsaw Rising or the Warsaw Ghetto Rising were criminal because they involved "defensive positions in civilian areas". The defenders WERE the civilians in that instance Kevin. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Stilly River Sage Date: 10 Nov 11 - 11:35 AM Keith, you're arguing in a vacuum. Israel has been a bad neighbor for a long time in the Middle East and the general American population is finally waking to that fact. It's no longer "Israel Good, Arabs Bad" like the old cowboys and Indians: Americans have been the main enablers in this, an awful thing to have to admit, but many of us have been saying so for a long time now. A subset of Americans - American Jews - offer mixed support of Israel now - they're no longer One Voice supporting the Jewish state. It won't be long before Israel loses a lot of funding that seems to only go to prolonging the state of near-war. If the Israeli political leaders don't control their radical conservatives who stir up the hornets nest (new settlements, the egregious placement of a "security wall" through fertile Palestinian orchards, etc.) there never will be peace. The Palestinians also have to get their hotheads in line. Elect a workable government. But world opinion is shifting and they're now viewed more as victims than aggressors. People offer you evidence and you just stand on your old hackneyed soap box parroting the same stuff. I don't know why they bother to argue with you at all. You're not discussing this, you're a broken record. SRS |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Jim Carroll Date: 10 Nov 11 - 01:06 PM "They only insisted on checking it for war materiel before delivering it to Gaza." You've seen the list of banned good as well as I have - it is spitefully targeted at the civilian population to make life as unbearable as possible of them - parhaps you'd like to put it up and prove e wrong? And the deliberate targeting of civilian women and children - have we finished with that one Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: GUEST,beardedbruce Date: 10 Nov 11 - 01:11 PM "And the deliberate targeting of civilian women and children - have we finished with that one ?" Yes, how about the deliberate targeting of civilian Israeli Jews and Arabs by Hamas rockets??? You have NEVER condemned that, I notice. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 10 Nov 11 - 01:46 PM So can we take it that those condemning the Hamas (or the non-Hamas) rockets for being directed at targets where civilians live extend the same condemnation to missiles shells and bullets aimed at places where civilians live? My impression is that we cannot. Whichever side does it the violence is unjustifiable and harmful to the side which indulges in it. It is possible and important to try to understand why it happens, but that does not mean we should try to justify it. People who claim to be sympathetic to Israel should also recognise this in the same way as people who are sympathetic to Palestine. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: GUEST,beardedbruce Date: 10 Nov 11 - 02:04 PM McGrath, In general I agree with you. However, there are points that are NOT addressed the differentiate the two sides. IF you are going to apply the "Both sides the same" rule, then let us look: The Mandate Palestine was formed in 1921, as a Homeland for the Jews. Arabs were to be given equal rights. By 1923, the Mandate Power decided that it was not practical, nd DIVIDED the Mandate into TransJordan ( 77% of the land, for the percentage of population of the Mandate that was Moslem,) and the remainder, the Palestine that was to be the Jewish Homeland. Jews were forbidden from settling in TransJordan, but were in settlements throughout the West Bank. Those were the LAST borders that the Arab nations have ever acknowledged as valid. The Peace treaty between Jordan and Israel AFTER 1967 acknowledges them. When the Arabs attacked Israel in 1947-48, the land was occupied BY THE ARABS and the Jews removed. In total 820,000 Jews, basically all of those in Arab lands, were driven from their homes, and (mostly) settled in Israel. 640,000 Arabs had fled from Israel- which was not even the majority of the Arab population in Israel. In 1967, Israel reclaimed the land TAKEN BY MILITARY FORCE from the Mandate territory. Any settlements on the West bank can be considered as resettlements of those driven out in 1948. The Palestinians have attacked the civilian population of Israel directly (IN VIOLATION OF INTERNATIONAL LAW), while the Israelis have attacked the military target (According to International Law) that the Palestinians PLACED IN CIVILIAN AREAS ( In violation of International Law) So tell me now WHY DO YOU THINK THE PALESTINIANS are not being treated fairly? Do you want Israel to treat Palestinians as they have treated the Jews under Palestinian control, or worse, as the OTHER Arab nation have treated the Palestinians??? Or are you saying that there is one set of rules for Arabs, and a different set for Jews??? |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 10 Nov 11 - 02:10 PM I do not accept that civilians are targeted, and I certainly would not support such a crime. You've seen the list of banned good as well as I have - it is spitefully targeted at the civilian population to make life as unbearable as possible of them - parhaps you'd like to put it up and prove e wrong? Israel abides by international humanitarian rules on this. For instance, it is obliged to supply the irrigation pipes that are used for the bodies of the qassam rockets used to attempt the murder of children going to school and mothers hanging their washing. Stilly River Sage. you just stand on your old hackneyed soap box parroting the same stuff. It is true I am repeating myself, because I am responding to the same old challenges. Why single me out for your opprobrium? You say I am arguing in a vacuum. If you check my posts, they are not expressing opinions at all. They are factual information refuting the opinions expressed by others. I would never claim "Israel Good, Arabs Bad" I am just putting Israel's side of the story. You make no complaints against those who only put the opposing view and just demonize Israel. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: GUEST,Teribus Date: 10 Nov 11 - 03:05 PM Very well put BB |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: GUEST,Teribus Date: 10 Nov 11 - 03:08 PM "Teribus, you stated that if someone else isn't using their land and you need more, then you have a right to go and take a piece." - Lox No I didn't. I said that in a small crowded country you do not allow land to go to waste - different thing entirely. If you cannot make the differentiation then you Sir are a blithering idiot. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Lox Date: 10 Nov 11 - 03:17 PM BB, You've used this line of argument before - that nobody is condemning the palestinians. And it was as disingenuous then as it is now. There is nobody here defending the rockets. So it follows that there is no discussion. There is only one side to that argument. We all deplore the use of rockets. The only subject being argued is that concerning Israels wildly disproportionate murder of palestinians. Most of us are against all the murder. You think Israeli murder of palestinian civilians is justified. Hence - a discussion. DUH!!! |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Jim Carroll Date: 10 Nov 11 - 03:18 PM So you've now added the reported killing and maiming of civilians - to your list of "never happened", along with "massacres". How on earth was the foreighn minister ever found guyilty of war crimes, I wonder!!! "Israel abides by international humanitarian rules on this." Prohibited Items Sage, cardamom, cumin, coriander, ginger, jam, halva, vinegar, nutmeg, chocolate, fruit preserves, seeds and nuts, biscuits and sweets, potato chips, gas for soft drinks, dried fruit, fresh meat, plaster, tar, wood for construction, cement, iron, glucose, industrial salt, plastic/glass/metal containers, industrial margarine,tarpaulin sheets for huts, fabric (for clothing), flavor and smell enhancers, fishing rods, various fishing nets, buoys, ropes for fishing, nylon nets for greenhouses, hatcheries and spare parts for hatcheries, spare parts for tractors,, dairies for cowsheds, irrigation pipe systems ropes to tie greenhouses, planters for saplings, heaters for chicken farms,musical instruments, size A4 paper, writing implements, notebooks, newspapers, toys, razors, sewing machines and spare parts, heaters, horses, donkeys goats, cattle, chicks. And if thet were not enough! "The Land of Israel Lobby has called on Transportation Minister Yisrael Katz to close air and sea ports to Palestinian goods following a boycott on products from settlements issued by the Palestinian Authority. "We are convinced that such a step, which is legal and legitimate, would cause Palestinian Authority leaders to think again about the terrorist economic policy they have adopted," a statement issued by the lobby and Knesset members Zeev Elkin and Arieh Eldad noted. (Shmulik Grossman)" "For instance, it is obliged to supply the irrigation pipes" So they aren't prepared to kill them off through lack of water or starve them to death by killing off their crops - BIG DEAL Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 10 Nov 11 - 04:21 PM There is nobody here defending the rockets. Jim Carroll, is Lox right? Is that true? Answer please. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 10 Nov 11 - 05:12 PM So name someone here who has justified the rockets by Palestinians. I won't say that's impossible (I haven't read all the posts on all then threads)- but I rather doubt if that can be done. However when it comes to naming people who have justified the violence carried out by Israel that is a whole different thing... And that is where a very significant difference lies. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 11 Nov 11 - 02:00 AM So name someone here who has justified the rockets by Palestinians. Jim Carroll has, but some time ago. (Lox started a thread specifically asking the question) What is your answer now Jim? |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 11 Nov 11 - 02:09 AM However when it comes to naming people who have justified the violence carried out by Israel If you mean me, it is true I have argued that it has been within International Law, or not established. Otherwise, I condemn it absolutely. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Jim Carroll Date: 11 Nov 11 - 03:24 AM "Jim Carroll, is Lox right?" No he isn't - I think that they are an inevitable consequence of State military aggression, expansionism, massacres, blockades, inhuman and degrading treatment of civilians, chemical attacks on hospitals and schools, deliberate destruction of homes in order to colonise, the forced eviction of entire cultural groups.... all of which you either support, claim are not happening or ignore completely. The well armed and trained Israelis are aggressively vicious towards its impoverished, virtually undefended Palestinian neighbours - the Palestinian leadership would be negligent in its duty if it didn't show some resistance - it is the Israelis who are the open and vicious aggressor here - and it has been condemned world-wide because of it. I give no support to any group of religious fanatics Jewish, Muslim, Christian... whatever, I leave that to you, but, as you rightly say, people have a right to defend themselves. You - on the other hand have given your vigorous and dishonest support to a country whose former foreign minister has been condemned for war crimes (a fact you have yet to address) I assume we are finished with the blockade aimed directly at the everyday life of civilians, as proved by the list of banned goods, as we are with the proven military targetting of civilians - which you continue to defend by denying the documented evidence? Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Jim Carroll Date: 11 Nov 11 - 04:42 AM "Otherwise, I condemn it absolutely. " Where? By denying it happened you have supported it By demoting White phosphorus used against hospital patients to "smokescreen" you have supported it (in spite of the horrific photographs) By claiming the part played by the Israeli's in the Shatila/Sabra massacres was just "failing to stop it" (they at least providing the transport, opening the gates to let the killers in, providing illumination so they could carry out the killing and rape, and probably actually watching it happen and helping to bury the bodies) - you have supported it. By claiming "there have been no massacres" you have supported it. By denying that civilians were not deliberately targeted, despite independent eye witness medical staff accounts and media reporting (or don't you believe the BBC to be independant?) you supported it By ignoring the forced eviction of Palestinians, the destruction of their homes, the proposed expulsion of the Bedoins - you have supported it By continuing to ignore the fact that a former Israeli foreign minister has been found guilty of war crimes - you have supported it. These and all the other human rights abuses and crimes against humanity you have supported with your mealy-mouthed excuses, your lies and distortions and your deliberate self-imposed ignorance YOU ARE A SUPPORTER OF A VICIOUS, ABUSIVE AND EXPANSIONIST REGIME THAT IS NOT ONLY A THREAT TO ITS THIRD-WORLD, IMPOVERISHED NEIGHBOURS, BUT ALSO, BECAUSE OF IT'S NUCLEAR CAPABILITY, TO WORLD PEACE - TO ALL OF US You are probably the most goose-stepping right-wing sieg hieler I have ever come across, certainly on par with Bluesman - apart from your bullying and bullshitting friend Terrapin - but nobody takes him seriously anyway. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Lox Date: 11 Nov 11 - 04:55 AM "No I didn't. I said that in a small crowded country you do not allow land to go to waste" mm hmm ... ... in response to points made about settlements forcibly built on palestinian land .... Your resort to the usual macho crap to augment your alleged rebuttal is as telling and as impotent as always. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: MGM·Lion Date: 11 Nov 11 - 05:01 AM "a former Israeli foreign minister has been found guilty of war crimes" --- You use the formula 'found guilty' rather loosely here, Jim. Found guilty by whom? On what evidence and after what procedure? If you mean that a warrant for her arrest if she visited UK was issued by that notable international authority, Westminster Magistrates Court, at the request of a group of impartial, disinterested , and objective - er - Palestinian militants ~~ you should say so. Otherwise, what are you on about, with your "found guilty"? Under our law of innocent-until-proved-guilty, which you have apparently forgotten, a warrant for arrest [subsequently withdrawn in any event when diplomatic protocols were properly re-established] does not by any means constitute a 'finding of guilt', or anything resembling it. ~M~ |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: MGM·Lion Date: 11 Nov 11 - 05:51 AM ... or did you mean the earlier Barak incident? If so, see here ~~ http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/dec/14/tzipi-livni-israel-gaza-arrest There was nothing resembling any "finding of guilt" in either case, and it is , to put at its mildest, mischievous to employ the term in this context. Surprised at you ~~ or at any rate wish I could be... ~M~ |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Jim Carroll Date: 11 Nov 11 - 06:32 AM Tzipi Livni. "Livni, head of the opposition Kadima party, played a key role in decisions made before and during the three-week offensive. Palestinian officials and an Israeli human rights organisation say about 1,400 people, mostly civilians, were killed in the Gaza offensive. Israel says 1,166 Palestinians died and claims most were combatants. Israel says it acted in self-defence against Hamas rockets from Gaza. Thirteen Israelis died." You mean this Mike (you've kidy put up the whole article for anybody to reference to) What's your point - have I misread something, if so, please cross this off Keith's large enough without list? Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: MGM·Lion Date: 11 Nov 11 - 06:40 AM My point is that you say she has been "found guilty of" war crimes. "Found guilty" implies a judicial process. By whom has she been so convicted, please, Jim? By Jim Carroll? And where, pray, does his writ in such matters run? The worst that has happened to her is that a warrant for her arrest on arrival in this country was issued by the international might and hegemony of the Marylebone Magistrates Court, at the instance of the undisputed authority of a self-appointed group of lippy expatriate Palestinian militants. "Found guilty", your ɷ, Mr Carroll. Happy 11.11.11 justa-same! ~M~ |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: MGM·Lion Date: 11 Nov 11 - 06:54 AM Sorry ~ Westminster Mag Ct ~~ Accuracy matters... |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: MGM·Lion Date: 11 Nov 11 - 07:13 AM "Found guilty", I would add, with its legalistic overtones, is definitely defamatory, in a moral sense; and possibly [one of our lawyers please advise] in a legal one also. However much one may deplore her actions {& I join you in that, however much you may mutter 'lip-service' & whatever the other phrase was that you found to belittle my disgust}, she has not, in any meaningful sense, been 'found guilty' of anything. You merely make yourself look both more stupid, more malevolent, & more prejudiced, by persisting in asserting so, Jim. ~M~ |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Jim Carroll Date: 11 Nov 11 - 07:52 AM As I say - if you feel I have misrepresented her crimes (for which she has been unable to enter Britain, unless the new regulations regarding entry have altered that situation) please feel free to exclude her from the list. It was never my intention to mislead; I put as link in when I referred to her earlier. If her guilt is of my imaginings, I am at a loss to understand why an arrest warrant was issued - but there you go!! The other items will serve just as well to make my point regarding the dishonest and reacionary nature of Keith's bais - which he accuses others of. All this still has a whiff of "praising with faint damns" - but that's probably due to my over-active imagination too Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: MGM·Lion Date: 11 Nov 11 - 08:28 AM "If her guilt is of my imaginings, I am at a loss to understand why an arrest warrant was issued" .,,. Please, Jim: FOR CRYING OUT BLOODY LOUD! ~ Do you really not know, or respect, the principle vital to out law of Innocent Until Proved Guilty? An arrest warrant merely means that someone in authority - in this case the Overwhelming Worldwide Recognised Majesty of the Westminster Bench of Magistrates - considers there might be a case to answer. IT IS NOT A FINDING OF GUILT. So what 'GUILT' are you constantly on about? Nobody has been "found guilty" of bloody anything ~~ except in J Carroll's wishful, prejudiced, maundering, diseased imaginings. Not like you to be so uncharacteristically bloody THICK, for heavens sake: I say again, it can only attributed to PREJUDICE in this instance. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Jim Carroll Date: 11 Nov 11 - 09:08 AM "except in J Carroll's wishful, prejudiced, maundering, diseased imaginings." Then why "However much one may deplore her actions {& I join you in that" are you joing me in that. As you appear to wish to defend the lady's honour (at the same time as deploring her actions) I apologise unreservedly for mistaking the situation before one of us bursts a blood vessel. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 11 Nov 11 - 09:33 AM So if there is a case to answer, then if she comes here she ought to answer it. If she doesn't wish to answer it in court she needn't come here. But it should be no business of the British Government to give her immunity from court proceedings if she does come here. I would hope that the same kind of consideration puts restraints on the world travels of Tony Blair and sundry other politicians of many countries. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: GUEST,Teribus Date: 11 Nov 11 - 11:38 AM Pssst Lox - The Jews of Palestine are as Palestinian as the Arabs of Palestine. Take a good look at the map of the Palestine Mandate 1920 - compare that to the Palestine Mandate created by hiving off 77% for exclusive settlement by the Arabs of Palestine in 1923. The first recognised borders of "Palestine" That Palestine disappeared in 1949 but no borders were ever established - The Jews accepted the 1947 UN Plan the Arabs didn't, therefore no borders were ever agreed. "Palestine" as it existed and was recognised in 1923 did not come back into being, with all invaders ejected and it's borders officially recognised, until 1994 (Egyptian Peace Treaty 1979; Oslo Peace Accords 1993 & Jordanian Peace Treaty 1994) The Arabs of Palestine cannot have it both ways, they cannot insist that others observe and adhere to borders which they themselves do not recognise, nor ever have recognised. Jews may settle anywhere within the borders of what defined Palestine in 1923. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 11 Nov 11 - 03:39 PM I assume we are finished with the blockade aimed directly at the everyday life of civilians, as proved by the list of banned goods, as we are with the proven military targetting of civilians - which you continue to defend by denying the documented evidence? I am not denying "documented evidence" Jim. I have never seen any! Show some to us please. Israel is within its rights to impose a blockade. It allows through that which is required under International Law. Why should they go further? Gazans elected a government whose stated aim is the destruction of Israel, launch deadly attacks on ordinary Israeli people, and expect Israel to be nice to them in return. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 11 Nov 11 - 04:39 PM If something is not actually against existing codes of International Law it's quite OK, Keith? That's a line of defence that didn't work too well in the Nuremberg Trials... (And no, MtheGM, that doesn't mean I'm saying Israel is a Nazi state!) |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Jim Carroll Date: 11 Nov 11 - 04:57 PM "Show some to us please." Why Keith? - you don't read what others write - you've had numerous examples put up which you've either contradicted without evidence or totally ignored; "there have been NO massacres" - no civilians targeted. Do your own ****** homework and prove there have been no massacres - there is plenty of evidence to the contrary. There is plenty of evidence presented to you of heavy artilery and chemical weapons have been used on civilians - produce your own evidence that the reports are lies as you have claimed. You've seen the squalid list of banned goods aimed directly at civilians - stop hiding behind what is legal and justify why any country should even want to debase the everyday life of an already impoverished people other than "that's what the law allows them to get away with". The number of times you have denied having claimed things that you yourself have written convince me that you don't even bother to read these - you're noted for it on this forum. Mc Grath has just summed it up perfectly "If something is not actually against existing codes of International Law it's quite OK, Keith?" Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 11 Nov 11 - 05:59 PM ""The United Nations exists as an organisation to promote peace, understanding and reconciliation amongst its members. Israel and the Arabs of Palestine must bi-laterally reach an accommodation that guarantees peace, understanding and reconciliation BEFORE Palestine can become a full member."" Maybe, just maybe, the UN will achieve by talking to the new Palestinian STATE, what the IDF have FAILED to achieve by bombing it back to the Stone Age, starving it of essential supplies with a coastal blockade and annexing huge tracts of its territory. None of which indicates ANY desire to talk peace to the Palestinians. What you really advocate is an abject and unconditional surrender to IDF aggression and occupation. THAT IS NOT PEACE! Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 11 Nov 11 - 06:15 PM ""Do you deny that Israel delivered all the aid to Gaza anyway, but it turned out to be junk that the Gazans did not want or need."" Do you have ANY evidence that the useless junk that was delivered was in fact the cargo removed from the Marmara? Oh, of course, the Israelis said it was so that must be true, RIGHT? After all, the Israelis wouldn't lie! Are you really dumb enough to believe that those who loaded the Marmara wouldn't know what was most needed in Gaza? Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 11 Nov 11 - 06:37 PM ""Yes, how about the deliberate targeting of civilian Israeli Jews and Arabs by Hamas rockets??? You have NEVER condemned that, I notice."" Another LIE! We have all condemned the use of those rockets, but, while the Israelis continue to steal Palestinian territory with impunity, thanks to their vastly superior military capability, and their complete willingness to kill without hesitation and interrogate the corpses later to ascertain whether or no they are civilians, it is hardly surprising that they are used. You can't have it both ways. Either this is or is not armed conflict. If yes, both sides have an equal right to attack the other, if no, then neither has that right. The problem is the inequality of the two parties' capabilities. Israel will, in the fullness of time (if allowed to continue), annihilate the Palestinians, and the only question that matters right now is this: "When are we going to stop them?" Because, if we don't, we are complicit in their genocide. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Lox Date: 11 Nov 11 - 07:15 PM Gee thanks Teribus ... ... Thanks for trying to justify your notion that if you need to expand you have the right to annex other peoples land ... ... But I'm afraid their is never a good justification for theft - let alone theft facilitated by murder. But you just keep on sticking up for it if that's what makes you feel good. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Jim Carroll Date: 12 Nov 11 - 03:31 AM "Do you deny that Israel delivered all the aid to Gaza anyway, but it turned out to be junk that the Gazans did not want or need." Can we just clear this load of viciously unpleasant (and rather typical of Keith) nonsense up about what is sent as relief. The volunteers who collect the goods to break the blockade are ordinary people who collect what they can in donations - they send what they collect and what they can give themselves. Their actions are as much a gesture of solidarity with the Palestinian people as anything else, and in the circumstances created by the viciousness of the Israeli regime, it's a huge, life - risking gesture, as the Israelis have made it quite clear that they are not averse to killing volunteers to maintain their squalid blockade. Keith says he is "only putting the Israelis case" (and he accuses the rest of us of being "prejudiced!!!). I have no doubt whatever that the Israelis are happy for us to believe that "it turned out to be junk" - they would say that, wouldn't they? I'm sure the Palestinians need the medicines Keith mentioned; the Israeli 'wonderfully humanitarian behaviour' in setting up this blockade is aimed at creating the maximum suffering and inconvenience as possible to the men, women and children of Palestine, an already greatly impoverished and deprived people; we've all seen the inhumanly selected list of banned goods (yet to be acknowledged by Keith). Unfortunately the the volunteers' meagre resources don't run to such expensive items, assuming that the 'humanitarian' Israelis would allow such useful and necessary items through. If Keith would like to make a donation to relieve the suffering, we are hoping that one of the volunteers will be here next week at our singing week-end - she and her two young daughters are very fine Irish language singers who have sung here before. But I'm sure he would rather stand on the sidelines and sneer in support of yet another inhumanly terrorist regime - as is his wont. There still remains the unanswered question of why Israel should expend manpower and expense - not to mention continuing to receive the incredibly bad publicity - if these goods are such "junk". Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 12 Nov 11 - 04:10 AM Jim, Israel denies and refutes those accusations you make. It is disputed. You are certain they are guilty, so just share with us that convincing evidence you must have. Or is it just prejudice? Please do not insult our intelligence by saying you have lots of evidence but choose to withhold it Kevin, are you accepting that Israel complies with International law on these issues? That is all I am suggesting. Don, a manifest of the cargo would obviously have been supplied to Hamas. There would have been some complaints if anything went missing. The Gazans knew exactly what they were getting, but did not bother to collect it. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 12 Nov 11 - 04:44 AM There still remains the unanswered question of why Israel should expend manpower and expense - not to mention continuing to receive the incredibly bad publicity - if these goods are such "junk". It was junk. I am sure Israel was supplied with a manifest too, but to impose a blockade you have to check all cargoes. Kevin, Nuremberg was a trial for war crimes. The Nazis did break International Law. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Jim Carroll Date: 12 Nov 11 - 04:55 AM "Please do not insult our intelligence by saying you have lots of evidence but choose to withhold it " You've had the evidence and continue to ignore or deny it - waste of time and effort digging it out again only to be told "it didn't happen" I take it that's a "no" for a contribution to Palestinian aid then? Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 12 Nov 11 - 05:14 AM I have seen no evidence and have failed to find any. I do not believe it exists Jim. I think you are making it up, and are driven only by prejudice. Post it now and make me look silly, why don't you? You could start with that oft. mentioned but never produced "independent enquiry" into the camp massacres. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Jim Carroll Date: 12 Nov 11 - 05:30 AM "I think you are making it up, and are driven only by prejudice." You are the one who has said he is only putting the Palestinian case. And the aid - can you tell us why the people on the convoys are risking their lives and the Israelis are exposing themselves as the inhuman bastards they are - FOR JUNK? Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 12 Nov 11 - 06:08 AM And the aid - can you tell us why the people on the convoys are risking their lives and the Israelis are exposing themselves as the inhuman bastards they are - FOR JUNK? The flotilla was a politically motivated stunt. The actual cargo was not important, but the Israelis had to check it. No evidence to support your hysterical charges then. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Lox Date: 12 Nov 11 - 06:56 AM "Please do not insult our intelligence by saying you have lots of evidence but choose to withhold it " Actually it isn't Jim who is witholding the evidence. The IDF confiscated all recording equipment, audio and video, and all cameras and they have refused to let anyone see the evidence that they confiscated. The only evidence that did come to light was that which was smuggled out by captives. Why the cover up? Could it be the same reason that they released a load of faked videos and radio communications? So they told lies and fabricated evidence, and published that, but won't let anyone see the actual evidence, of which there was a lot since a sizeable proportion of the people on the Marmara were journalists with cameras, mp3 recorders and video cameras. How much credibility does that give the Israeli side of the story keith? And as for Jims alleged racism, it seems more the case that you are prepared to side with the Israeli story despite the fact that the above information shows that they are not only set on making sure that we don't know the full extent of what happened, but they have an extensive track record of lying about it. To say that Jim is discriminating on grounds of race requires you to close your mind to the above and requires you to remain loyal to lies. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Mrrzy Date: 12 Nov 11 - 12:24 PM OK, bck to the topic: What about today's developments? |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Jim Carroll Date: 12 Nov 11 - 03:16 PM Humanitarian aid a politically motivated stunt - did they really give you access to young people's minds? You rally are a sicko! Posted this earlier, but it seems to have gone astray; sorry it's from such a biased source as the UN. Jim Carroll Gaza: UN official reports horrific hospital scenes of casualties In a UNICEF warehouse in Zarka, Jordan, workers review boxes of supplies for shipment to the Gaza Strip 12 January 2009 – Appalled that fighting was still continuing in Gaza despite the Security Council's ceasefire resolution, senior United Nations officials said today they were horrified at the human costs amid reports that over 40 per cent of the nearly 900 Palestinians killed in the Israeli offensive, and almost half of the 3,860 wounded, were women and children. "Behind those statistics that we read out every day is really profound human suffering and grave tragedy for all involved and not just for those who are killed and injured but for their families as well," UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) Director of Operations John Ging told a news conference in New York, speaking by video link from Gaza, where he had just visited the main Al Shifa hospital. "(It) is the place of course where you see the most horrific human consequences of this conflict. Among the tragic cases that I saw were a child, six years of age, little or no brain activity, people don't have much hope for her survival; multiple amputee – another little girl; and a pregnant woman who'd lost a leg," he said, as the Israeli offensive went into its 17th day with the stated aim of ending Hamas rocket attacks into Israel. "The hospital is really full of patients whose lives have been in many instances really destroyed, and they're alive." Mr. Ging paid tribute to "the heroes," the Palestinian hospital staff who have been working round the clock and have lost track of time, and the 40 expatriate medical staff who have joined them from Norway, the Netherlands, Egypt and Jordan, among other places. He said the sense of fear in Gaza was all pervasive among a battle-hardened population of 1.5 million that had already seen many years of conflict. "In my three years here I have never witnessed anything like the scale of fear that is there," he stressed. "We have to recognize that there's no safe place in Gaza and that continues to be the case and the casualty figures speak to that." Speaking in New York, Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs John Holmes told the news conference the UN had been unable to independently verify the casualty figures given by the Palestinians but they seemed plausible. As of today, there were 884 dead, 275 of them children and 93 women (42 per cent), and 3,860 wounded, 1,333 of them children and 587 women (49 per cent). "I am appalled that violence on this scale is still continuing in Gaza and horrified at the human cost of all this," he said. "What continues to be worrying is that the Palestinian civilian casualty rate appears to be still increasing." On a more positive note, the two officials reported that UN food delivery and other operations, suspended after a fatal attack on an UNRWA driver last week, have resumed following Israeli reassurances and aid is now moving around Gaza as much as possible. Mr. Ging said he was very satisfied with the more effective system put in place in high-level talks with the Israelis. Mr. Holmes said more food supplies were getting through and power supply had improved because of infrastructure repairs and some fuel getting through, but the situation was still not satisfactory even if better than before. Some 500,000 people still lack water as Israel's daily three-hour lull in fighting was insufficient for carrying out repairs and other UN operations, he added, urging Israel to extend the time period. The UN Children's Fund (UNICEF) has appealed for $16 million to provide families and children with emergency supplies. "We desperately need more resources," Director of Emergency Operations Louis-George Arsenault said, calling on Israel to increase the daily three-hour window for deliveries. Asked what would happen if Israel escalated its operations deeper into Gaza's cities, Mr. Holmes said UNRWA, the UN World Food Programme (WFP) and others would want to continue their activities insofar as they can. "The fear is that any escalated operations would produce even more casualties, especially when operating in these densely populated urban areas and this would compound what is already a very dramatic humanitarian crisis," he added. Mr. Ging said 35,000 Gazans had now fled their homes for shelter in 38 UNRWA locations, and many more had sought refuge with relatives in other parts of the Gaza Strip. In answer to questions, he said he had no evidence that Shifa hospital was being used for Hamas military purposes and reiterated his call for an independent investigation amid conflicting reports on deadly Israeli shellings near an UNRWA school and a housing complex in Zaitoun last week. "I hope that those who are dealing with this issue [the conflict] at the political level will have the same courage and humanity as I've witnessed here at Shifa hospital with the doctors who have come from abroad to help. They can only deal with the consequences in the terms of the injuries," he concluded. "The solution here is to stop the fighting, stop creating the casualties, that's what we want." |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 12 Nov 11 - 03:42 PM Actually it isn't Jim who is witholding the evidence. Yes it is Lox. He says he has lots of evidence to substantiate his wild accusations against Israel, but he will not share it with us! What is there still to know about the "aid" flotilla Lox? There are enough eye witnesses from both sides. Some lied though. The "nurses" who saw piles of bodies. The ones who saw IDF throwing bodies overboard. All lies. Humanitarian aid a politically motivated stunt If it was, why did the gazans leave it at the crossing for months? Because it was not "humanitarian aid." Just worthless junk. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 12 Nov 11 - 03:55 PM "Meanwhile, Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh said the Islamic militants have refused to accept any aid from the Israeli-intercepted flotilla. "We are not seeking to fill our (bellies), we are looking to break the Israeli siege on Gaza," he said" "break the seige" Political motivation. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 12 Nov 11 - 05:51 PM When Israel prevents people having their basic needs meet by preventing that list of banned goods, that is a political act - and a disgusting one, as many decent Israelis continue to remind us. Yes, there are many decent Israelis - and people who support the actions of the Israel through thick and thin are no friends to them. ........................ Today I was shopping and was looking at the fruit stand. Two sorts of oranges were on display, one lot came from Israel, the other from South Africa. It's funny how times have changed that kind of choice... I remember an Aldermaston march, and there were a couple of young men selling oranges to the marchers - "These aren't from South Africa, they're Jaffa oranges." |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 12 Nov 11 - 06:38 PM ""Don, a manifest of the cargo would obviously have been supplied to Hamas. There would have been some complaints if anything went missing."" And who, pray, do you suppose would have supplied such a manifest after the Marmara had been, with some loss of life, prevented from getting anywhere near its destination? The Israelis of course, and they wouldn't lie to Hamas, would they? Your naivete is absolutely astounding. Don T |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Mrrzy Date: 12 Nov 11 - 07:11 PM Meanwhile, back to the thread - what do we think of what happened with the UN today? |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: MGM·Lion Date: 13 Nov 11 - 12:13 AM 'On a more positive note, the two officials reported that UN food delivery and other operations, suspended after a fatal attack on an UNRWA driver last week, have resumed following Israeli reassurances and aid is now moving around Gaza as much as possible. Mr. Ging said he was very satisfied with the more effective system put in place in high-level talks with the Israelis.' ,.., Anyone else feel that this report is strangely silent as to who attacked & killed this UNWRA driver? It doesn't seem SFAICS to have been Israelis, who were, it appears, co-operating with the operation. Anyone else think we should be told? ~M~ |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Jim Carroll Date: 13 Nov 11 - 02:22 AM I assume that we have now finished with the idea that the Israelis have not targetted civilians and have moved on to junking humanitarian aid as a political stunt? Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 13 Nov 11 - 02:56 AM Don, a manifest would have been provided by the Turkish authorities before the Marmara sailed. Numerous people and organisations, including Hamas, would have known exactly what was on board. There was never any suggestion, by anyone, of a switch. You really are clutching at straws. Kevin, Israel legally imposes a blockade because it suffers deadly military attacks and threats from Gaza. They allow through such humanitarian aid as required by International Law. They have relaxed the blockade considerably over the last year. Jim. I assume that we have now finished with the idea that the Israelis have not targetted civilians and have moved on to junking humanitarian aid as a political stunt? In any army, individuals may commit crimes, but I do not accept that Israel has deliberately targeted civilians, and would condemn it absolutely as a war crime if they did. I am just waiting for someone to provide evidence of it. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 13 Nov 11 - 05:03 AM ""They allow through such humanitarian aid as required by International Law."" How very strange. Perhaps you would point us to the relevant clauses in international law which permit the banning by Israel of all the essential items on the list recently put up on this thread, which includes basic foodstuffs? Back on topic, I don't believe for one minute that the recognition of Palestine as a Sovereign state will make the slightest difference to the arrogance and intransigence of Israel's government. The only thing that would do that, would be loss of the support of the worlds biggest bully. the US government, and that ain't gonna happen, given that it is also the worlds largest concentration of "Pro Israel whatever it does" lobbyists. That situation is gradually moving the Middle East region toward all out war, and if that happens, there will be damn all the West can do to stop it. The attitude displayed by some posters here (Israel can do no wrong and Palestinians are all terrorists and therefore legitimate targets) is multiplied manifold in the US, and those of that mindset cannot countenance the idea that Israel MUST moderate its attitudes. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: MGM·Lion Date: 13 Nov 11 - 05:20 AM Don ~ Does it not occur to you that there might just, perish the thought, be the minutest touch of reverse tu-quoque-dom in your posts and responses? Just asking. Might ask Jim the same, but he seems completely & incorrigibly in mind's·made·up·please·don't·confuse·with·facts mode on this one so I have given him up as completely beyond the reach of à propos rationality ~~ I mean, when a man of his intelligence goes confusing a putative arrest warrant with an irreversible finding of guilt...: I am sure you will see what I mean!. ~M~ |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Jim Carroll Date: 13 Nov 11 - 05:27 AM "In any army, individuals may commit crimes, " A move away from "it never happened" I suppose, but still mealy-mouthed apologism for the slaughter of civilians. The troop movement and the bombardments were directed at civilian areas - if you are suggesting that any army moves without orders from above and any command operates independently from government directives - you're crasser than I took you for. I seem to remember this was your defence of Bloody Sunday - that the ordinary soldier was entirely at fault and the officers in charge were in no way to blame for the massacre (and of course, the Government didn't try to cover it up) "I am just waiting for someone to provide evidence of it." No you're not - you're waiting for another set of facts that you can deny ever happened - which is ample reason, as far as I'm concerned, not to bother providing them to someone who seems quite comfortable lending support to atrocities aganst civilians by war criminals - as I said earlier. Please don't ask for them again. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Jim Carroll Date: 13 Nov 11 - 06:33 AM " I mean, when a man of his intelligence goes confusing a putative arrest warrant Still protecting the lady's honour I see - another step and you'll be right out of your Zionist closet Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: MGM·Lion Date: 13 Nov 11 - 06:51 AM Can you really not see, Jim, that it is not the bloody lady's 'honour' I am defending ~~ I am quite prepared to believe she is a horrible bit of work ~~ but that it is the integrity of the language, concept of using it in relation to the law with a reasonable degree of precision with which I am engaged? To confuse an arrest warrant with a finding of guilt is a SEMANTIC, not a moral, solecism. The person who is the subject of the confusion thus provoked is of no relevance whatever. Horrible as she might be, she has not been "found guilty", in any viable or meaningful sense, of anything whatsoever, except in your wishful & fevered rantings and imaginings! Sorry ~ but you really are in a mental mess with regard to this one. You can usually think more clearly than this. I am resisting the overwhelming temptation of reverting, in response to your most unworthy last conclusion, to the question of what closet this might indicate you are almost out of. We have had enough of that topic; please, I beg you, do not revert to it. ~M~ |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: MGM·Lion Date: 13 Nov 11 - 07:25 AM Jim: Do you know the Grimms' story of The Jew In The Bush? ~~ he is not in fact a Jew at all; rather a sort of ogre lying in wait to murder travellers. With that sort of folktale tradition, one can see well where Hitler came from. Please beware of transforming Ms Livni into a Grimmian bush-dweller. As my cousin Michael Winner might remark, "Relax, dear. She's only a politician." ~M~ |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Jim Carroll Date: 13 Nov 11 - 08:43 AM Mike " Do you know the Grimms' story of The Jew In The Bush?" Stop hiding behind accusatins of Anti Semitism - it really doesn't become you. Ms Livni is a politician, therefore pretty unlikly to come to trial for any crimes she may have committed while in office - even she recognised that by wisely not keeping her apointment in the UK. The civilised world recognises Augusto Pinoche as being implicated in mass murder, despite the fact that he never came to trial (thanks partly to the good offices of a British ex Prime Minister) Tony Blair should have ben banged up for leading Britain into an illegal war. Many British member of Parliament escaped retribution for crims the rest of us would have been jailed for. Technically, none of these are criminals; we have no control over what priveleges our 'betters' protect themselves with - don't take away our right to express an opinion on it. "Sorry ~ but you really are in a mental mess with regard to this one." And I think you are in a moral mess in what amounts to defending inhuman behaviour while paying lip-service to being opposed to it. It seems to me you are using my attitude to the Livni case to score points. As far as I am concerned she is a war criminal who will probably never be tried. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: MGM·Lion Date: 13 Nov 11 - 08:50 AM Becomes me as well as your of continued influence of Zionism, Mr Pots'n'Kettles Carroll! |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Jim Carroll Date: 13 Nov 11 - 08:55 AM "Mr Pots'n'Kettles Carroll!" Do you have to be so ******* childish? Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: MGM·Lion Date: 13 Nov 11 - 09:02 AM I would have no objection if she were tried, Jim. Get it into your head, please: it is not your attitude to her enormities I am distressed by, it is your misuse of our most precious resource, the English language. Leave it alone if you can't use it properly, and stop persecuting and torturing those who can. My point being, that you generally can; rather well. But your hysteria over this present topic is robbing you of your powers of cogent expression, which can only undermine your arguments. "Technically, none of these are criminals; we have no control over what priveleges our 'betters' protect themselves with - don't take away our right to express an opinion on it." Nobody's trying to stop you expressing opinions, Jim; but they are undermined, I say again, by the crass inaccuracy of the terms in which you are expressing them. Remember Backwoodsman that time ~~ Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: Backwoodsman - PM Date: 27 Feb 11 - 01:41 AM The recent posts by Jim and Michael are a perfect example of how two people with diametrically opposed viewpoints, a firm grasp of the English language and decent writing skills can carry on an intelligent, civilised discussion which, whilst probably never leading to agreement between them, at least stands a chance of coming to a successful accomodation. A pleasure to read. Certain other contributors should also read them.........and learn. That was a delightful compliment to us both, was it not? Do you feel your recent posts deserve what he said of us in his first sentence? Because I don't, & I consequently feel let down by you. & you are letting down Mudcat too, IMO, with this hysterical and inaccurate ranting on topics, like the application of our laws, where you should know better. Be ashamed. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: MGM·Lion Date: 13 Nov 11 - 09:06 AM And if that's 'childish' I shall have to live with it. What, anyhow, is childish about the use of Pots'n'Kettles when you are accusing me of faults similar to those that you are committing yourself? Try "motes'n'beams" if you prefer. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 13 Nov 11 - 11:14 AM Don, Perhaps you would point us to the relevant clauses in international law which permit the banning by Israel of all the essential items on the list recently put up on this thread, which includes basic foodstuffs? International Law does cover this situation. Israel does keep within the law Don. I am stating that as a fact. What part do you dispute? Jim. The troop movement and the bombardments were directed at civilian areas Only because Hamas, in contravention of International Law, placed military facilities in those civilian areas. Israel was then acting within International Law to attack them, having given all the required warnings and attempting to minimise civilian casualties. Jim. Bloody Sunday - that the ordinary soldier was entirely at fault and the officers in charge were in no way to blame for the massacre That is the established facts of it Jim. Yes. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 13 Nov 11 - 12:25 PM Of course there is no question of "innocent till proved guilty" or trials when it comes to the execution of alleged terrorists/militants well away from any kind of war zone by assassin squad or drone... Or plain-clothes policemen in the London Underground, for that matter. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Jim Carroll Date: 13 Nov 11 - 12:40 PM "Only because Hamas, in contravention of International Law," Hamas was fighting from a defensive position against invaders from outside - where do you think they come from - Mars - they are Palestinians What should they have done, run away and left their families and neighbours to the tender mercies of the Israeli army - they were defending their people - friends and neighbours? Supposing for a second your description is right, you seem now to be defending the killing of "hostages" - something you denied not long ago - MAKE UP YOUR MIND - AGAIN. The United Nations strongly condemned Israelis action against civilians and considered prosecuting Israel for war crimes - so perhaps they don't understand "International Law" either. "That is the established facts of it Jim." I understand that it is the responsibility of the officers on the spot for anything that takes place under their command. Whatever happened to "the buck stops here - or doesn't that apply in the British Army? It seems incredibly spineless to blame the men for what was ultimately the responibility of the officers in charge If the men had acted against orders they should, at the very least, have been disciplined, if not tried for mass-murder - neither happened. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 13 Nov 11 - 01:33 PM What should they have done, run away and left their families and neighbours to the tender mercies of the Israeli army Accepted practice is to evacuate civilians from military installations when hostilities are imminent. to be defending the killing of "hostages" However distasteful, it is accepted that civilian casualties will be incurred when one side uses them as living sandbags. The crime is theirs. The other side must give prior warning, as Israel did, (negating the advantage of surprise) and must try to minimise civilian casualties. UN did not find Israel to have acted illegally. The rockets were declared illegal. On Bloody Sunday a couple of soldiers fired on the demonstrators. They acted without orders. They should have face prosecution as happened in subsequent incidents |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Jim Carroll Date: 13 Nov 11 - 02:01 PM "Accepted practice is to evacuate civilians from military installations when hostilities are imminent. "Have you taken a look at how tightly packed Gaza is - there is nowhere for them to go, and had all sides adhered to accepted practice the Israelis would not have bombarded and used heavy artillery on densly populated areas. "The other side must give prior warning, as Israel did, (negating the advantage of surprise) and must try to minimise civilian casualties." Then why did the UN consider prosecuting Israel for war crimes - prejudice I suppose. You are presenting a scenario that runs counter to eye witness accounts - giving the "unbiased" Israili point of view as admitted At least we seem to have got an honest answer at last about the "expendibility" of hostages - which you denied strenuously. "They acted without orders." Which still makes the offficers in charge responsible and exposes the total lie of Bloody Sunday on the part of various Governments since Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 13 Nov 11 - 03:05 PM "Have you taken a look at how tightly packed Gaza is - there is nowhere for them to go Yes, have you? 140 square miles (363 square km). Then why did the UN consider prosecuting Israel for war crimes - prejudice I suppose. And why did they reject it? Objectivity I suppose. Speaking of objectivity and prejudice, why do you never miss an opportunity to attack Britain and Israel at great length, but have never criticised PIRA who claim not to have targeted civilians, but killed thousands |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Jim Carroll Date: 13 Nov 11 - 03:10 PM The only claim that advance warning was given for the Gaza attack comes from the Israelis - once again - they would say that, wouldn't they. This appears to give a cross section of contrary opinions on the legitimacy and conduct of the attack from 'Lawyers Without Borders' Jim Carroll http://dissidentvoice.org/2009/02/israels-attack-on-gaza-legitimate-self-defense-or-war-crime/ |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 13 Nov 11 - 03:21 PM The violence carried out by whoever was firing those primitive rockets in the general direction of places where civilians were living was criminal, as well as foolish. The violence carried out by the IDF in attacking civilian areas throughout Gaza with hi-powered and hi-tech weapons was criminal on a far larger scale. Selective justification of such violence is shameful. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 14 Nov 11 - 01:19 AM Jim, leaflets were dropped all over Gaza, as numerous correspondents and others reported. Missiles criminal and foolish? They also caused deaths and maimings of ordinary people, who demanded their government do something about it. No government in the world would allow that to continue. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 14 Nov 11 - 02:46 AM Kevin, I absolutely refute the jibe of "selective justification" and "shameful." The motivation for the missile launches was a murderous hatred of Jews, and cannot be justified. It is "shameful" that Jim does justify them. I challenge you to state that McGrath of Harlow. The motivation for the incursion was to stem the tide of missile attacks on homes, schools and families. That is entirely justifiable. You can argue that the response was disproportionate, and I might agree, but the fact remains that only a small reduction in the missile attacks was achieved. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Jim Carroll Date: 14 Nov 11 - 03:10 AM Leaflets - to evacuate a whole city!! There is no evidence whatever that any warning was given that the attack was to take place - except claims by the Israelis - if that is not the case, produce your evidence - I've produced mine, and once again you choose to ignore it. "No government in the world would allow that to continue. " And no CIVILISED government would target civilians - hospitals, schools..... to the extent that they were accused of war crimes by the United Nations. You have been making claims here that simply are not backed up by facts - rather like your 'cultural implants', they come out of your own imagination. EVIDENCE PLEASE Until you come up with some, here's a little to be going on with - with some pictures if you find there are too many words to cope with!! It would appear that it was the Israelis using civilians as "human shields" Jim Carroll http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/13/gaza-israel-war-crimes Israel is facing growing demands from senior UN officials and human rights groups for an international war crimes investigation in Gaza over allegations such as the "reckless and indiscriminate" shelling of residential areas and use of Palestinian families as human shields by soldiers. With the death toll from the 17-day Israeli assault on Gaza climbing above 900, pressure is increasing for an independent inquiry into specific incidents, such as the shelling of a UN school turned refugee centre where about 40 people died, as well as the question of whether the military tactics used by Israel systematically breached humanitarian law. Link to this audio The UN's senior human rights body approved a resolution yesterday condemning the Israeli offensive for "massive violations of human rights". A senior UN source said the body's humanitarian agencies were compiling evidence of war crimes and passing it on to the "highest levels" to be used as seen fit. Some human rights activists allege that the Israeli leadership gave an order to keep military casualties low no matter what cost to civilians. That strategy has directly contributed to one of the bloodiest Israeli assaults on the Palestinian territories, they say. John Ging, head of the UN Palestinian refugee agency in Gaza, said: "It's about accountability [over] the issue of the appropriateness of the force used, the proportionality of the force used and the whole issue of duty of care of civilians. "We don't want to join any chorus of passing judgment but there should be an investigation of any and every incident where there are concerns there might have been violations in international law." The Israeli military are accused of: • Using powerful shells in civilian areas which the army knew would cause large numbers of innocent casualties; • Using banned weapons such as phosphorus bombs; • Holding Palestinian families as human shields; • Attacking medical facilities, including the killing of 12 ambulance men in marked vehicles; • Killing large numbers of police who had no military role. Israeli military actions prompted an unusual public rebuke from the International Red Cross after the army moved a Palestinian family into a building and shelled it, killing 30. The surviving children clung to the bodies of their dead mothers for four days while the army blocked rescuers from reaching the wounded. Human Rights Watch has called on the UN security council to set up a commission of inquiry into alleged war crimes. Two leading Israeli human rights organisations have separately written to the country's attorney general demanding he investigate the allegations. But critics remain sceptical that any such inquiry will take place, given that Israel has previously blocked similar attempts with the backing of the US. Amnesty International says hitting residential streets with shells that send blast and shrapnel over a wide area constitutes "prima facie evidence of war crimes". "There has been reckless and disproportionate and in some cases indiscriminate use of force," said Donatella Rovera, an Amnesty investigator in Israel. "There has been the use of weaponry that shouldn't be used in densely populated areas because it's known that it will cause civilian fatalities and casualties. "They have extremely sophisticated missiles that can be guided to a moving car and they choose to use other weapons or decide to drop a bomb on a house knowing that there were women and children inside. These are very, very clear breaches of international law." Israel's most prominent human rights organisation, B'Tselem, has written to the attorney general in Jerusalem, Meni Mazuz, asking him to investigate suspected crimes including how the military selects its targets and the killing of scores of policemen at a passing out parade. "Many of the targets seem not to have been legitimate military targets as specified by international humanitarian law," said Sarit Michaeli of B'Tselem. Rovera has also collected evidence that the Israeli army holds Palestinian families prisoner in their own homes as human shields. "It's standard practice for Israeli soldiers to go into a house, lock up the family in a room on the ground floor and use the rest of the house as a military base, as a sniper's position. That is the absolute textbook case of human shields. "It has been practised by the Israeli army for many years and they are doing it again in Gaza now," she said. While there are growing calls for an international investigation, the form it would take is less clear. The UN's human rights council has the authority to investigate allegations of war crimes but Israel has blocked its previous attempts to do so. The UN security council could order an investigation, and even set up a war crimes tribunal, but that is likely to be vetoed by the US and probably Britain. The international criminal court has no jurisdiction because Israel is not a signatory. The UN security council could refer the matter to the court but is unlikely to. Benjamin Rutland, a spokesman for the Israeli military, said an international investigation of the army's actions was not justified. "We have international lawyers at every level of the command whose job it is to authorise targeting decisions, rules of engagement ... We don't think we have breached international law in any of these instances," he said. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 14 Nov 11 - 03:21 AM http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/10/abbas-gaza-israel-truce http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7822049.stm |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 14 Nov 11 - 03:26 AM Returning to the subject, Palestine has failed to get Security Council support for its membership bid. US did not need to use its veto. BBC said, "The Palestinians never expected to win at the Security Council, as the US has said it would veto the request, our correspondent reports. But she says the Palestinians hoped to muster the nine votes needed to pass a resolution, and so to expose the US as the main obstacle to their bid. Although European states in the council sympathise with the Palestinians, our correspondent adds, they share Washington's concern that the bid could harm chances of reviving US-led Israeli-Palestinian peace talks and ignite violence in the region. " |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Lox Date: 14 Nov 11 - 05:06 AM Keith, You are in no position to get high and mighty with Kevin. His last post was as subtle and profound as anything I have ever read, and for you to attempt to diminish any part of it as a "jibe" is pathetic in the extreme. Mendacious, disingenuous, jingoistic - these are all terms that describe you. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Lox Date: 14 Nov 11 - 05:17 AM PS - 400 ... |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 14 Nov 11 - 05:35 AM Not "high and mighty" Lox. I just challenged him to show his unbiased, liberal credentials. BTW, you were wrong about Jim when you said, "There is nobody here defending the rockets." but you chose not to comment. I challenge you to state your opinion of Jim's position. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Jim Carroll Date: 14 Nov 11 - 06:20 AM As I said - leaflets to clear a city??? Like to comment on the atrocities? "Colostolox!? Still in the schoolyard Mike? Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 14 Nov 11 - 06:59 AM The whole city was not attacked. Installations were, as per the warning. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Lox Date: 14 Nov 11 - 07:26 AM That's not how IDF soldiers described it Keith. Not that you care. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 14 Nov 11 - 07:34 AM You bottled the challenge then Lox. Disappointing but not surprising. The Gazan incursion has been debated to bits on old threads. What about the membership application? |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Jim Carroll Date: 14 Nov 11 - 07:39 AM "The whole city was not attacked." You've had the descriptions - these were massacres Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 14 Nov 11 - 07:45 AM Whose descriptions? |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Lox Date: 14 Nov 11 - 10:10 AM "You bottled the challenge then Lox." What are you on about you freak. You want me to speak for Jim? Thank you but I think that honour is his. And what is this nonsense ... you see my failing to speak on jims behalf as somehow failing to meet some kind of challenge, while you weasel out of an argument you have lost by trying to suddenly change the subject. Its all falling apart for you mate - I've enjoyed watching Kevin patiently disintegrate your position ... assuming there was ever any integrity to begin with. "whose descriptions" Israeli soldiers. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 14 Nov 11 - 10:37 AM Lox, I did not ask you to speak for him. I said, "BTW, you were wrong about Jim when you said, "There is nobody here defending the rockets." but you chose not to comment. I challenge you to state your opinion of Jim's position. " |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 14 Nov 11 - 10:40 AM OK Lox. I'll bite. What IDF soldiers and what did they describe? |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Jim Carroll Date: 14 Nov 11 - 10:49 AM ""There is nobody here defending the rockets." " I have made my position clear on the rockets - I have never supported violence in any form from any group, but I have agreed with you that "everyone has a right to defend themselves" You, on the other hand, continue to support massacres of civilians by war criminals Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 14 Nov 11 - 12:04 PM How do you construe firing missiles loaded with ball-bearings at people's homes and schools as "self-defence"??? It is not. It is offensive. It is murder. Trying to stop it is self-defence. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Jim Carroll Date: 14 Nov 11 - 04:26 PM "It is offensive - It is murder." Of course it's offensive - but if it is murder it is a fraction of what Israel has done to the civilians of Palestine - which you continue to ignore. Israel came into being through acts of terrorism - as with the measures Palestine is adopting to defend itself. Israel's present terrorism is directly related to expansionism - this includes the mass expulsion of whole cultures. You've seen the casualty figures for the Gaza incursion, including women, children and hospital patients - self defence - I don't think so. You accused Hamas of hiding behind hostages, yet refuse to comment on the Israeli 'human shields' - war crimes, plain and simple. And the deliberate chemical attacks mentioned in the Guardian report - self defence? Don't accuse anybody here of bias while you go on giving your uncritical support to state terrorism directed at civilians Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 14 Nov 11 - 04:37 PM "Israel came into being through acts of terrorism - as with the measures Palestine is adopting to defend itself." I am no expert, but Teribus and Michael both utterly refute that claim. "Israel's present terrorism is directly related to expansionism - this includes the mass expulsion of whole cultures." You have made that one up all on your own! "You've seen the casualty figures for the Gaza incursion, including women, children and hospital patients - self defence - I don't think so." If only they had not fired those murderous missiles, day after day, week after week, year after year, IT WOULD NEVER HAVE HAPPENED! "You accused Hamas of hiding behind hostages, yet refuse to comment on the Israeli 'human shields' - war crimes, plain and simple." If it happened it was a war crime, plain and simple. "And the deliberate chemical attacks mentioned in the Guardian report - self defence?" You made that up too Jim. None are mentioned. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 14 Nov 11 - 06:06 PM ""Don ~ Does it not occur to you that there might just, perish the thought, be the minutest touch of reverse tu-quoque-dom in your posts and responses?"" No Sir, it does not, and for good reason. I have repeatedly condemned the rockets, while remaining of the opinion that the actions of those Palestinians, while reprehensible, are perhaps understandable. At no time has Keith stated, or even hinted, that Israel too is acting in a thoroughly reprehensible manner. At no time has Keith stated, or even hinted, that the Palestinians too might feel that they are defending their country. The difference between us is that I believe that both sides need to wind their necks in, and Keith, along with the Zionist lobby in the US, believes that Palestine must roll over and permit Israel to treat it as a overspill for housing surplus Israelis. My concern is that Israel's refusal to give a single inch will give rise to a conflagration which might well result in the annihilation of the Palestinians, or the Israelis, or both and a lot more besides. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 14 Nov 11 - 06:20 PM ""Accepted practice is to evacuate civilians from military installations when hostilities are imminent."" Now you are really scrabbling around underneath the barrel. Schools, shops, homes, hospitals and UN depots are now "military installations" because the IDF want to pour incendiaries and heavy artillery into them. And with the IDF running riot in the area, where do you suppose the civilians would take cover? Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 14 Nov 11 - 06:39 PM """Israel came into being through acts of terrorism - as with the measures Palestine is adopting to defend itself." I am no expert, but Teribus and Michael both utterly refute that claim."" You are no expert! That at least is one true statement from you. It is only five years since I attended the funeral of an uncle who was based in Palestine after WW2. People used to turn away when they caught sight of his face, and he suffered agonies all his life after one of the Irgun Zwei Leumi action groups headed by Menachim Begin poured petrol over the tent where he and five comrades were sleeping. He was closest to the opening, and the only survivor, and remarked on several occasions that his mates were the lucky ones. Teribus and Michael don't know everything. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: MGM·Lion Date: 14 Nov 11 - 07:28 PM --Teribus and Michael don't know everything.-- .,,.,..,., I certainly make no claims to know everything; but I think Keith does not entirely understand my position. I do, however, know that the activities of the Stern Gang & Irgun in the late days of the Mandate were indeed explicitly terrorist, as I have in fact never denied, Keith. The great disappointment was that, after the successful defence of 1948, they consolidated as respectable politicians [no novelty in post-colonial situations after independence ~ cf Kenyatta, e.g.] with enough electoral support to have to form part of every government coalition; and eventually to emerge as the dominant party under Begin & his successors, leading to the present lamentable situation. ~M~ |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: GUEST,Teribus Date: 15 Nov 11 - 12:45 AM Let us take a look at what Lox regards as so subtle and profound McGrath of Harlow Date: 13 Nov 11 - 03:21 PM The violence carried out by whoever was firing those primitive rockets in the general direction of places where civilians were living was criminal, as well as foolish. The violence carried out by the IDF in attacking civilian areas throughout Gaza with hi-powered and hi-tech weapons was criminal on a far larger scale. Selective justification of such violence is shameful. Of course Kevin is wrong isn't he, he is deliberately canting the table to covince everyone that apples are oranges. In what respect is Kevin wrong? Well the first part is correct, Hamas and those who share their views do deliberately target and launch missiles, rockets and mortar rounds at civilian areas with the deliberate intent of causing as many deaths as they possibly can - That is criminal and has been condemned as a crime against humanity by the UN and other Humanitarian Agencies. The second bit is where Kevin deliberately misrepresents: The violence carried out by the IDF in attacking civilian areas throughout Gaza The IDF did not attack civilian areas throughout Gaza, they attacked psoitions within civilian areas where Hamas and their allies chose to hide, but the IDF attacks were directed against combatants - had things actually been described as stated by the likes of MGOH; Carroll and Lox then surely the casualty lists would have been much higher. As to warnings issued, the IDF used every means possible to warn the civilian population of Gaza of intended attacks and operations. Such means included telephone, SMS, radio, loudspeakers and yes leaflets. Now were they (the IDF) deliberately attacking civilians and civilian areas as Kevin is trying to convince us of - then nothing would have been done. Not that subtle or profound at all Lox, just typical misrepresentation. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 15 Nov 11 - 01:42 AM Haaretz, 2 Jan 2009 The Israel Defense Forces has unveiled a new tactic meant to reduce civilian casualties, calling houses before they are to be targeted in order to give inhabitants time to flee the attack. Palestinians reported that in some cases, the caller leaves a message on their voice mail warning that the IDF will bomb any house where weapons are rockets are found and the owners of the houses will be the ones to suffer the consequences. The IDF has also used a sound bomb to warn civilians before striking homes. The IDF has also used what they are calling "roof knocking" operations, in which they inform the residents of suspected buildings that they have 10 minutes to leave the premises. In some cases, residents of suspected houses have been able to prevent bombing by climbing up to the roof to show that they will not leave, prompting IDF commanders to call off the strike. In these cases, Channel 10 reported Thursday, the IAF sometimes launches a relatively harmless missile at the corner of the roof, avoiding casualties but successfully dispersing the crowd. It appears that the "roof knocking" technique was used in the assassination of Hamas leader Nizar Ghayan Thursday, but Ghayan decided to stay indoors with his family, and the army opted to bomb the house anyway. Sources familiar with Ghayan's record said he was one of the people who encouraged Gazans to climb on rooftops to prevent bombings. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 15 Nov 11 - 03:59 AM Michael, are you saying that this is an accurate statement? "Israel came into being through acts of terrorism" Given that the were acts of terror committed by Jews and Arabs. Don's story is indeed one of very many. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Jim Carroll Date: 15 Nov 11 - 04:32 AM Keith - you are the only one here who had continually defended the deliberate and long term killing of civilians - both by denying that it has taken place, then (somewhat contradicting yourself) by admitting it had but it was all Hamas' fault for being in the area. Nobody has gone to the lengths you have to defend war crimes; not even Terrytoon, (who sometimes comes ofver as a latter day Mr Chips in his efforts to talk down to people - or talk them down). I wonder which particular moral code you claim to subscribe to!! "You made that up too Jim., None are mentioned. " Another report for you to ignore! Jim Carroll Israel and the white heat of justice A political solution for Gaza must not preclude the investigation of war crimes, including Israel's use of white phosphorus John Palmer guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 21 January 2009 12.30 GMT Article history UN secretary general visits Gaza Strip and city of Sderot, in southern Israel, as part of Middle East peacekeeping tour Link to this video Amnesty International has now joined the United Nations and Human Rights Watch in accusing the Israeli government of breaking international law outlawing the use of white phosphorus shells in the middle of highly populated areas of Gaza. The UN secretary general, Ban Ki-Moon, has condemned Israeli attacks on UN humanitarian centres in Gaza as "outrageous" and has called for an independent, international inquiry. Meanwhile a senior minister in the Israeli government has been quoted in the Israeli newspaper Haaretz as saying that when the full extent of the destruction brought on Gaza becomes known "I will not be taking my holidays in Amsterdam". This possibly "humorous" observation referred to the possibility that leaders of the Israeli government may yet be arraigned before the International Criminal Court in The Hague – or a similar tribunal - to answer charges of war crimes. Indeed some 300 human rights organisations have already prepared an initial 37-page dossier to be presented to the court. At the same time, in a move which could be equally damaging to the international standing of the Israeli government, a number of United Nations humanitarian agencies have insisted that there must be an independent, internationally approved, legal inquiry into the prima facie evidence of crimes committed. It is clear now that Israeli shelling and missile attacks – including those on UN facilities used as shelters for civilians during the war – have taken many hundreds of innocent civilian lives. There is one obvious problem with taking steps to ensure that those responsible for the horrific massacres of civilians in Gaza are held accountable for their actions: Israel is not a member state of the ICC. The initial reaction of the ICC has been that it is therefore not open to the court to examine these charges. According to some senior French jurists, however, it should still be possible for the ICC to pursue named individuals for alleged crimes committed in Gaza. There is also a precedent for the ICC to be asked by the United Nations to conduct such a trial – namely the current hearings into crimes against humanity allegedly committed by forces under the control of the government of Sudan in Darfur. It may be possible for the UN to establish a specific war crimes tribunal to hear the charges arising out of the actions of the Israeli forces in Gaza. After all, something very similar happened after the atrocities committed during the wars in the former Yugoslavia and the Rwanda genocide. The Israeli government has denied that it was responsible for any war crimes committed during the course of its three-week campaign in Gaza. Interestingly, however, the Israeli prime minister, Ehud Olmert has expressed "remorse" for what happened to the civilian population of Gaza. One obvious question is: what does he feel guilty about? Some Israelis may also argue that Hamas has also committed crimes worthy of international condemnation. But, of course, it open to them to present such a legal dossier to the ICC authorities in the Netherlands. Obviously, a UN mandate for a legal inquiry into alleged Israeli war crimes would only come about if the Obama administration decides not to use its veto in the UN Security Council. But by allowing a legal investigation to proceed, the US would send the clearest possible signal that it intends to exercise far greater even-handedness between Israel and the Palestinians than it has ever done in the past. Moreover, the incoming administration is under growing pressure to sanction an inquiry into possible criminal action by the Bush administration in its use of torture. No doubt, the British government, among others, will say that the priority of the international community must be to underpin the current ceasefire with a permanent peace agreement which provides for a two-state solution. But there is no reason why the push for a permanent agreement should exclude the rule of law from operating without inhibition. After all, this was the case in the former Yugoslavia. According to Israeli opinion polls, the present coalition government is heading for defeat in the general election in three weeks' time. The responsibility for negotiating a permanent peace settlement is likely to fall to an even more right-wing government, led by Binyamin Netanyahu. That said, an inspiring feature of the feature of the worldwide demonstrations against Israel's Gaza offensive has been the prominent role played by Jews and Jewish organisations in the protests. Organisations like Jews for Justice for Palestinians, along with a small but heroic opposition to the massacres in Israel itself. Israeli human rights activists have also now launched a website to identify alleged Israeli war criminals and assist their transfer to the jurisdiction of the ICC. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: MGM·Lion Date: 15 Nov 11 - 05:15 AM Keith: It would be idle to deny that such "acts of terrorism" as the murder of Lord Moyne, the British representative minister, & his unfortunate non-politically involved driver, a simple corporal of the RASC, by two members of the Stern Gang [Lehi], on 6 Nov 1944; and the blowing up of the King David Hotel, then a mandatory Govt HQ, in Jerusalem by Irgun Zvai Leumi on 22 July 1946 with loss of 91 lives; were important factors in the complex of incidents which led up to the ending of the British Mandate and British withdrawal, the UN partition decision, and the declaration of the State in 1948. These are only two of the most blatant and memorable examples of the violent campaign that some of the Jews of then Palestine waged during the 30s & 40s. The extent that the State came into being 'through' such acts is an imponderable; but, I repeat, they are among the factors that historians and political analysts will have to take into consideration regarding the emergence of Israel as a geographical and political entity. Arthur Koestler's novel "Thieves In The Night"(1946 - pre-Israel & set back in late-30s), though a work of fiction, gives something of an account of the background of events which led some to feel that such means were necessary if the British were ever to be dislodged from the Mandatory stranglehold which many saw them as keeping on the region: with its turning away of 'illegal' Jewish refugee immigrant ships ~ some even sent back to what by then was known to be the Nazi persecution occurring in Europe, or, later, the passengers and crew interned in camps in Cyprus. It was a complex situation, from which few emerged with credit. Koestler gives a reasonably balanced view (tho my then prominent in the Zionist movement father always denied this) of what went on in the late-30s — early-40s, leading to various sorts of impasse. Worth a read if you can get hold of a copy. ~Michael~ |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 15 Nov 11 - 05:27 AM Michael, I did know about the acts of terror, but it is wrong to say they created Israel. Israel came into being through acts of UN, not terror. Keith - you are the only one here who had continually defended the deliberate and long term killing of civilians - both by denying that it has taken place, then (somewhat contradicting yourself) by admitting it had but it was all Hamas' fault for being in the area Not true Jim. If the act is denied by Israel I have asked for evidence. You were unable to provide any. I accept that civilians were killed in the Gaza incursion, but believe that Israel acted within International Law. That is disputed, but again hard evidence from your side was not provided. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: MGM·Lion Date: 15 Nov 11 - 05:34 AM I might add the hanging by Irgun of two British sergeants on the night of 11th/12th July 1947, Clifford Martin and Mervyn Paice; + the booby-trapping of their bodies resulting in serious injuries to those cutting them down. And the killing by a postal-bomb of the brother, Rex, of Major Roy Farran, whose initial was the same so the wrong one opened it, 3 May 1948; followed on 11 May 48 by a letter bomb addressed to Sir Evelyn Barker, former Commanding Officer in Palestine, being detected in the nick of time by his wife. They meant business, you know. There are plenty in Israel now, Keith, I wouldn't mind betting, who will maintain that it was "through" such activities that the State came into being. ~M~ |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: MGM·Lion Date: 15 Nov 11 - 05:43 AM I did not maintain that they, alone, 'created" Israel, Keith; but they can't be disregarded as an important element in the complex of events leading up to its "creation". In particular, I repeat, they were important factors in bringing about the British withdrawal, without which the UN resolution would arguably never have happened. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 15 Nov 11 - 06:36 AM To be pedantic, attacks on military targets are not acts of terror. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Jim Carroll Date: 15 Nov 11 - 07:38 AM "If the act is denied by Israel I have asked for evidence." You have been constantly given evidence which you deny outright (or ask for again thne deny) or totally ignore) such as the direct use of White phosphorus on civilians. You might believe that Israel acted within International law, others, including the UN think different - perhaps they should defer to you! You keep claiming ignorance on these subjects - what knowledge do you possess to reject those involved in on-the-spot decision making As I said, you are alone in your defence of atrocities. Arthur Koestler's novel "Thieves In The Night" As did the more recent televised novel 'The Promise' earlier this year. Terrorism as part of national liberation is common - South Africa, Ireland, even the US.... state terrorism is different. Thanks for the heads up about 'Theives in the Night' - recently acquired a copy but not got round to reading it yet. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 15 Nov 11 - 08:05 AM I did not deny "the direct use of White phosphorus on civilians" As your own cut/paste confirmed it was not in weapon form. It was a smoke munition. I asked for evidence of the camp massacres. You provided nothing despite repeated requests. You will not even tell us who is suuposed to have produced the "independent enquiry" you kept claiming exists. A figment of your imagination I think. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 15 Nov 11 - 09:00 AM I have tried and failed to think of any actual evidence provided by you. I believe you are driven only by prejudice. From "Canada Free Press" on UN membership. , the committee members considered whether the existing Palestinian governing entity met the criteria for statehood, was peace-loving, and was willing and able to carry out the obligations contained in the Charter. By all objective measures, the Palestinians fail on all counts. But the UN is anything but objective when it comes to the Palestinian issue. For example, regarding the criterion of statehood, the 1933 Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States is generally considered as the best source for defining the international law standard. It is referenced in the admissions committee report. The Montevideo Convention declares that in order for an entity to be considered a state under international law it should possess a permanent population, a defined territory, effective government control and the capacity to enter into relations with other states. Given the prevailing support in the United Nations for a two-state solution based on the pre-1967 lines, with East Jerusalem as the capital of the independent state of Palestine, there was little discussion in the report about the lack of secure and recognized boundaries agreed upon with Israel pursuant to negotiations, as called for by Security Council Resolution 242. This failure to meet the defined territory statehood requirement should be enough to disqualify the Palestinian UN application since it does not meet the first threshold of statehood. Instead, according to the report, the committee members "stressed that the lack of precisely settled borders was not an obstacle to statehood." Some committee members did express doubts regarding the Palestine Authority's control over all current Palestinian territory and governance of the entire Palestinian population, in light of the fact that Hamas is the de facto authority in the Gaza Strip and is in control of forty percent of the population of Palestine. However, other committee members were reported to be of the view that "the Israeli occupation was preventing the Palestinian government from exercising full control over all of its territory." In other words, this point of view held that Hamas's bloody coup in Gaza, throwing out the members of Abbas's government and Fatah Party, was somehow all Israel's fault. By laying the blame on Israel, the Palestinians get a free pass for their own inability to demonstrate the capacity for self-government under a single authority. With regard to the UN Charter's requirement that an applicant be "peace-loving," the view was expressed, according to the report, "that Palestine fulfilled this criterion in light of its commitment to the achievement of a just, lasting and comprehensive resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict." However, this was disputed by some committee members who pointed to Hamas's refusal to refrain from the threat or the use of force in the conduct of its international relations. The Palestinians' supporters dismiss the relevance of Hamas's actions because they were not those of the Palestinians' recognized governmental authority - the Palestinian Authority or PLO. This circular reasoning ignores that attempts are underway to bring Hamas into a unity government without requiring it to first renounce all acts of terrorism and recognize Israel's right to exist. The majority of UN members fall hook, line and sinker for the Palestinians' victimhood narrative, casting Israel as the villainous oppressor. The truth is precisely the opposite. The Palestinians want a state of their own with the inalienable right of self-determination to decide its character, but continue to reject the Israelis' own inalienable right of self-determination to live securely in the manner they choose to live - as a Jewish state. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Jim Carroll Date: 15 Nov 11 - 10:13 AM "I have tried and failed to think of any actual evidence provided by you." And there is perfect evidence that you atre totally prejudiced and why it is a total waste of time putting up anything - you either don't read it or taotally ignore it. It is you who has claimed that you are only prutting forward Israel's case - an acceptence of prejudice "It was a smoke munition." And the photos of horrific burns to childrens faces provided were cause by them playing with matches - smoke munitions my arse! More evidence of your self imposed ignorance in order to support war crimes You're a immoral mess Keith Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 15 Nov 11 - 10:23 AM Smoke munitions are dangerous, though obviously far, far less so that weapons. YOU provided an expert statement that they were smoke munitions not weapons. We disagree on what constitutes "evidence" You posted a Guardian piece on 14th Nov. as evidence, but the first sentence gave it away. It was about "allegations" against Israel made in the immediate aftermath of the incursion. These were never substantiated, so you could produce no actual evidence. I dismiss nothing, but being objective, open minded and unprejudiced, I need some evidence before making up my mind on disputed issues. Obviously, it is much simpler for you. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 15 Nov 11 - 10:33 AM Jim Carroll - PM Date: 28 Sep 11 - 03:54 AM . . 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. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Jim Carroll Date: 15 Nov 11 - 11:35 AM "primarily" being the operative word - pointed at human beings, they cause horrific injuries. You claim everybody who opposes your defence of Israel (which is just about everybody) to be prejudiced yet you have conceded no wrongdoing on the part of Israel whatever - despite the evidence placed before you. You even continue to defend the use of white phosphorus by attempting to give the impression it is harmless - this despite the horrific photographs of maimed children with faces "burned to the bone" - to quote a description by a Gazan doctor. What kind of sicko are you? Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Jim Carroll Date: 15 Nov 11 - 11:45 AM The doctor in question pointed out to the BBC interviewer that the White Phosphorus was being used within the confines of a hospital - you've been told this before - yet still you persist on claiming this shit harmless. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 15 Nov 11 - 11:55 AM It is a lie that I have described it as harmless. You did not mention that I deplored its use and said it may have been illegal. I only accuse people of prejudice if they reach conclusions about disputed issues without any rational reason or evidence for it. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Jim Carroll Date: 15 Nov 11 - 12:11 PM Yet you continue to present it as; "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." Why???????????????? A baseball is a piece of sporting equipment - smash somebody around the head with it and it becomes a deadly weapon - White Phosphorus pointed at humans is "A POTENTIALLY DEADLY WEAPON - ESPECIALLY USED IN THE CONFINES OF A HOSPITAL - WHICH ONCE AGAIN YOU MAKE NO REFERENCE TO You continue to argue for it as a smokscreen Why?????????????? You are a sicko in the extreme ARE YOU DENYING THE USE OF IT AGAINST CIVILIANS AS HAS BEEN CLAIMED CONTINUOUSLY - BY HUMAN RIGHTS GROUPS AMONG OTHERS -IF SO, WHAT EVIDENCE DO YOU OFFER THAT THEY ARE LYING - PREJUDICE? Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 15 Nov 11 - 02:53 PM The munitions were not weapons, as your expert confirmed. I do not accept they were "used against civilians." I believe they were used to provide a smoke screen. That is entirely consistent with the evidence. It should not have been used for that in a civilian area. That would be illegal, but because Hamas had illegally positioned itself in a civilian area, it is not straightforward. I deplore the fact that they used it, but might feel differently if a son or daughter of mine died because they could not be screened from their enemies. You have claimed without evidence that it was used against civilians. Prejudice. You have described it as a chemical weapon when it was not a weapon at all. Demonization. I think you even described it as genocide. Wild, hysterical hyperbole. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 15 Nov 11 - 03:02 PM ""Israel came into being through acts of terrorism" Given that the were acts of terror committed by Jews and Arabs. Don's story is indeed one of very many."" Who did the Israeli voters put in power at the first election of that state Keith? Begin and his coterie of fellow terrorists! In what way then is it inaccurate to state that the State of Israel was born out of terrorism? Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 15 Nov 11 - 03:10 PM OK Don, but Gazans elected the internationally recognised terrorist organisation Hamas. What does that make them? |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: MGM·Lion Date: 15 Nov 11 - 03:51 PM No they did not, Don ~~ they put in Ben Gurion, succeeded by Golda Meir. Begin came much later. You have a good enough case without indulging in such gross inaccuracies.. easily avoidable by minimal checking. ~M~ |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: MGM·Lion Date: 15 Nov 11 - 03:59 PM You can see from this wiki list that Begin was the 6th Prime Minister, 1977 ~~ 29 years after the State's declaration ~~ 1.David Ben-Gurion דוד בן-גוריון 2 Moshe Sharett משה שרת 3 Levi Eshkol לוי אשכול Mapai 26 June 1963 – 4 Golda Meir גולדה מאיר Alignment 5 Yitzhak Rabin יצחק רבין Alignment 6 Menachem Begin מנחם בגין Likud 20 June 1977 – |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Jim Carroll Date: 15 Nov 11 - 04:20 PM And still you do not acknowledge maimed and slaughtered and maimed women and children (and old people if we are talking about hospitals) - you presumably think the medical staff are lying and the photographs are faked Even if what you say about Hamas is true, you also sanction sanction the deliberate slaughter of hostages. Well done that - whoops; nearly said man. At least we have cleared up who's prejudiced Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 15 Nov 11 - 04:44 PM I told you I accept there were heavy civilian casualties. The Haaretz piece I provided explains the extraordinary efforts of the IDF to minimise them. But for the missiles, none of it would have happened. The illegal use of human shields by Hamas was the cause of all those "maimed and slaughtered and maimed women and children (and old people if we are talking about hospitals)" Whatever colour text you use, Israel was driven to act by the murderous rain of missiles on its people, and had to fight those responsible as they hid behind their own civilian population, and who then cynically exploited for propaganda their broken and burned bodies. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 15 Nov 11 - 05:17 PM ""To be pedantic, attacks on military targets are not acts of terror."" Sheer sophistry Keith (as usual). Irgun Zwai Leumi and the Stern Gang were not the standing army of any state, but rather civilian insurrectionists carrying out a prolonged and murderous campaign of terrorism against what was at the time the legitimate authority. To talk about military targets is both inaccurate and disingenuous. Those were YOUR countrymen burned to death in their tents. Have you no shame?....Silly question really, as we already have ample evidence to the contrary. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 15 Nov 11 - 05:40 PM ""Instead, according to the report, the committee members "stressed that the lack of precisely settled borders was not an obstacle to statehood."" Nor should it be, since that lack is engendered by Israel's refusal to accept any limit to their continual incursions into what should be Palestinian territory. ""The majority of UN members fall hook, line and sinker for the Palestinians' victimhood narrative, casting Israel as the villainous oppressor. The truth is precisely the opposite. The Palestinians want a state of their own with the inalienable right of self-determination to decide its character, but continue to reject the Israelis' own inalienable right of self-determination to live securely in the manner they choose to live - as a Jewish state."" The first sentence really supplied the best laugh I've had in weeks. The Israelis have been playing the "victim of oppression" card for so long that they have come to believe that it gives them the right to oppress whomever they choose, so the truth is emphatically NOT the opposite. The last sentence is stunning in its lack of comprehension of the way things work. If the UN agreed to Palestinian Statehood within a defined border it would give protection to the whole of Palestine, including the Gaza strip. It would also give the same degree of protection to the State of Israel on the other side of said defined border. Why is it that those who are anti Palestinian statehood cannot see what is right under their noses. I know why Israel is against it......It would deprive them of the opportunity to annexe more territory for Israeli settlers to colonise. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 15 Nov 11 - 05:47 PM ""I believe they were used to provide a smoke screen. That is entirely consistent with the evidence."" Tell us O Wise One, what is the reason for a smoke screen inside buildings, especially inside a hospital? Are the Israelis so lacking in basic military skills that they inadvertently fired WP into the interior of buildings? Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 15 Nov 11 - 05:57 PM ""No they did not, Don ~~ they put in Ben Gurion, succeeded by Golda Meir. Begin came much later."" Please accept my apologies Mike. I try hard not to equal Keith in the realm of false claims, but this time I did not research before posting. Begin was the 6th. My only excuse is that I am getting very fed up of Keith claiming moral superiority, when he is the only poster on this forum who is still refusing to even countenance the possibility that there is fault on both sides. The fact that Begin came to power at all is a sufficient indicator of the mindset of Israelis at the time and later. I believe that is a fair point, or at least worthy of sensible discussion. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Lox Date: 15 Nov 11 - 08:01 PM "The Haaretz piece I provided explains the extraordinary efforts of the IDF to minimise them." Testimony of IDF soldiers flatly contradicts this. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: MGM·Lion Date: 16 Nov 11 - 01:22 AM Apology accepted, Don; and I agree with you that it is a great shame that Israeli opinion ever swung Begin-wards & has pretty well consistently remained there since; which accounts for my present attitude of intense disappointment in the way the place hes developed and what it has turned into ~~ an aggressive olive-grove uprooter and hence oppressor of ordinary Arabs just trying to make a decent living with no particular political axe to grind. & note too my disagreements with Keith above as to the extent that actual terrorism was instrumental in bringing about Israel's very existence. I cannot help feeling even so, however, that the small but intransigent Palestinian element, their equivalent of those erstwhile Stern & Irgun perpetrators, would maintain even after statehood their influence, and their determination to bring about Israel's complete destruction; and most probably would, as Begin's lot were not, be the first government elected for the new state. Statehood would surely constitute, to put it quite mildly, a most extreme danger to Israel, and to the peace of the area and the world? ~M~ |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 16 Nov 11 - 01:32 AM Lox. What soldiers? What testimonies? Don, I share your disgust at the attacks on mostly young conscripts who were just trying to do their best for everyone. I know a veteran in the Hertford branch of my Regimental Association. It was cruel, unjustified and a betrayal, but let us save the word "terrorism" for those cowardly murderers who attack helpless civilians for some political objective.. The smoke was dispensed from air-burst shells. It would not penetrate roofs or walls. In the video it can be seen bouncing off roofs. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Jim Carroll Date: 16 Nov 11 - 03:43 AM You have been a mealy-mouthed apologist for Israeli massacres of non-combatants throughout these threads and here you continue to attempt to trivialise the deliberate use of chemicals on civilians, including hospital patients, women and children - do you have nothing to say about the horrific injuries inflicted by your 'smoke bombs'? "But for the missiles, none of it would have happened." Unfortunately, without the missiles the Palestinians would have been driven out of Palestine altogether by the same type of ethnic cleansing that is proposed for the Bedouins - something else your Israiliphobia has prevented you from condemning. A another piece of sordid blackmail from yesterdays Irish Times aimed at starving the Palestinians into submission, an act of revenge because a democratically taken vote didn't go Israeli's way. Explain away - or ignore, as you usually do Jim Carroll ISRAEL CRITICISED FOR KEEPING PALESTINIAN TAX FUNDS MARK WEIS: in Jerusalem ISRAEL HAS decided to continue withholding tax funds it collects on behalf of the Palestinians which were frozen last month after the UN cultural organisation Unesco accepted Palestine as a full member. Yesterday's decision by the security cabinet to keep the €73 million collected in October came despite warnings from defence minister Ehud Barak and intelligence officials that the cash-strapped Palestinian Authority may be forced to withhold salaries from its security forces, endangering West Bank stability. Israel decided to withhold the transfer of tax revenues, which it collects monthly on behalf of the Palestinians under the terms of the Oslo peace agreements, after denouncing the Unesco membership bid as a "unilateral Palestinian manoeuvre that further removed chances of reaching peace through direct negotiations". Israel also accelerated construction of 2,000 West Bank homes. The Israeli punitive measures were condemned by Washington and the EU. (my emphasis). Yesterday's move came as the quartet of peace mediators - the US, the EU, Russia and the UN -failed to get Israel and the Palestinians to renew direct peace talks. Former British prime minister Tony Blair "called upon the parties to create a conducive environment for restarting talks and urged them to refrain from provocative actions", the quartet said. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 16 Nov 11 - 04:01 AM Where " massacres" are denied, not being prejudiced, I need evidence. You have been unable to find any, and I suspect there is none. That does not make me "a mealy-mouthed apologist." It is a lie that I have trivialised injuries. "Unfortunately, without the missiles the Palestinians would have been driven out of Palestine " Such an absurd claim deserves no serious reply! The democratic vote elected a group who took Gaza to war with Israel. Israel is entitled to impose a blockade, providing it continues to allow humanitarian supplies as required by International Law |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Jim Carroll Date: 16 Nov 11 - 05:26 AM "I need evidence" Who the hell do you think you are to "need evidence" of what has been long established by independant enquiries carried out by international bodies - for someone who is a self-confessed ignoramuous on the subject, you seem to have an extremely inflated opinion of yourself. You have been given page after page of solid evidence you have ignored. Tou could take classes in holocaust denial Not that you'd be interested - a view from biased Vermont http://www.vtjp.org/background/gazaweapons.php Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 16 Nov 11 - 06:16 AM long established by independant enquiries carried out by international bodies I challenge that it has. I would regard that as good evidence if true. without the missiles the Palestinians would have been driven out of Palestine altogether A serious reply. The missiles are just hate weapons, to terrorise ordinary Jewish families in nearby towns. Parents put their children to bed, and send them to school, knowing that someone will try to kill them and might get lucky today. They serve no strategic, or even tactical purpose. Not even Hamas would make the claim you did. McGrath and Lox might lack the guts to contradict Jim Carroll, but they will not support such a claim. Making such a claim shows that you are so deranged by hate that you can not be rational where Jewish people are concerned. Not even murdered ones. Not even children. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 16 Nov 11 - 06:49 AM Jim, your Vermont piece was written during the conflict before the facts about the munitions were established. Here are UK's reasons for not supporting membership. Al Jazeera William Hague, the British foreign secretary, said on Wednesday that his government had decided to abstain from voting in the hope that it would help bring Palestine and Israel back to the negotiating table. "We will not vote against the application because of the progress the Palestinian leadership has made towards meeting the criteria," Hague said, speaking to the British parliament. "But nor can we vote for it while our primary objective remains a return to negotiations through the Quartet process and the success of those negotiations." Hague said the Palestinian Authority "largely fulfills the criteria for UN membership," but granting it the status would impede its "ability to function effectively as a state". The Palestinian campaign, launched with a dramatic speech by President Mahmoud Abbas at UN headquarters in September, has fallen onto hard times in recent weeks. While the speech was warmly received, the Palestinians have struggled to muster the nine votes needed in the 15-member Security Council to approve their bid for membership as a state. Britain's announcement comes a day after a similar statement by France. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Jim Carroll Date: 16 Nov 11 - 07:27 AM And still you act as apologist for the slaughter of civilians Try this one Jim Israelis Forbid War Crimes Investigation in Jenin The nation founded on exploitation of a martyr complex over war crimes, now blocks investigation of its own crimes against humanity Compiled by Michael A. Hoffman II Worried that a UN investigation could form the basis for war crimes prosecutions against Israeli soldiers, the Israeli government announced April 30, 2002 that it wouldn't allow a U.N. investigation in Jenin, a Palestinian refugee camp that is overseen by UN agencies, within occupied territory that by treaty is controlled by the governing Palestinian Authority. Nonetheless, the Israeli security Cabinet--led by Prime Minister Ariel Sharon--voted against letting the investigation proceed. The UN investigators were to be led by former Finnish President Martti Ahtisaari. The 20-member UN commission was charged with assessing the civilian death toll from the April 2002 Israeli attack on Jenin, where hundreds of civilians were killed during three weeks of assaults by jets, helicopters and bulldozers in a "zone" closed to the media by the Israeli army. "There are lots of accusations, lots of rumors, and we don't know what is true and what is not, and I really thought it was in everyone's interest to clarify this matter as soon as possible," said UN Secretary General Koffi Annan. John D. Negroponte, the U.S. ambassador to the world body, said the United States is opposed to the Jenin war crimes inquiry. Though the United States was the original sponsor of the Security Council resolution endorsing the Jenin investigation, American diplomats had come to view the UN inquiry as "a divisive and potentially dangerous distraction." From the Israeli viewpoint, cancellation of the U.N. investigation would be preferable to an investigation it feared would reveal the extent of the war crimes committed by Israeli forces while the media and aid groups were banned from the area. "Whatever penalty Israel will pay (in terms of lost prestige) is less than the cost of a report that is one-sided and uses terms such as 'war crimes," said Gerald Steinberg, a political scientist at Bar Ilan University in Tel Aviv. Annan sent a letter to the Israeli government April 27 assuring the Israelis that their soldiers and others interviewed by the fact-finding team would be guaranteed anonymity, and that there would be no transcripts that might be used in war crimes prosecutions. In recent weeks the Israelis also refused entry into Jenin by a team of U.N. human rights investigators led by former Irish President Mary Robinson, the U.N. high commissioner for human rights, and Felipe Gonzalez, a former Spanish prime minister. The Israeli cabinet decision reflected a consensus among Israelis that the United Nations is biased against the Jewish state and that any U.N. inquiry into war crimes in the Jenin camp would inevitably end badly for Israeli public relations and Israel's image. One senior Foreign Ministry official said Israel had been wary of the war crimes investigation from the start. "We have every right in the world to be extremely suspicious about anything that comes out of the U.N.," said the diplomat. "We may be paranoid, but we have good reason to be." As the U.N. undersecretary-general for political affairs, Kieran Prendergast, noted to the council April 30, the investigation was originally endorsed "on the basis of assurances of full Israeli cooperation" from the Israeli foreign and defense ministers. But when the UN named a team dominated by specialists in international law and war crimes, the Israelis retracted their promise of support. Israeli officials were also outraged by the remarks of Terje Roed-Larsen, the U.N. envoy to the Middle East, who described "horrifying scenes of human suffering" at the Jenin camp. Prendergast said that "with every passing day it becomes more difficult to determine what took place on the ground in Jenin." In Jerusalem, Foreign Minister Shimon Peres said he feared that the UN Security Council would "interpret our refusal as if we were scared that they might discover something." In an interview with Israeli radio, Peres said he told Secretary of State Colin Powell by telephone on April 29: "Our army is still fighting....What do you want, for us to put them on trial? Tell our soldiers that they should show up [to testify] with a lawyer?' We have no intention of letting [Israeli] soldiers be investigated or even give testimony..." Saeb Erekat, a Palestinian official said, "I think this is equivalent to giving Sharon the license to do it again, to kill again and to commit slaughter again." On April 30, the group Physicians for Human Rights issued a preliminary forensic assessment of Jenin's dead and wounded, referring to the deliberate targeting of Palestinians civilians and blocked access to medical care. Sharon, who was found by an Israeli commission to have been "indirectly responsible" for a 1982 massacre at the Sabra and Shatila refugee camp, took a defiant tone. To him and other senior Israeli officials, the United Nations inquiry is a case of selective investigation, to be followed by spurious prosecution. "No attempt to tarnish our name or to put us on trial before the world will succeed," Sharon said. The Israelis sought to have American Major-General William Nash, of the Council of Foreign Relations (CFR), appointed to head the U.N. probe. The position of the CFR is that the Israelis should have been allowed to determine the make-up of the commission: "There should have been more consultation with the host government (Israel) before appointing the members," said David Philips, Nash's deputy at the CFR. "The composition of the initial group created the impression that the mission was being politicized." Numerous war crimes investigations were conducted in Germany, Poland and Japanese colonies after World War Two, and more recently in the Balkans with regard to ethnic cleansing; and in Rwanda where genocide was determined to have been committed. War crimes investigations held in Germany and Japan after World War II set the standard for such proceedings, establishing the principle that soldiers must be held responsible for atrocities committed during war. Since then, a series of Geneva conventions have defined violations in three categories: WAR CRIMES, such as mistreatment of prisoners and targeting civilians. CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY, such as deportation and murder of civilian populations, and racial, ethnic and political persecution. GENOCIDE, defined as "deliberately inflicting on a group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part. Several Western governments have also established permanent tribunals for the investigation of elderly persons, many of them refugees from Communism, accused of having committed war crimes against Jews 60 years ago. For example, in the US, the Office of Special Investigation (OSI), was established in 1979 as part of the Department of Justice to investigate "war criminals living in the United States." The OSI drove Andrije Artukovic, former minister of the interior of Croatia back to Communist Yugoslavia. The OSI deported Catholic Bishop Valerian Trifa back to Communist Romania. Arthur Rudolph, the distinguished NASA rocket scientist, was also investigated and driven out of the US as a "war criminal." In the cases of Alfred Deutscher and Michael Popczuk, the men committed suicide after being targeted by the OSI. Claims that these war crimes investigations were politicized and tainted by pro-Communist or Zionist bias were dismissed out of hand as an obstruction of human rights and humanitarian and international law. The traditions about war crimes committed against Jews is central to the maintenance of the Israeli state, a sly tool for obtaining Palestinian land and for portraying a nuclear power with a penchant for pulverizing dark-skinned civilians as a "victim of intolerance." Billions of dollars have been paid by Europeans--and continue to be paid-- to the Israeli government and its agencies as "war crimes reparations." The Israelis, however, regard themselves as immune from international prosecution for war crimes or responsibility for reparations to Palestinians. On April 28, 2002 the Associated Press reported Foreign Minister Shimon Peres as declaring, "Israel won't sit in the place of the accused. Israel will sit in the place of the accuser." The AP dispatch added that the Israeli foreign minister described charges of Israeli war crimes in Jenin as,"baseless blame, almost a blood libel, on Israel." Very few Americans would support "incursions" into the predominately black ghetto of Los Angeles by tanks, helicopter gunships, D-9 armored bulldozers and F-16 jet fighters if a minority of African-Americans were planting suicide bombs in white areas. If the US military were to bulldoze and bomb black ghettos into a moonscape of rubble, with whole families buried beneath the wreckage, as collective punishment of all blacks for the actions of a few terrorists, most Americans would revolt at the injustice and virtual genocide such attacks would represent. But so warped is the distorting prism of Jewish supremacy in the American media, that the monstrous Israeli policy of collective punishment of the entire Palestinian people is repeatedly upheld by Congress and the White House, in defiance of the Geneva Convention and the definition of war crimes imposed by the Americans themselves after WWII. The current propaganda line describes a war against the Palestinian people in terms of a struggle against "terrorists," with the racist implication that all Palestinian people are terrorists, men, women and children. A similar racist innuendo was maintained by the American media with regard to the Vietnamese people during the early days of the American war in Southeast Asia. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Jim Carroll Date: 16 Nov 11 - 07:33 AM http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1937387.stm Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 16 Nov 11 - 07:37 AM Jim, how about providing some evidence, like those "independent enquiries" you keep inventing, for all the "massacres" you have already accused Israel of, before dredging up yet another bit of ancient history to demonize them with. Any thoughts on the membership application at all Jim? |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: beardedbruce Date: 16 Nov 11 - 07:41 AM Jim, Please note the date of the claim in your post- an be aware that the report WAS made, clearing Israel. Now, please address MY questions of "Date: 10 Nov 11 - 02:04 PM McGrath, In general I agree with you. However, there are points that are NOT addressed the differentiate the two sides. IF you are going to apply the "Both sides the same" rule, then let us look: The Mandate Palestine was formed in 1921, as a Homeland for the Jews. Arabs were to be given equal rights. By 1923, the Mandate Power decided that it was not practical, nd DIVIDED the Mandate into TransJordan ( 77% of the land, for the percentage of population of the Mandate that was Moslem,) and the remainder, the Palestine that was to be the Jewish Homeland. Jews were forbidden from settling in TransJordan, but were in settlements throughout the West Bank. Those were the LAST borders that the Arab nations have ever acknowledged as valid. The Peace treaty between Jordan and Israel AFTER 1967 acknowledges them. When the Arabs attacked Israel in 1947-48, the land was occupied BY THE ARABS and the Jews removed. In total 820,000 Jews, basically all of those in Arab lands, were driven from their homes, and (mostly) settled in Israel. 640,000 Arabs had fled from Israel- which was not even the majority of the Arab population in Israel. In 1967, Israel reclaimed the land TAKEN BY MILITARY FORCE from the Mandate territory. Any settlements on the West bank can be considered as resettlements of those driven out in 1948. The Palestinians have attacked the civilian population of Israel directly (IN VIOLATION OF INTERNATIONAL LAW), while the Israelis have attacked the military target (According to International Law) that the Palestinians PLACED IN CIVILIAN AREAS ( In violation of International Law) So tell me now WHY DO YOU THINK THE PALESTINIANS are not being treated fairly? Do you want Israel to treat Palestinians as they have treated the Jews under Palestinian control, or worse, as the OTHER Arab nation have treated the Palestinians??? Or are you saying that there is one set of rules for Arabs, and a different set for Jews???" |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 16 Nov 11 - 07:45 AM From Wiki. Israel denied charges of a massacre, and a lone April 9 report in the Israeli press stating Foreign Minister Shimon Peres privately referred to the battle as a "massacre"[75] was immediately followed by a statement from Peres expressing concern that "Palestinian propaganda is liable to accuse Israel that a 'massacre' took place in Jenin rather than a pitched battle against heavily armed terrorists."[76] Subsequent investigations and reports by the United Nations, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Time Magazine, and the BBC all concluded there was no massacre of civilians, with estimated death tolls of 46–55 people among reports by the IDF, the Jenin office of the United Nations, and the Jenin Hospital.[77] A team of four Palestinian-appointed investigators reporting to Fatah numbered total casualties of 56,[65] as disclosed by Kadoura Mousa Kadoura, the director of Yasser Arafat's Fatah movement for the northern West Bank. The UN report to the Secretary General noted "Palestinians had claimed that between 400 and 500 people had been killed, fighters and civilians together. They had also claimed a number of summary executions and the transfer of corpses to an unknown place outside the city of Jenin. The number of Palestinian fatalities, on the basis of bodies recovered to date, in Jenin and the refugee camp in this military operation can be estimated at around 55."[2] While noting the number of civilian deaths might rise as rubble was cleared, the report continued, "nevertheless, the most recent estimates by UNRWA and ICRC show that the number of missing people is constantly declining as the IDF releases Palestinians from detention."[2] Human Rights Watch completed its report on Jenin in early May, stating "there was no massacre," but accusing the IDF of war crimes,[78] and Amnesty International's report concluded "No matter whose figures one accepts, "there was no massacre."[3] Amnesty's report specifically observed that "after the IDF temporarily withdrew from Jenin refugee camp on April 17, UNRWA set up teams to use the census lists to account for all the Palestinians (some 14,000) believed to be resident of the camp on April 3, 2002. Within five weeks all but one of the residents was accounted for."[79] A BBC report later noted, "Palestinian authorities made unsubstantiated claims of a wide-scale massacre,"[13] and a reporter for the Observer opined that what happened in Jenin was not a massacre.[80] |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: bobad Date: 16 Nov 11 - 07:49 AM "Israelis Forbid War Crimes Investigation in Jenin The nation founded on exploitation of a martyr complex over war crimes, now blocks investigation of its own crimes against humanity Compiled by Michael A. Hoffman II" "Michael Anthony Hoffman II, (born 1954, New York), is an American journalist, conspiracy theorist and Holocaust denier who describes himself as a "heretical writer." Hoffman is the managing editor of the newsletter Revisionist History." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_A._Hoffman_II |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 16 Nov 11 - 07:58 AM And still you act as apologist for the slaughter of civilians Try this one Jim We did Jim, and there WAS NO MASSACRE. Your frantic Googling for any evidence of Israeli massacres only produced an old bit of propaganda, which you swallowed without question as usual, and you are again revealed as a hate filled, demented bigot. Well done Jim! |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: beardedbruce Date: 16 Nov 11 - 09:47 AM fyi... "The United States extended de jure recognition to the Government of Transjordan and the Government of Israel on the same day, 31 January 1949.[30] Clea Bunch said that "President Truman crafted a balanced policy between Israel and its moderate Hashemite neighbours when he simultaneously extended formal recognition to the newly created state of Israel and the Kingdom of Transjordan. These two nations were inevitably linked in the President's mind as twin emergent states: one serving the needs of the refugee Jew, the other absorbing recently displaced Palestinian Arabs. In addition, Truman was aware of the private agreements that existed between Jewish Agency leaders and King Abdullah I of Jordan. Thus, it made perfect sense to Truman to favour both states with de jure recognition."[31]" |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Jim Carroll Date: 16 Nov 11 - 09:52 AM "propaganda" Piss off ho;ocaust denier - examples of attacks on civilians in abundance in all the exaamples provided which yo continue to suppport AND STILL YOU ARE ON YOUR OWN IN THIS Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: beardedbruce Date: 16 Nov 11 - 09:55 AM Jim, Please address either the thread topic, or the questions directed at you. Otherwise, we will have to think that you care nothing for the people of either side, just your own bigotry. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: beardedbruce Date: 16 Nov 11 - 09:56 AM should have been "peoples", ie, Palestinians and Israelis. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: GUEST,keith A Date: 16 Nov 11 - 10:14 AM It was propaganda Jim. The Palestinians just lied. There was no massacre. See the independent reports by international bodies. Unlike your ones, these do exist. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 16 Nov 11 - 10:48 AM 'twas me. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Jim Carroll Date: 16 Nov 11 - 01:47 PM ""Michael Anthony Hoffman II," And by emulating the Hoffmans of this world's behaviour of holocaust denial by denying proven massacares by Israelis, the point you are making is that basically there is no difference between your stance and his. His descriptions match the official ones - the enquiries into the massacres, the trustworthy news reprots from The Times, the Guardian, the BBC, the United Nations - all of these are not holocaust deniers. Scumbags like him don't have to make it up any more - you are doing their job for them. You can't complain about their holocaust denying if you are doing exactly the same thing yourselves. I picked my example directly off Wikipaedia without having any idea who Hoffman was - it was one of many I could have chosen - I've already given quotes from The United Nations which Keith dismisses out of hand (I doubt if he even read it. You people in your support for State terrorism have made as great a contribution to Anti-Semitism as a thousand Hoffmans ever could. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 16 Nov 11 - 02:38 PM "There was no massacre" - which massacre is that, Keith? It gets copnvoluted trying to ffollow this. There have undoubtedly been more than enough massacres which have indubitably taken place, signed sealed and delivered, and links to information about these have been propvided. And please don't pretend ("might lack the guts to contradict Jim Carroll,") that I have not stated on several occasions in this thread that I think the use of missiles is wrong, and also tends to hurt Palestinians, since it helps the Israel government to justify its own reliance on far greater levels of violence than the Palestinians have ever been able to deploy. I disagree with Jim on this point. I suppose, insofar as the use of the missiles may have encouraged this behaviour on the part of Israel, behaviour which I believe threatens the future survival of the country, it might be possible to argue that, in the long run, the missiles will turn out to have damaged Israel rather than helped it - but obviously I wouldn't see that as "justifying" such use. "In the long run" we are all dead, after all. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Jim Carroll Date: 16 Nov 11 - 03:49 PM "Please address either the thread topic, or the questions directed at you." Well addressed - I seem to remember you are the clown who suggested that the Palestinians had nor right to live in Palestine legally - have I got the right eejit? Take your pick from below. Jim Carroll The King David Massacre The Massacre at Baldat al-Shaikh YEHIDA MASSACRE KHISAS MASSACRE QAZAZA MASSACRE The Semiramis Hotel Massacre The Massacre at Dair Yasin NASER AL-DIN MASSACRE THE TANTURA MASSACRE BEIT DARAS MASSACRE THE DAHMASH MOSQUE MASSACRE DAWAYMA MASSACRE HOULA MASSACRE SHARAFAT MASSACRE Salha Massacre The Massacre at Qibya KAFR QASEM MASSACRE Khan Yunis Massacre The Massacre in Gaza City AL-SAMMOU' MASSACRE Aitharoun Massacre Kawnin Massacre Hanin Massacre Bint Jbeil Massacre Abbasieh Massacre Adloun Massacre Saida Massacre Fakhani Massacre Beirut MassacreJibsheet Massacre Sohmor Massacre Seer Al Garbiah Maaraka Massacres Zrariah Massacre Homeen Al-Tahta Massacre Jibaa Massacre Yohmor Massacre Tiri massacre Al-Naher Al-Bared Massacre Ain Al-Hillwee Massacre OYON QARA MASSACRE Siddiqine Massacre AL-AQSA MOSQUE MASSACRE THE IBRAHIMI MOSQUE MASSACRE THE JABALIA MASSACRE Aramta Massacre ERETZ CHECKPOINT MASSACRE Deir Al-Zahrani Massacre Nabatiyeh (school bus) Massacre Mnsuriah Massacre The Sohmor Second Massacre Nabatyaih Massacre Qana Massacre Trqumia Massacr Janta Massacre 24 Of June 1999 Massacres Western Bekaa villages Massacre: |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 16 Nov 11 - 03:55 PM "There was no massacre" - which massacre is that, Keith? The latest massacre Jim has accused Israel of. Just this afternoon. Massive cut and paste job. You can not have missed it. He was looking for evidence against Israel, and thought he had finally found some. But it was all just another lie told to discredit Israel. Jim, I read all your stuff but can not remember a UN piece supporting your view of a disputed issue. I doubt I am alone. Can you remind us please. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 16 Nov 11 - 04:08 PM Jim, how about providing some evidence, like those "independent enquiries" you keep inventing, for all the "massacres" you have already accused Israel of, before dredging up yet more disputed bits of ancient history to demonize them with. Any thoughts on the membership application at all Jim? |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 16 Nov 11 - 05:53 PM No problems with the other massacres then, Keith? A bit hard sorting through the pile and working out which one it is you don't think can be proved to have happened. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 16 Nov 11 - 06:08 PM ""I cannot help feeling even so, however, that the small but intransigent Palestinian element, their equivalent of those erstwhile Stern & Irgun perpetrators, would maintain even after statehood their influence, and their determination to bring about Israel's complete destruction; and most probably would, as Begin's lot were not, be the first government elected for the new state. Statehood would surely constitute, to put it quite mildly, a most extreme danger to Israel, and to the peace of the area and the world?"" It is worth pointing out, I think, that there is no real evidence that the authors of the rocket attacks have any more political influence than, for example the "Real IRA" in Northern Ireland, and it is also a fact that Hamas only controls the Gaza strip, and as yet their writ doesn't run in the whole of Palestine. IMHO it is very unlikely that Hamas will ever control the whole country, and statehood confers both benefits and responsibilities. Palestine as it is now really has little to lose in its efforts to survive. As a recognised state its actions would be much more severely circumscribed by the likelihood of sanctions. I see more benefits than problems in recognising it as a sovereign state, and the greatest,again IMHO, would be the prevention of further provocative acts by the IDF. The simplest and best way to stop the rockets is to remove any reason or excuse for their continuation. After all, Israel too would feel the benefit of THAT. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 16 Nov 11 - 06:15 PM ""The smoke was dispensed from air-burst shells. It would not penetrate roofs or walls. In the video it can be seen bouncing off roofs."" How then did it burn patients within the Hospital, which has been attested to by doctors and other eye witnesses? And killing those young (as you pointed out National Servicemen aged between 18 and 20, and totally lacking in combat experience) was indeed terrorism, however much YOU may disagree. The British government thought so too, and called it such. I reckon they knew more about it than you. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 16 Nov 11 - 06:36 PM ""Jim, how about providing some evidence, like those "independent enquiries" you keep inventing, for all the "massacres" you have already accused Israel of, before dredging up yet another bit of ancient history to demonize them with."" That piece of ""ancient history"" is newer than my car Keith, and given the sources of the comment very relevant to your demands for evidence. You will of course dismiss it (in fact you already have) because no evidence will ever penetrate your hard wired inability to see both sides of the matter (more an inability to recognise that there are two sides in fact). Israel's government and military want no part of any peace with Palestine. They want to provoke a situation in which they can claim justification for taking it over at whatever cost. If you don't believe that, how about showing one shred of convincing evidence that Israel wants a peaceful settlement. Now there's a challenge you'll never be able to meet. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Lox Date: 16 Nov 11 - 07:10 PM BB - you corrected yourself by replacing "People" with "Peoples". In fact, you would have been more acurate the first time. They are all just people. Even the palestinians. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 17 Nov 11 - 01:31 AM Don, these events may be recent compared to your car, but not to the subject of this or the original thread. This one came with a special plea, but Jim has his own agenda on this forum and makes every thread into Jim propaganda. Kevin, why don't you and Jim start a "massacres" thread? Besides making up your mind on the application without evidence, you do the same with "massacres" because of your prejudice. You and Jim were certain about the camp massacres but have put up NOTHING (despite Jim's bluster) to refute Israel's version. Gaza is on the list, but no evidence Israel acted illegally. It is easy to put up a list of 20 allegations, but much harder to provide evidence, never mind proof. If you want to debate "massacres" put up one at a time with evidence for and against. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Jim Carroll Date: 17 Nov 11 - 03:52 AM "Jim, how about providing some evidence, like those "independent enquiries" " You've had your evidence 100 time over Keith; you don't read most of what other people put up and you reject what little you do read out-of-hand if it doesn't happen to fit with your own twisted bigotry and racism - you're noted for it - it has been pointed out to you a dozen times over by others. Massacres such as Sabra and Shatila are enquired into, published and proven beyond doubt - they are an established part of history. If you are going to dispute such events without debate, without, qualification, without even knowledge of the subject in hand (which you admit, as you have on other subjects when you have resorted to false claims that "I didn't say it - it was somebody else") I can't see why anybody should waste time trying to change the yawning gap that passes for "your mind". As I said - do your own homework. Your classic, also out-of-hand dismissal of the international bodies, the UN and UNESCO, representatives of a large slice of the civilised world, as "biased" stand as a monument to your own viciously narrow way of looking at life. As far as I'm concerned, it is enough that your support for the use of chemical weapons in built-up areas, for ethnic cleansing, for the destruction of homes and annexation of land, for starving a whole, already impoverished population into political submission, for the expulsion of an entire ethnic group, for the slaughter of women and children, for the acceptibility of the killing of hostages, for the day-to-day humiliation and persecution of the citizens of an entire city..... is added to your "all male Pakistanis are cultural perverts", "Travellers are prominent in keeping slaves", "there is nothing wrong with holding inflamatory sectarian marches in the middle of peace negotiations".... right down to your hint that maybe immigrants with aids should not receive medical treatment.... are now an archived and accessible part of your C.V. - just like Sabra and Shatila are part of Israel's. As far as I can see, you've summed up your attitude to all debate with your also classic "I'm just putting Israel's" point of view, and then going on to accuse those who oppose you (just about everybody here) as "prejudiced" - YOU REALLY COULDN'T HAVE MADE THAT ONE UP IF YOU WERE A SCRIPTWRITER FOR MONTY PYTHON!!! In your defence, I don't think I've ever come across anybody who is prepared to put the time and effort into your racism, bigotry and xenophobia that you have shown yourself willing to - keep up the good work. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: GUEST,keith A Date: 17 Nov 11 - 04:05 AM You have NOT provided evidence for any of your claims. I do not call all opponents prejudiced, only those who make up their minds without evidence. I did not dismiss UN Gen. Council or UNESCO., I just pointed out that liberal democracies are hugely outnumbered and outvoted on those fora. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Jim Carroll Date: 17 Nov 11 - 07:07 AM All lies again then Keith - thank you for making my point so succintly Have a good rally Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 17 Nov 11 - 07:43 AM Not ALL lies Jim. It is true I have only put the Israeli position. There are plenty of you busy putting only the Palestinian view. That alone does not demonstrate prejudice. Remember how you and Kevin decided Israel was wrong to oppose membership without even finding out their reasons? Prejudice. Similarly there is nothing I have seen, certainly nothing produced by you, to refute Israel's version of Sabra and Shatila But you "know" they did it! Prejudice. (Last post was me) |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: beardedbruce Date: 17 Nov 11 - 08:09 AM Ni, Jim. I am the person who pointed out that your post of Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Jim Carroll - PM Date: 16 Nov 11 - 07:27 AM ignored the fact that the UN DID conduct the investigation, and found NO MASSACRE. I am also the person who asked if you wanted the Israelis to treat the Palestinians as the Palestinians have treated the Jews in their territories, and gotten no reply. I am also the person who asked if you wanted the Israelis to treat the Palestinians as the Arab nations have treated them ( from 1948 to present), and gotten no answer. I am also the person who asked why the ethnic cleansing of Jews form the West Bank ( 1948-1967) gave them NO right to go back, but the Palestinians who left Israel ( a minority) get the right that YOU deny to Jews? I am also the person who thinks that you are a blatant bigot who could not care less about the Palestinian people, or anyone else, as long as you can demand that Jews be killed. Otherwise, you would acknowledge that SELF_DEFENSE ( that you calim is OK) would let the Israelis randomly bombard Gaza with antipersonnel rockets directed at the civilian population- WHICH THEY HAVE NOT DONE. Israel has acted, in general, in accordance with the laws of war: When they have not they should, and generally HAVE, been taken to task over those actions.- The Palestinians have repeatedly violated those laws AS STATED BY THE UN, yet you say that is OK as long as Jews get killed. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: beardedbruce Date: 17 Nov 11 - 10:40 AM Lox, " From: Lox - PM Date: 16 Nov 11 - 07:10 PM BB - you corrected yourself by replacing "People" with "Peoples". In fact, you would have been more acurate the first time. They are all just people. Even the palestinians." True. A pity Jim does not believe that the same rules he puts on Israel do not apply to the Palestinians- If there were not attacks ON Israel, there would be none on Gaza. As for the Palestinians, they have chosen to smuggle ( into Gaza) rockets and material to make them, rather than food and medicines. IMO, Israel has no responsibility to give them what they have chosen NOT to bring in themselves. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: beardedbruce Date: 17 Nov 11 - 10:44 AM Still waiting on your twist of what happened in 1949... "The United States extended de jure recognition to the Government of Transjordan and the Government of Israel on the same day, 31 January 1949.[30] Clea Bunch said that "President Truman crafted a balanced policy between Israel and its moderate Hashemite neighbours when he simultaneously extended formal recognition to the newly created state of Israel and the Kingdom of Transjordan. These two nations were inevitably linked in the President's mind as twin emergent states: one serving the needs of the refugee Jew, the other absorbing recently displaced Palestinian Arabs. In addition, Truman was aware of the private agreements that existed between Jewish Agency leaders and King Abdullah I of Jordan. Thus, it made perfect sense to Truman to favour both states with de jure recognition."[31]" " |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 17 Nov 11 - 02:23 PM Remember how you and Kevin decided Israel was wrong to oppose membership without even finding out their reasons? Prejudice. Since most countries see Palestinian statehood as right and proper, the onus for coming up with reasons why they are allwrong rests with those who oppose membership. In the absence of such reason to oppose statehood would appear to involve prejudice. The only reason you have indicated for opposing statehood appears to be that the Israel government is opposed to it. That's not in itself a reason. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 17 Nov 11 - 02:49 PM I did not express an opinion on UN membership, and I do not oppose statehood. Israel was known to be against it. You admitted not knowing their reasons, but you said they were wrong anyway! We now know UK, Europe and Canada do not support membership, and they are certainly not prejudiced against Palestine. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Jim Carroll Date: 17 Nov 11 - 03:23 PM "ignored the fact that the UN DID conduct the investigation, and found NO MASSACRE." I know that massacres did take place in Palestine in 1948 - back in the late sixties we recorded an old WW1 soldier in Liverpool and following the interview his son told us that he and his mates were on the point of embarking for Britain from Palestine when word came that Jewish freedom fighters were rampaging through some villages and clearing out the occupants by throwing hand grenades into the houses. There was a near mutint because some of the soldiers wanted to go back to stop what was happening, but were ordered on board ship by the officers - which pretty well fits in with the Wiki account of Deir Yassin - and also the fictionalised sequence in the television serial 'The Promise' earlier this year. You want to prove that these were not massacres - feel free. But to be frank - I have no interest in re-fighting battles that were fought when I was seven years old - I only raised the matter because some arsehole claimed that there had been NO MASSACRES WHATEVER I am more concerned with the killings that are taking place now, and in seeing peace brought to the Middle East in my lifetime. I don't think this is going to be achieved by slaughtering non-combatants, the use of chemical weapons and heavy artillery indiscriminately in built up areas, building Berlin-type Walls, starving people already impoverished into submission, stealing taxed gathered under an international agreement, ethnically cleansing a country of entire communities..... or, for that matter, seizing land on the say-so of a two thousand year ild fairy story. "as long as you can demand that Jews be killed." Don't you dare pull the "anti Semite" stunt with me - its already been tried on this thread to the disgrace of the person/people who used it - it's hard nosed pricks like yourself who have disgraced the Jewish people by your strutting Zionism and skulking behind the dead of Auzchwithz - you shame the six million by your very presence - you disgrace to the people you claim to support - piss off you twisted perv. Jim Carroll The Deir Yassin massacre took place on April 9, 1948, when around 120 fighters from the Irgun Zevai Leumi and Lohamei Herut Israel Zionist paramilitary groups attacked Deir Yassin near Jerusalem, a Palestinian-Arab village of roughly 600 people.[1] The assault occurred as Jewish militia sought to relieve the blockade of Jerusalem during the civil war that preceded the end of British rule in Palestine.[2] Around 107 villagers were killed during and after the battle for the village, including women and children—some were shot, while others died when hand grenades were thrown into their homes.[3] Several villagers were taken prisoner and may have been killed after being paraded through the streets of West Jerusalem, though accounts vary.[4] Four of the attackers died, with around 35 injured.[5] The killings were condemned by the leadership of the Haganah—the Jewish community's main paramilitary force—and by the area's two chief rabbis. The Jewish Agency for Israel sent Jordan's King Abdullah a letter of apology, which he rebuffed.[2] The deaths became a pivotal event in the Arab-Israeli conflict for their demographic and military consequences. The narrative was embellished and used by various parties to attack each other—by the Palestinians to besmirch Palestine's Jewish community and subsequently Israel; by the Haganah to play down their own role in the affair; and later by the Israeli Left to accuse the Irgun and Lehi of violating the Jewish principle of purity of arms, thus blackening Israel's name around the world.[6] News of the killings sparked terror within the Palestinian community, encouraging them to flee from their towns and villages in the face of Jewish troop advances, and it strengthened the resolve of Arab governments to intervene, which they did five weeks later.[2] |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 17 Nov 11 - 06:46 PM ""Otherwise, you would acknowledge that SELF_DEFENSE ( that you calim is OK) would let the Israelis randomly bombard Gaza with antipersonnel rockets directed at the civilian population- WHICH THEY HAVE NOT DONE."" True BB, they didn't ""randomly bombard Gaza with antipersonnel rockets directed at the civilian population-"", they used White phosphorus, heavy artillery and aerial attacks, all very deliberately and efficiently aimed. Nothing the least bit random. They knew exactly who was collecting all that crap. ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ""A pity Jim does not believe that the same rules he puts on Israel do not apply to the Palestinians- If there were not attacks ON Israel, there would be none on Gaza."" There are other ways of attacking a neighbour than guns you know. Every time Israel expands its settlements in its neighbour's territory, that is an attack. And that has not stopped even during ceasefires when no rockets were being fired. So Israel has never stopped attacking and shows no sign that she ever will. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 18 Nov 11 - 01:41 AM to be frank - I have no interest in re-fighting battles that were fought when I was seven years old - I only raised the matter because some arsehole claimed that there had been NO MASSACRES WHATEVER I am more concerned with the killings that are taking place now, Not true Jim. It was YOU who kept dragging us back to these events. And, NO-ONE is claiming no massacres. Your latest one. An act of terror by terrorists, not IDF or Israel. They only claimed to be acting for Israel, as all the IRAs claim to be acting for Ireland. Sabra Shatila. Fiske walked around the camps in the immediate aftermath talking to survivors. Not one implicated Israelis. Why? He saw the remains of parachute flares, and wrongly thought they were dropped from aircraft. Any soldier would tell him they never are. They are from hand launched rockets and mortars, which the militia itself would have. But you still blame Israel in the absence of any evidence at all. Just as you did the massacre at Jenin, which did not actually happen at all. Just made up lies. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Jim Carroll Date: 18 Nov 11 - 03:04 AM "Not true Jim." And it is you who persists on claiming that they never happened, ignoring the proof you are given here and that which is largely accepted by the world and demanding yet more - it is you, not me (nor anybody else who has had stood up to your 'dripping tap' style of argument, who has taken sides - the side of a terrorist state with ethnic cleansing in mind. "And, NO-ONE is claiming no massacres." "No massacres" were your EXACT WORDS. Or were you only "quoting reliable experts"? "Not one implicated Israelis." The Israelis ,DROVE THE KILLERS TO THE MURDER SITE, THEY OPENED THE GATES TO ALLOW THEM ACCESS TO THEIR VICTIMS, THEY PROVIDED ILLUMINATION SO THE KILLERS COULD CARRY OUT THEIR WORK EFFICIENTLY, THEY STOOD BY WHILE THE KILLING WENT ON KILLING AND THEY HELPED BURY THE BODIES UNDER WHAT IS NOW THE STADIUM. THERE IS EYE WITNESS EVIDENCE THAT THEY WERE IN THE CAMPS WHILE THE SLAUGHTER TOOK PLACE - ONE WOMAN DESCRIBED HOW SHE SAW THE SOLDIERS STANDING BY WITNESSING THE WOMEN WHO WERE BEING HERDED AWAY TO BE RAPED THEN MURDERED. THE MASSACRE WOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN ABLE TO TAKE PLACE WITHOUT THE FULL AND ENTHUSIASTICE PARTICIPATION OF ISRAELI TROOPS - THAT IS THE VERY LEAST OF THEIR IMPLICATIONS IN MASS MURDER AND IT IS FULLY ACCEPTED THAT THIS IS WHAT THEY DID - WHICH OF THESE ACTIONS DO YOU CLAIM DID NOT TAKE PLACE ? You remain a sordid little holocaust and ethnic cleansing supporter; once again, thanks fort the confirmation. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 18 Nov 11 - 03:18 AM Jim, what is the source for that tale told in red capitals? Tell us why we should believe any of it please. "And it is you who persists on claiming that they never happened," Not true. I am just asking for the evidence you should have. "ignoring the proof you are given here " Sometimes posts go missing Jim. None has appeared. "and that which is largely accepted by the world" I challenge that. Please justify. " "No massacres" were your EXACT WORDS." Lie. I said "No massacre" about Jenin, which was true. You were wrong to cite that massacre because it never happened. Just made up lies. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Jim Carroll Date: 18 Nov 11 - 05:12 AM Subject: RE: BS: Palestine From: Keith A of Hertford - PM Date: 19 Oct 11 - 08:38 AM No chemical weapons at all. No massacres at all. Which illustrates perfectly why there is no point whatever in responding to your Zionist propaganda - you lie - this was a statement you made before the Janin massacre was even a twinkle.... I really can't see why you take part in these debates - you admit ignorance on the subjects yet you dont read what others have to say you appear not even to read your own posts in order to allay that ignorance. You've lied about this - you lied about taking your information about culturally perverted Pakistanis from "experts" - you singularly have ignored requests to provide a quote of anybody else saying it - if this is not true - PUT UP YOUR QUOTE It all seems a gigantic ego trip to you. As far as the Sabra Shatila massacre massacre is concerned - it's been put up to you - they are the findings of everybody except the Israelis - which you have admitted is the case you are batting for - LOOK IT UP FOR YOURSELF Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: MGM·Lion Date: 18 Nov 11 - 05:36 AM "a sordid little holocaust and ethnic cleansing supporter;" were words you used of Keith a couple of posts back, Jim. I have, as you will have observed, not contributed to this thread of late; but feel bound to remind you, yet again, that "holocaust" has become a word of very specific meaning, whatever its original connotation of sacrifice: and it is impolitic of anyone to use it of just any politically or racially motivated killing. This is especially the case on your part, considering the resentment expressed by you about some of BB's accusations, [and some of mine same way back, for that matter, since withdrawn]. You have seen before that flinging this word around unthinkingly, in particular in regard to Israeli actions, is liable to lay you open to certain suspicions which you have repeatedly stated do not apply to you: so why persist in giving further rise to them? It is, note again please, widely regarded as an antisemitic act to use that word in relation to Israel. If you persist in doing so, conclusions as to your bona fides are bound to be drawn. ~Michael~ |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Jim Carroll Date: 18 Nov 11 - 06:06 AM And I continue to remind you mike that you have been found supporting Keith's anti Pakistani racism while objecting to the same aimed against Jews. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 18 Nov 11 - 06:17 AM As far as the Sabra Shatila massacre massacre is concerned - it's been put up to you - they are the findings of everybody except the Israelis All you have put up to support this is a Wiki page. That page warned that no citations had ever been provided for the claims of Israeli complicity. You dishonestly and deceitfully deleted those warnings from your cut and paste. There is no doubt the massacre happened. Israel acknowledges it. I gave their version an no-one has provided anything to refute any part of it. If you have something now, post it! |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Jim Carroll Date: 18 Nov 11 - 06:42 AM No Keith - you've had it LOOK for IT YOURSELF I assume that your silence on the other two issueds is an admission that you have lied and now intend to attempt the divert the topic onto another track Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 18 Nov 11 - 06:47 AM I have made clear by repeated statements that I do not deny massacres, or even Israeli participation. Being open-minded and unprejudiced, I ask for evidence. That has been my case throughout. The "NO MASSACRES" post (month ago different thread) was in the context of Israeli guilt for Sabra Shatila, as my very next post makes clear. I only had time for a quick post. This was the clarification. Keith A of Hertford - PM Date: 19 Oct 11 - 07:39 PM Jim, chemical weapons. Everyone here now knows that wp smoke rounds, though dangerous, are not as dangerous as actual weapons, and wp is not classed as a chemical weapon in any form. You calling it that is just lying propaganda to demonize Israel. If you had a case you would not need to make that up. The 2 massacres. The Israelis should have anticipated what happened, and maybe could have stopped it sooner. They deny participation. You had to delete stuff from a Wiki page because it showed that there was nothing to support that claim. Your action shows you have nothing. You said their were "independent enquiries" and "official enquiries" that support you, but you made it all up. A week later you have produced nothing. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 18 Nov 11 - 06:50 AM No Keith - you've had it LOOK for IT YOURSELF I have looked. There is nothing. If there was you would attack me with it. You lie. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: beardedbruce Date: 18 Nov 11 - 07:43 AM Jim, Not anly are you a bigot, YOU CANT READ! " I am the person who pointed out that your post of Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Jim Carroll - PM Date: 16 Nov 11 - 07:27 AM ignored the fact that the UN DID conduct the investigation, and found NO MASSACRE." REFERS TO Jenin ONLY |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Jim Carroll Date: 18 Nov 11 - 08:16 AM "made clear by repeated statements that I do not deny massacres, or even Israeli participation." "No chemical weapons at all. No massacres at all. " Is there any point whatever in proceeding with this farce? Which of the above statements is really yours - the one where you claim there to have been "No massacres at all" or the one where you say you have "made clear by repeated statements that I do not deny massacres, or even Israeli participation." One way or the other, you are lying in the face of your own statements. Jenin REFERS TO Jenin ONLY I am not interested in nit-picking about individual massacres - there are plenty of others to replace "marginal" ones - The description of tese 'non-massacres' makes them fully-blown atrocities against civilians - if these are not massacres they certainly count as crimes against civilians. Your bully thuggishness throughout these threads reflects those you support - take your Zionist cause and shove it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Jenin Sabra /Shatila massacres Probably the most comprehensive eye-witness description of the massacre which corresponds to everything I have read and watched down the years http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=0e0_1177434535 IDF and Christian milia massacre of sabra and shatila - Video #1 The Forgotten massacre of sabra and shatila . a crime against humanity committed by the Israeli soldiers and Christian militia against Palestinian families in southern Lebanon refugee camps " Sabra and Shatila in 1982 " ------------------ * Sabra-Shatila Massacre: In September 1982, just a few weeks after the Palestinian men had surrendered their weapons under an internationally brokered peace deal, and were deported from Beirut leaving their families under the protection of an international peace keeping force, the Israeli army invaded Beirut, violating the peace treaty, and some 3000 defenceless Palestinian women and children were rounded up in the refugee camps of Sabra and Shatila and systematically murdered in cold blood. (For a repeat of this tragedy see Srebrenica in 1995 - only that time it was 8000 Muslim men who were slaughtered after they had handed their weapons to the UN forces who had guaranteed them a "safe haven")................... The slaughter of unarmed children, women, the aged and the infirm was shocking. For me, I was doubly outraged that I had to discover the truth about a brave and generous people only through their deaths. Until then, I never knew Palestinian refugees existed. As a fundamentalist Christian, I had been a supporter of Israel, hated Arabs and saw the Palestinian Liberation Organisation as terrorists to be loathed and feared." Extract from the back cover of her book "From Beirut To Jerusalem" ............ Timeline of the Massacre This is a reconstructed timeline of the events leading up to the massacre in the refugee camps of Sabra and Shatila, as well as the event itself. Most of the information is based on the findings of New York Times correspondent Thomas L. Friedman (as quoted in his article "U.S. PRESSES ISRAEL TO LET U.N. TROOPS MOVE INTO BEIRUT" in the September 20, 1982 issue of The New York Times), whose collection of credible personal witness-accounts as well as those of other reporters have greatly contributed to form this reconstruction of the actual timeline. In addition, information has been taken from Friedman's September 27th, 1982, New York Times article ("ISRAELI GENERAL IN BEIRUT SAYS HE DID NOT KNOW OF KILLINGS") as well as from the report issued by the Israeli Kahan commission of inquiry. Tuesday, September 14th, 1982 Morning - President-elect Bashir Gemayel is assassinated Ariel Sharon and Israeli Lt. Gen Eytan decide to send Phalange into camps Wednesday, September 15th Morning - Israeli tanks move into Muslim West Beirut Eytan orders Phalange to mobilize Afternoon- Area around Sabra and Shatila surrounded by Israeli troops Israeli checkpoints are set up First sightings of Christian militiamen heading into Beirut from the airport Evening- Exchanges of gunfire and shelling in the camps (slight number of casualties) Trucks carrying Phalange militiamen reported heading towards the airport Thursday, September 16th Morning- Constant shooting and shelling in Shatila Phalange commanders meet with Israeli Gen. Drori to coordinate entry of militia Afternoon - 1,200 to 1,400 Christian militiamen gathered together at the airport Evening- Phalangist checkpoints are set up Christian militiamen enter Sabra and Shatila refugee camps under command Of Phalange chief Mr. Hobeika, encounter little resistance, round up dozens Of civilians Israeli forces receive information on atrocities from witnesses, intercepted Phalange radio transmissions First wounded and casualties arrive at area hospitals with gunshot and shrapnel wounds in the head, chest and stomach; Patients specify Phalangist role Night- Israeli forces light flares over camps to provide light to militiamen inside Friday, September 17th Morning- Over 1,000 Palestinians from Sabra and Shatila seek protection around Gaza Hospital Hundreds of Palestinians are reportedly rounded up by Phalange militia in Shatila Gen. Drori calls for halt of operations Arriving Phalange turned back at airport Afternoon- Gen. Drori meets Gen. Eytan, does not discuss killings, orders 5 A.M. withdrawal Of Phalange militia Trucks loaded with women and children leave camps Bulldozers with scoops full of bodies are reported seen in camps Israelis provide Phalange with provisions Nurse on 8th Floor of Gaza hospital killed by sniper fire 82 Patients flee hospital, Red Cross evacuates 6 babies Christian militia takes over Akka Hospital, Palestinian nurse raped and shot, Two Palestinian doctors and one patient taken out of hospital by militia, Two doctors And two nurses killed by grenade Evening- Shooting still going on inside Shatila Saturday, September 18th Morning- Phalange leave camps at 8 A.M. Christian militia enters Gaza hospital, orders everyone out, shelter-seekers are Rounded up, 600 Palestinian civilians are forced to march main street of Shatila At gunpoint Reporters are allowed to enter the camps Lebanese army moves into camps Recovery efforts begin Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: beardedbruce Date: 18 Nov 11 - 08:18 AM Don, "True BB, they didn't ""randomly bombard Gaza with antipersonnel rockets directed at the civilian population-"", they used White phosphorus, heavy artillery and aerial attacks, all very deliberately and efficiently aimed." AIMED at the rocket launch points- which any fair-minded person would consider a legitimate target. The FACT that these points were in civilian areas IS A WAR CRIME on the part of the Palestinians. "Every time Israel expands its settlements in its neighbour's territory, that is an attack." WHOSE territory??? I have shown, WITHOUT ANY ARGUMENT FROM YOU OR JIM that the West Bank is currently Israeli territory. Yes, ISRAEL has offered to give it up in trade for peace, BUT THE PALESTINIANS HAVE NOT AGREED TO THAT. Thus, it remains Israeli property. So, since it is the Palestinians WHO ARE ATTACKING Israel's territory, with every rocket launch, Israel is justified in taking far harsher action than they have. As for "ethnic cleansing, HOW MANY ARAB MOSLIMS LIVE IN ISRAEL? HOW MANY JEWS LIVE IN ARAB NATIONS? Compare these numbers to the figures in 1940 or 1945, and THEN talk to me. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: beardedbruce Date: 18 Nov 11 - 08:24 AM Jim, "I am not interested in nit-picking about individual massacres - there are plenty of others to replace "marginal" ones - The description of tese 'non-massacres' makes them fully-blown atrocities against civilians - if these are not massacres they certainly count as crimes against civilians." As long as YOU continue to lie about SOME of them, YOUR posts about any have no validity- YOU ARE A LYING BIGOT WHOSE POSTS CANNOT BE TRUSTED TO BE TRUE. As for massacres, how about those of Jews BY Palestinins?? BTW, Still waiting... " I am also the person who asked if you wanted the Israelis to treat the Palestinians as the Palestinians have treated the Jews in their territories, and gotten no reply. I am also the person who asked if you wanted the Israelis to treat the Palestinians as the Arab nations have treated them ( from 1948 to present), and gotten no answer. I am also the person who asked why the ethnic cleansing of Jews from the West Bank ( 1948-1967) gave them NO right to go back, but the Palestinians who left Israel ( a minority) get the right that YOU deny to Jews?" |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: beardedbruce Date: 18 Nov 11 - 08:40 AM Jim, In addition, how about massacres of palestinians by other ARAB nations? THAT is fine by you, it seems- you just get unhappy if you think Jews might defend themselves. As for brutish thuggishness, I have seen a lot of that here- BY YOU. If you have NO support for what you want to prove, attacking those who disagree with you is just a demonstration of that. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Jim Carroll Date: 18 Nov 11 - 08:41 AM "As long as YOU continue to lie about SOME of them, " NO I DON'T LIE ABOUT them Keith is the liar here with his contradictory claims - and you dissemble wit your diversive tactics Do I want Israelis to treat Palestinians.... I suppport no side in this argument - the barbarism of "an eye for an eye" belongs where it originated - in the Bible Book of Fables Of course the massacre of anybody is wrong Jews, Muslims... and by denying it is happening will nly perpetuate it - and religious fanaticism of any brand is one guarantee that it will continue - so you may shove yours with your accusations of bigotry. If there has been ethnic cleansing, which I doubt, it is no excuse for further ethic cleansing - and where do you thing the Bedouins feature in all this? As I said - stick your Zionist bigotry as far as it will go - it kills people. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: MGM·Lion Date: 18 Nov 11 - 09:16 AM Jim: I supported Keith in no racism on that long-since Pakistani thread; I simply pointed out that you provided no convincing instance of his having expressed any, but were simply convicting him in your own 'made-up-so-don't-confuse-me-with-facts' mind on the grounds of some statements you had taken your doctrinaire exception to in earlier threads. Your counter-warning to me about this is mere evasive 'whataboutery', in no way contradictive of my pointing out that it is no use your constantly denying being antisemitic while you persist in employing a usage which you know, because you have repeatedly been told so, is widely, even universally, accepted as antisemitic. Whatever misinterpretations you might have put on posts of mine on previous threads, only tenuously, if at all, related to this one, the fact is not altered that YOU PERSIST IN ADOPTING A USAGE WHICH YOU KNOW TO BE INTRINSICALLY ANTISEMITIC, and then come on all wounded 'poor-misunderstood-me' if accused of antisemitism. You can't have it both ways, Jim. Stop using the word "Holocaust" in relation to Israel or we shall all KNOW beyond a shadow of a doubt that you are an antisemite. What Keith or I may or may not think of Pakistanis who interfere with girls in Bradford, like ♫the flowers that bloom in the spring tra-la♫ {W S Gilbert, The Mikado} has nothing to do with the case. ~M~ |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: beardedbruce Date: 18 Nov 11 - 09:30 AM Jim, The facts show that 1. There HAS been ethnic cleansing BY THE ARAB MOSLIMS from 1948 to 1967 1. The Fact of Israeli ethnic cleansing is not yet determined one way or the other. Looking at the Arab population of Israel vs the Jewish population of Arab nations, you are hard pressed to justify the claim, but feel free to try.If you have factual statements to make, rather than lying rants by known bigots, feel free to present them. MY questions were NOT "an eye for an eye". I was asking if you thought it better for Israel to 1. Continue to treat the Palestinians the way they are presently 2. OR Treat the Palestinians the way the Arab Moslims have treated the Jews, 3. OR Treat the Palestinians the way the Other Arab Moslim States have treated the Palestinians. I understand you may not want to consider answering a question, when you can rant about the person who disagrees with you, but I would like to know which YOU think is the best course of action for the Palestinians to hope for. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 18 Nov 11 - 09:55 AM Jim, you are being dishonest. When I posted, "no massacres" we had only ever discussed Sabra and Shatila in the whole thread. That was the whole context, as made clear in my following post. It was the shortest of posts followed by a clarification and only referring to Israeli invovement in massacres of Sabra and Shatila. (You have now provided some evidence after over a month of asking and denying. Thank you.) |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Jim Carroll Date: 18 Nov 11 - 10:54 AM "Jim, you are being dishonest." NO I AM NOT - WE HAVE CONSTANTLY DISCUSSED MASSACRES - WHAT YOU ACTUALLY WROTE WAS NO MASSACRES AT ALL indicating that you were referring to all of them that had been pointed out to you, Is there no end to your lying? And your lying about having a source for your " Male Pakistani implant" claim.....? Mike, I was just looking through your hysterical torrent of abuse at my observing similarities between the massacre of Jews and the massacre of Palestinians. I wuld have found it deeply insulting if it had not come from somebody who sees no racism in the claim that "All male Pakistanis have a cultural implant which makes them sexual threats to young girls" The fact that you now write this off as "some statements you had taken your doctrinaire exception to" confirms me that you are both a hypocrite and a closet (highly selective) racist - so please feel free to regard me as an Anti-Semite if you feel it covers your own racism in any way. Don't you take exceptioon to such blatent racist stereotyping - silly question, of course you don't!! - I HAVE NEVER COMPARED LIKE WITH LIKE, nor would I, but the slaughter of any group of human beings because they are in the way of political or territorial ambition is bound to attract such claims of similarities as far as I'm concerned. "1. Continue to treat the Palestinians the way they are presently" You mean to continue the persecution, humiliation, attempts to starve them into submission... How about treating them as the human beings they are.... Whatever the military and political problems, the Israelis claim to fame has been the deliberate slaughter and persecution of civilians - now apparently even accepted by Keith - albeit grudgingly. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: beardedbruce Date: 18 Nov 11 - 11:13 AM Jim, As usual, you fail to address the question, and make claims without any factual basis. I take it you have nothing worthwhile to even say, from your reply. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: MGM·Lion Date: 18 Nov 11 - 11:55 AM ... &, Jim, you miss, or deliberately avoid, my point with continued inaccurate counter-accusatory irrelevancies. You are clearly impressing nobody with your demagogic rants which fail to engage with any question you are asked or any point made to you. You are doing yourself very little credit, I fear. ~M~ |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 18 Nov 11 - 12:00 PM NO I AM NOT - WE HAVE CONSTANTLY DISCUSSED MASSACRES - WHAT YOU ACTUALLY WROTE WAS NO MASSACRES AT ALL indicating that you were referring to all of them that had been pointed out to you, Not true Jim. I read right through the old thread up to that post. Only those 2 massacres discussed. Deny that? I did a quick 5 word post (not counting "at alls") and clarified when I had time next post. It was just about those 2 massacres. That was over a month of solid debate ago and I have never denied all massacres. Deny that? If you have to resort to dishonesty to make your case, is it worth making Jim? |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 18 Nov 11 - 12:03 PM Israelis claim to fame has been the deliberate slaughter and persecution of civilians - now apparently even accepted by Keith - albeit grudgingly. I have accepted the evidence you have finally provided. It is not as convincing as you suggest. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 18 Nov 11 - 05:50 PM There really is no question butbthat there have been numerous massacres carried out in this cobnflict iover the years. Some by Paletinians or their allies, but far more by Israeli forces, and these have resulted in far more deaths. I remember putting up a link to a neutral source listing all of these up to the date it was produced, a list which provided links to information about all of them. I can't recall whether it was on this thread or its predecessor. Unfortunately "there were no masscres" is pretty well never true, wherever you look, in any conflict, and much of the time when there isn't even a conflict. Here is a link to a list by country, with links to details.. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 19 Nov 11 - 02:41 AM No-one is claiming "no massacres"! To make that claim against me, Jim had to go back nearly a thousand posts in two threads to find a hurried post where I appear to deny all massacres, but only if you ignore the context of the previous posts (just Sabra/Shatila), ignore the clarification I gave in the following post (just Sabra/Shatila), and ignore the fact that in the subsequent month of posting on the same subject I never made such a ludicrous claim again! It was a false and dishonest attempt to deceive. Like deleting "citation needed" warnings from a cut and paste. Like his smear campaign against me as a person. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 19 Nov 11 - 02:52 AM I do remeber Your List kevin, and I worked through a large number. There is a striking difference between those attributed to Israel and Palestinians. Israeli ones usually involve a possible over-reaction or disproportionate response to a genuine security challenge. Palestinian ones tend to be planned and deliberate, like a bomber picking out a bus carrying many Jewish children. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 19 Nov 11 - 04:33 AM Jim, in your 18 Nov 11 - 10:54 AM post you put something in quotes and attributed it to me. I never made such a statement and never would. It does not represent my views. It is another lie. If you have to be dishonest to make a case, it is not worth making Jim. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Jim Carroll Date: 19 Nov 11 - 08:48 AM Keith - you continue to lie - somewhat desperately "No massacres at all" mean exactly that -"No massacres at all" You now appear to be inventing a context in which it means something else. You have backed up your claim by denying every single Israli atrocity that has been placed before you. Mike A simple acid test: Please replace Keith's "every make Pakistani" with "every Jewish male" and tell me that it is not offensive racism - look forward to your response with some interest. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Jim Carroll Date: 19 Nov 11 - 09:00 AM PS By the way Keith - you originally claimed that yor "no massacres at all" referred to Jenin - cn't you even stick to your own script??? Back to the West Clare festival of Traditional singing Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 19 Nov 11 - 09:55 AM Jim, when you accused me of saying it, I thought you meant recently. I had recently said "no massacre" about Jenin. How was I to know you had gone back to a previous thread and a previous month?? Do you suppose I meant there has never been a massacre in history? Or even in the history of Palestine? Why did you not challenge such an extraordinary and absurd statement at the time? Answer, because we were just talking about Israel's guilt for Sabra and Shatila. I had not time for a full answer that day, but the context was clear enough and anyway I clarified it IN MY NEXT POST. Have I made such a ludicrous denial before or since? You are a dishonest man. For the sake of a debating point on a Mudcat thread you make a liar of yourself. I remind you that you faked a quote yesterday. You must know what I really said after all the arguments about it, but you need to lie to stand up your baseless smear. Contemptible. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: MGM·Lion Date: 19 Nov 11 - 10:03 AM Jim ~~ Fair challenge. The quote you refer to is some time since. Can you copy/paste it for me to reconsider, with a date/time ref? If precisely as you word it, I should certainly find it objectionable; but it is so far of yore that I will need to have it presented back precisely. I am honestly not even sure on what thread to look for it. My recolleciton is that I was not supporting all Keith's views at the time, but endeavouring simply to confine the discussion to the particular news item as to some disproportion in certain offences brought to trial in specific locations, to the distress of several prominent people incl leading Muslims; but the thread kept getting muddied by accusations given rise by this, of a sort of general racism not applicable to the specific instances. The quick answer to your question as you put it above is that of course I would not regard it as an acceptable proposition; but I shall need a bit more confirmation that precisely such terms were ever used of any demographic. ~M~ |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 19 Nov 11 - 11:33 AM Here is the post Michael. Please read previous posts to get it in context. thread.cfm?threadid=135090&messages=2602&page=12#3094279 |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: MGM·Lion Date: 19 Nov 11 - 12:28 PM Thank you, Keith. I still am a bit vague about it all; but I seem to recall, Jim, thanks to this reminder, that it was not just Keith who was trying to keep the thread on track in relation to a particular set of statistics recently published; but Lizzie, Bruce, and several others as well as myself; in the face of some point-missing (& in at least one case abusively inaccurate speculations as to my excretory arrangements on which I do not need to be more specific} denunciations of racism from some others. I can't see that anything was said particularly similar to the remark you think I should take exception to if it related to Jews rather than to Pakistanis: I am not aware of any Jewish activity resulting in a statistic of the sort we were addressing ourselves to having ever been referenced, except conceivably in Nürnberg in 1934 where the Will was Triumphant, or having ever featured in any news medium. If any such Jewish-based statistic had arisen for consideration then the case would be altered, would it not? I cannot know for sure in the abstract how I would react to any conclusion that might be drawn from consideration of such a phenomenon. Hope that addresses your point, Jim. ~M~ |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 19 Nov 11 - 07:06 PM ""Stop using the word "Holocaust" in relation to Israel or we shall all KNOW beyond a shadow of a doubt that you are an antisemite."" Michael, purely in the interests of balance in debate, do you not at times feel that the Israelis are much too inclined to use their victim status as a weapon to prevent criticism of their actions? Whenever anybody attempts to take them to task for their arrogance and intransigence (both of which you have acknowledged to exist) they are likely to respond with a reference, direct or implied, to the Holocaust. The phrase "What's sauce for the goose....etc" does tend to present itself, even to those of us who are not "anti" anyone. We have a number of people on this thread who are, like myself and you, of the opinion that both sides need to give way to some extent, and ranged against us a few who cannot abide any criticism of Israel, and cannot countenance the idea of Israel being in the slightest responsible for the present hostilities. This situation, expanded to the World at Large, explains why Israel feels empowered to do exactly as it wishes, regardless of the cost in human life, and call any and all objectors anti semites. Perhaps you see it differently, but from where I sit Jim's comment, while undiplomatic, has some merit and is worthy of discussion rather than dismissal with accusations of anti semitism. Perhaps if he had made the same statement using an alternative word?....but then that would have simply been a euphemism. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: MGM·Lion Date: 20 Nov 11 - 01:31 AM No, it wouldn't have been a euphemism, I don't think, Don: it isn't a euphemisable word IMO. We have had the precise connotations of 'Massacre' discussed to death[!] on this thread: that is no euphemism, but a perfectly apposite word to call on in the context. But "Nazi" & "Holocaust", with their overtones ~~ and in particular, re the latter of which we are speaking ~~ have a peculiar referent which is of peculiar offensiveness, and have for long carried definite implications as to the motivations of those using them re Israel ~ implications of which Jim is well aware. I am simply reminding him of the accusations he is purposefully, as it seems to me, inviting by his pertinacity in employing the term. I do not think he is really, consciously, antisemitic {any more than I know myself to be racist, howsomever much he may call on the term in a sort of aggressive self-defence}; but I reiterate that he is impolitic in the extreme to go on repeating this deliberate provocation and then hoping his motivations will not be denounced as such. If one must find a figure of speech to define 'holocaust' here, I think hyperbole would do much better than euphemism. Think of the numerical scale of the Holocaust; remember the pictures of piles of corpses and hair and spectacles & children's shoes ~~ and one should be ashamed of letting a train of thought in the present discussion even letting one anywhere near such a usage. ~M~ |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 20 Nov 11 - 04:22 AM Jim, re. Sabra and Shatila, your timeline has nothing to refute Israel's version of events, and your eye-witness did not witness any Israeli wrongdoing. As I have said all along, it is disputed and I have still seen no evidence of Israel's guilt so I will keep an open mind. (Unprejudiced!) It is not disputed that a Muslim militia carried out a massacre later in those camps. Why no outrage about that Jim? Is it only a massacre if Jews can be accused? Most or all of the "massacres" in your list involve demonstrators. Arab security forces routinely fire on unarmed demonstrators (Hamas 12th Nov 2007, Egypt Lybia Syria this year) with no outrage ever expressed by you. Is this not another example of your prejudice? |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 20 Nov 11 - 07:42 AM The term "Holocaust" is also used in the context of the slaughter of Armenians in 1915 - which seems to have been used as a precedent by Hitler, who in face of questions about "Final Solution" is quoted as saying "Who, after all, speaks to-day of the annihilation of the Armenians?" I do not think that when people in Turkey have been imprisoned for referring to this episode as "the Armenian Holocaust" it would be reasonable to infer that this happened because the words were seen as "antisemitic". When the word is deployed it is intended to have shock effect, as an accusation that some action is comparable to that of the Nazis. I think using it in this way is generally a mistake, since it invites the response that the actions in question are not on the same scale as that of Nazi Germany, and thus can even tend to trivialise their actual horror by the comparison. However I do not think that it is correct to see it as an expression of antisemitism - a true antisemite might indeed be expected to see a comparison of Israel with Nazi Germany as unacceptable, because it would involve saying something favourable about the Jewish government. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Jim Carroll Date: 20 Nov 11 - 08:36 AM Oh dear - pay attention class!!! "Don I do now " believe that all male Pakistani Muslims (Jews?) have a culturally implanted tendency"" towards having sex with under-age girls Your argument appears to indicate that there is evidence of Keith's statements Mike - can you confirm this to be the case? Stop digging Keith - you claimed there have been no massacres carried out by Israel, then you said that nobody had made such a claim. Stop lying. Now, in the face of an account placed before you of the Shatila Sabra massacres, you continue to deny there to be any evidence - Stop lying. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: GUEST,Teribus Date: 20 Nov 11 - 08:47 AM "Oh dear - pay attention class!!!" - Jim Carroll Not to you dear boy - you are plainly delusional. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: MGM·Lion Date: 20 Nov 11 - 09:42 AM ... and hysterical. I have not the remotest idea what the following, apparently addressed to me ---"Don I do now " believe that all male Pakistani Muslims (Jews?) have a culturally implanted tendency"" towards having sex with under-age girls Your argument appears to indicate that there is evidence of Keith's statements Mike - can you confirm this to be the case?--- is supposed to mean; and I frankly don't believe you know either, Jim. Nor what it is supposed to have to do with the topic of this thread. Nor what you are calling on me to 'confirm'. Just more of your demagogic hysteria, is all I can make of it. Over & out... |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Lox Date: 20 Nov 11 - 12:56 PM "It is not disputed that a Muslim militia carried out a massacre later in those camps. Why no outrage about that Jim? Is it only a massacre if Jews can be accused?" All massacres deserve condemnation. Some Mudcatters wish to justify and/or deny massacres committed by Israel. Hence there is a discussion about those ones. Keith is one of those catters that wish to let Israel of the hook for their massacres. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 20 Nov 11 - 01:37 PM And, predictably, nobody felt inclined to make any response to my point about the Israelis cynically using the victim status conferred by that attempted genocide, to deflect any criticism of their oppressive behaviour. For how long does historical victimhood grant the right to special consideration? Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Jim Carroll Date: 20 Nov 11 - 02:23 PM " I have not the remotest idea what the following, apparently addressed to me" You are acting as stupid as Keith, (only he isn't acting) - that is the statement you claimed was not racist (course it wasn't when it was addressed to Muslims!!!) Having shrieked hysterically that anyone (me in particular) is a "Jew Baiting Anti Semite" for seeing a resemblence in the ethnic cleansing by the Israeli Zionists and that of the Nazis - you now appear to be attempting to support your previous claim that while it is permissable to write off a whole ethnic culture as sexual perverts, it would only be racist to make exactly the same claim about Jews - making you a racist hypocrite "Over & out..." totally lacking the bottle even to respond to your own racism - over and out indeed. A matched pair, (I was forgetting Terrytoon and BB) - a full house I think. "Israelis cynically using the victim status conferred by that attempted genocide, to deflect any criticism of their oppressive behaviour." Isn't this what it is all about Don? "It is not disputed that a Muslim militia.....)" Well, it is actually - The Lebanese Phalanges (Arabic: ÍÒÈ ÇáßÊÇÆÈ ÇááÈäÇäíÉ, Hezb al-Kata'eb al-Loubnaniyya), better known in English as the Phalange (Arabic: Kata'eb), is a traditional right-wing Lebanese political party. Although it is officially secular, it is mainly supported by Maronite Christians. It is you and you alone who has attempted to absolve the instigators, and almost certainly, the active participants of the massacre - the Israelis - from blame You have persistantly stated that you "only wish to present the Israeli case" for these and all other massacres. Nobody else here (apart from your trio of friends) has attempted to excuse or support any human rights abuses or war crimes. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 20 Nov 11 - 04:36 PM It is not disputed that a Muslim militia carried out a massacre later in those camps. Why no outrage about that Jim? Is it only a massacre if Jews can be accused? From Wiki On May 19, 1985, heavy fighting erupted between Amal and Palestinian camp militias for the control of the Sabra, Shatila and Burj el-Barajneh camps in Beirut. Amal was supported by the predominantly Shiite Sixth Brigade of the Lebanese Army commanded by Major-General Abd al-Halim Kanj [1] and even by some units of the predominantly Christian Eighth Brigade loyal to General Michel Aoun stationed in East Beirut. Virtually all the houses in the camps were reduced to rubble. In Shatila, the Palestinians only retained the part of the camp centered around the mosque. Burj al-Barajneh remained under siege as Amal prevented supplies from entering or its population from leaving. The death toll remains uncertain, but is likely to have been high. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Lox Date: 20 Nov 11 - 05:31 PM Keith, Once again, All massacres deserve condemnation. Some Mudcatters wish to justify and/or deny massacres committed by Israel. Hence there is a discussion about those ones. You are one of those catters that wish to let Israel of the hook for their massacres. Show me where anyone else sticks up for, justifies or denies any other massacres .... Nobody - just you and your pals justifying or denying the Israeli ones. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 21 Nov 11 - 01:36 AM Not true Lox. Not in this or previous thread. Both were started to discuss the membership application, a discussion I have tried to keep going. Jim's only contribution has been to assert that the Jews of Israel are monsters. First he said they mistreat the Bedouin. I countered by providing evidence that they treated them rather well, and certainly much better than Egypt who Jim did not criticise. Then he said they massacred refugees at Sabra and Shatila. I countered that there was no evidence that they did any such thing, but proof that neighbouring Arabs carried out a worse massacre there without reproach from Jim. He then said that they massacred civilians at Jenin. BB and I informed him that no civilians had been killed there at all! It was just a made up lie. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 21 Nov 11 - 04:11 AM Jim, Now, in the face of an account placed before you of the Shatila Sabra massacres, you continue to deny there to be any evidence Thanks for the account Jim. It does not implicate Israelis in the massacre. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Jim Carroll Date: 21 Nov 11 - 04:13 AM Are you really trying to absolve the Israelis from the leading part they played in the Sabra/Shatia massacres by claiming - they did it as well. Apart from yourself, everybody here is deploring the violence in the Middle East and arguing for a peaceful solution - you are claiming consistently that Israel is innocent of any human rights violations whatever You have supported massacres of civilians as "self defence", chemical weapons used in built-up areas as "illuminations", described the role of the Israelis in two of the largest massacres to have taken place since WW2 as "failing to stop them from happening," the killing of what you claim to be "hostages" as "acceptable in wartime".... You have downgraded humanitarian aid as "junk" and the killing of unarmed aid-bringers by highly trained and well armed troops as "self-defence" - as well as the bringing of that aid as "politically motivated". You have failed to comment on the mass expulsion of the Bedouins, the criminal (though as yet untried) supervision of war crimes by an Israeli politician, the prevention of use of land vital to to livelihood of an already impoverished people by a Berlin-type wall, the frighteningly Nazi-like humiliation and persecution of ordinary Palestinians on a daily basis And you say we are ignoring human rights abuses and supporting killing Give us a break JIM Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: GUEST,keith A Date: 21 Nov 11 - 04:31 AM Are you really trying to absolve the Israelis from the leading part they played in the Sabra/Shatila massacres No. I am saying there is no evidence that they did. You have failed to produce anything despite weeks of asking. you are claiming consistently that Israel is innocent of any human rights violations whatever No. I am not. You have failed to comment on the mass expulsion of the Bedouins, I am not aware that they have been expelled from Israel. I have commented on their (rather good) treatment in Israel. There has been no discussion here of issues like the wall. Are you thinking of starting a thread about them? |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Jim Carroll Date: 21 Nov 11 - 05:26 AM ven Mike, with his racist double standards, hs expressed his disquiet of the behaviour of the Zionists in Israel - you have not and until you do you will remin an apologist for war crimes and acts of inhumanity against non-combatants. You have even realised that you overstepped the mark by claiming "no massacres at all", but instead of accepting that as a mistake and withdrawing it, which would have been th sensible thing to do, you first denied that it had ever been claimed, and then attempted to lie your way out of it - which makes you not only an apologist for war crimes and abuses against civilians, but a rather clumsy liar. Even now you are attempting to describe the stated intention by the Israelis themselves to expel a whole ethnic group as "(rather good) treatment" - are you not worried by your own fanatical behaviour - I would be? Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 21 Nov 11 - 05:27 AM Confirming my last post. Jim, your timeline provides evidence AGAINST Israeli complicity, but NO EVIDENCE FOR it. Did you read it before posting it? |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 21 Nov 11 - 05:30 AM the stated intention by the Israelis themselves to expel a whole ethnic group You have made that up Jim. (Nice colours and fonts though) |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Jim Carroll Date: 21 Nov 11 - 08:06 AM Your support for human rights abuses goes far beyond anybody elses here - and Mike objected to my describing it as comparable with holocaust denial!!! jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: GUEST,keith A Date: 21 Nov 11 - 08:48 AM I have supported NO human rights abuse. Not one. None. 0. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 21 Nov 11 - 09:30 AM I am sure you actually believe that to be true, Keith. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 21 Nov 11 - 10:47 AM Put one up and shame me Kevin. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 21 Nov 11 - 11:31 AM Seth Freedman, The Guardian. "Imagine a London where a sword of Damocles hangs over every street and every building. A London where the day is punctuated by missiles raining down indiscriminately on schools, homes, parks and gardens. A London where the difference between crossing the road or not could be the difference between having your face ripped to shreds by shrapnel from incoming rockets falling from the sky. For the last seven years, and especially in the wake of the Hamas takeover of the Gaza Strip, that has been the fate of Sderot, the beleaguered town on the edge of the Gazan-Israeli border." Those people are suffering an abuse of their human rights OK. How much worse an abuse can there be. Jim supports that abuse of human rights, doesn't he Kevin? Will you acknowledge that? I support no such. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: MGM·Lion Date: 21 Nov 11 - 12:58 PM "a sordid little holocaust and ethnic cleansing supporter;" were the actual words I took exception to, Jim ~~ or indeed, only one word thence, the 4th. You appeared to appreciate this fact at the time ~ Yet in a later post, you rendered this as "Mike objected to my describing it as comparable with holocaust denial!!!" which I didn't, because you didn't make any such comparison ~ or if you did, none that I noticed or responded to. "ven Mike, with his racist double standards..." you exclaim in a later post. I have none such, as you well know, for all your rhetoric. I am in a state of constant puzzlement as to the identity of this non-existent entity, to whom you attribute my name but no views in any way resembling mine; and as to what point or points you are intending to make in doing so. This "Mike" you have created and keep invoking must be some other fellow entirely. He certainly shares none of my opinions, says nothing that I have ever said, and indeed bears no identifiable relationship to me whatsoever. He seems to be some avatar of your Aunt Sally that you have set up for the sole purpose of knocking down. Why you should have named him after me I cannot imagine. I have tried to reply rationally to your irrationalities, but it has turned out to be nothing but pissing-in-the-wind so far as what I have written has penetrated your entrenched unsupportable assumptions as to what you think I might have meant ~ but didn't. You really are in a state of near-hysterical confusion, Jim; I should go & have a nice long lie-down if I were you, before you do yourself a mischief. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Jim Carroll Date: 21 Nov 11 - 03:02 PM Then explain your underwriting of Keith's racism and tell us why what he claimed about Pakistanis is not applicable when referring to Jews? You've had the quote you claimed not to understand - fire away. One more time: "Don I do now " believe that all male Pakistani Muslims (Jews?) have a culturally implanted tendency"" towards having sex with under-age girls Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: MGM·Lion Date: 21 Nov 11 - 03:56 PM Well, Jim, first show me an instance of any such case of grooming in disproportionate numbers [or indeed at all] having been made against Jews anywhere at any time, & I will address your challenge. Until then, it seems to me to make no sense whatever. I genuinely have not the remotest idea what you are on about here. ~M~ |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 21 Nov 11 - 04:44 PM It would also require some prominent members of the Jewish community to be quoted at length without contradiction in all the media, saying that aspects of the culture they were brought up in give rise to those statistics. Such that I might be convinced by them. Would you then denounce me as a rabid anti-semite and hound me through every Mudcat thread for the next nine months Michael? Jim would. Jim did. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 21 Nov 11 - 05:16 PM Refugees who have been forced to leave their homes in a conflict have the right to return to their homes when the fighting has ceased. That human right has been consistently obstructed by Israel, in a continuing breach of human rights. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 21 Nov 11 - 05:41 PM But Kevin, I have never expressed an opinion on that! The people of Sderot are suffering an abuse of their human rights OK. How much worse an abuse can there be? Jim supports that abuse of human rights, doesn't he Kevin? Will you acknowledge that? I support no such. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Jim Carroll Date: 22 Nov 11 - 02:46 AM "first show me an instance of any such case of grooming in disproportionate numbers" So you do believe that Keith had a case when he claimed that "all male Pakistani Muslims have a culturally implanted tendency" which tends them towards paedophelia - at least that's that one out of the way - both you and he are out and out racists. We discussued at stomach-heaving length why what was happening in small pockets in the North of England regarding the abuse of underage girls was taking place. Keith claimed fairly early on that it was an inbuilt cultural flaw within an entire ethnic community, and refused to consider any other reason put forward. He put more effort into proving that male Muslims were a threat to our 'way of life' and to the safety and well being of our children, and only by curbing their 'cultural urges' could they prevent themselves from preying on young girls Earlier on in this thread you defended someone who, to me, is obviously guilty of war crimes on the basis that she had not faced trial for those crimes - don't you extend the same right to "All make Pakistani Muslims"?. The Nazis gave themselves permission to send six million Jews to the gas chambers on the basis that they were racially inferior and a threat to German society. Sorry - apart from the numbers involved (there are only one million Pakistanis living in Britain!) I find an extremely thin dividing line between those twin conclusions. For me, it is not a good time to discuss racist generalisations while the retrial of racist thugs for killing a young man because he was the "wrong colour" is taking place - such is the consequences of such racist generalisations. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: MGM·Lion Date: 22 Nov 11 - 02:53 AM I know perfectly well that I am not any sort of racist, out & out or otherwise. Bluster away, Jim, with your back-refs to irrelevant longsince other threads, your provocations and overinterpretations. You are just getting sillier & sillier; from the way the thread runs more & more of us have just stopped listening to you. Me too Tara |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 22 Nov 11 - 03:06 AM Jim, I will once again knock down all those false accusations, but in a pm. Mudcat has suffered enough. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Jim Carroll Date: 22 Nov 11 - 05:03 AM "Bluster away, " The bluster comes from you Mike - '"Jew baiter" wasn't it? I'd have thought one thing we should all have learned from the Holocaust was not to peddle generalisations about "cukltural traits" without evidence - of which there is not a single shred in the case of ethnic communities living in Britain "I am not any sort of racist" If it quacks it's probably a duck "I will once again knock down all those false accusations" By supplying a source for your "experts" maybe Keith? Once again????? Have no intention in opening the thread you made into a racist platform - but will happily continue with the ethnic takeover of Palestine now we've got this out of the way. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 22 Nov 11 - 05:13 AM OK Jim. the stated intention by the Israelis themselves to expel a whole ethnic group I think you probably dreamt this. You probably often dream of Jews doing unspeakable things, and awake shrieking. You probably think that is quite normal. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Jim Carroll Date: 22 Nov 11 - 09:45 AM http://mondoweiss.net/2011/09/israel-declares-war-on-bedouin-announces-plan-to-relocate-30000-people-from-their-homes.html Re-locating 30,000 of them without consultation is an indication that the Israelis feel it permissable to shift and ethnic group where they choose if they deem it necessary. Any chance of that link to your "cultural pervert implant" source yet? Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 22 Nov 11 - 10:14 AM (See PM for question irrelevant to thread.) Not "expelled" then. As the massacre at Jenin was not a massacre. As the incriminating evidence for S/S massacres was not incriminating. You expect to be taken seriously? |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Jim Carroll Date: 22 Nov 11 - 10:45 AM As we have appeared to have driven everybody else off this thread - as we have in the past I don't think either of us can claim the high ground. This is the last time this is going to happen. You are the most reactionary racist fanatic it has ever been by bad fortune to argue with. Your hatred of Muslims/Irish Catholics/Travellers.... and the effort you are prepared to put into the pursuit of that hatred has shown you to be such, yet again. If you had done this anywhere other than an internet forum I have little doubt you would be infringing the law on incitement to race hatred. I'm only sorry your crusade has drawn in others with a little more intelligence than you (thankfully not many) Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 22 Nov 11 - 01:02 PM Jim, you have not responded to my pms. Private pie throwing would not disguise your lack of arguments I suppose. You continue to fill your posts with baseless abuse because you can not defend your position on Palestine, as on previous threads. You have made yourself irrelevant and ridiculous. Thanks Jim. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 22 Nov 11 - 01:04 PM Sorry, I have had a pm. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Jim Carroll Date: 22 Nov 11 - 01:21 PM "Jim, you have not responded to my pms. " Yes I have - and you've responded to mine Am happy to make them public if you want - was thinking about doing so anyway Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: MGM·Lion Date: 22 Nov 11 - 02:12 PM "Bluster away, " The bluster comes from you Mike - '"Jew baiter" wasn't it?" Jim .,,. My accusation of bluster against Jim was based on a post TODAY which called me, in lovely red letters, an out & out racist [teehee, I can do it too]. He responds, oh so convincingly with the above counter-accusation ~ which dates {I have checked} from a post of SIX WEEKS AGO on the old BS:Palestine thread which this one superseded, which I have since explicitly withdrawn and admitted to have been a piece of unjust heat-of-momentarism. So who is blustering NOW, do you think? I rest my case. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Jim Carroll Date: 22 Nov 11 - 02:59 PM No Mike, you didn't withdraw it - we mutually agreed not to mention it - it stands as as an accusation you made, and have since threatened to revive unless I mend my ways and accept that the behaviour of the Israelis in no way resembles that of the Nazis - in spite of the daily humiliation and persecution, the killing of civilians, the chemical warfare, the massacres of civilians, the wall, the ghettoisation, the eviction of Bedouins from their homes, the attempts to starve Palestinians into submission with a ban on essential goods....... and all the other things that didn't happen according to Keith. You might be interested to learn that he no longer claims that he only believes all male Pakistanis have a cultural implant because experts told him it was the true, (now it's because Don that said it first) so if I were you I would get ready to adjust my own racist beliefs in order to keep up. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: MGM·Lion Date: 22 Nov 11 - 03:47 PM Ho-hum, Jim. Have it your own way. I thought I withdrew it when you said, did we have to go on in this schoolyard name-calling fashion? ~~ an appeal which I now repeat. Why don't we just stop it, eh? I am really not a racist, you know _ out'n'out or common-or-garden. Don't expect you're really a whatever it was either. It's all part of what I am beginning to recognise as the Curse Of Mudcat ~ a lovely site when it just does what it sez on the tin, but peculiarly prone for some reason to induce an antagonistic abusive vituperative invectively contentious mindset which carries one away into saying more than one meant; & then: BOOM! I just don't have the energy for all this much animus these days... Pax ~ fanites ~ cruze ~ ····· ~M~ |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Jim Carroll Date: 22 Nov 11 - 04:19 PM " am really not a racist, you know" Love to believe that Mike - but can't work out why racist sterotyping is sauce for the Muslim Goose, but not for the Jewish gander - nor why you might give any credence to Keith's "All Pakistanis" statement (yet-once-more-revised version) by suggesting there might be some truth in it. Ho hum indeed. JIm Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: MGM·Lion Date: 22 Nov 11 - 05:07 PM No ~ I have never endorsed that statement of Keith's but always said I regarded it as a step too far, not justified by the specific cases we were thinking of in N England (which, tho, have reared heads again: have you been watching The Times last couple of days. Depressing.) I don't think you have been listening thruout with full attention, Jim. &, once again, I don't see where there is a Jewish gander with regard to this particular discussion. As you have taken opportunity to point out to Keith, I think the Israelis are not behaving in a fashion I can find in any way tolerable; but that has nothing to do with grooming young women in Leeds & Bradford & Derby, which for some reason you have intro'd into this argument & made the point at issue when it is an irrelevance to the topic of this thread. Why did you do that? ~ apart from the odd satisfaction you seem to take in making unsubstantiated accusations of racism against me; perhaps as a way to divert the criticisms I make of the provocative & unacceptably hyperbolical and tasteless terms you will drag into the discourse. When you let different discourses overlap as part of an argument, it always leads to confusion and animosity, Jim. Why do it? I repeat that Pakistani minority youth activities in N English cities have nothing to do with the case. ~M~ |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Lox Date: 22 Nov 11 - 07:10 PM "It would also require some prominent members of the Jewish community to be quoted at length without contradiction in all the media, saying that aspects of the culture they were brought up in give rise to those statistics." There are hundreds of articles and interviews with Israeli Jews who dexcribe their zionist upbringing as a type of brainwashing that encouraged them to let their views be informed by a feeling of loyalty over and above the facts of Israeli abuses. This doesn't mean that Israelis are predisposed to violence (which according to your logic in the pakistani thread it would mean). It means that of those who were brought up as zionists, many now speak out against that upbringing and view it as brainwashing. But Keith has expert testimony from Lord Ahmed that Pakistanis are predisposed to raping underage girls and thats enough for him. Jims point in that respect is very simple and more than adequately evidenced by the forgetful Keith. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Jim Carroll Date: 23 Nov 11 - 03:42 AM Pax Mike - life is too short Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 23 Nov 11 - 05:48 AM Lox, if I was to believe those people who ascribe certain behaviour to aspects of Zionist culture, would that make me racist? Or you? Or Jim? |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Jim Carroll Date: 23 Nov 11 - 07:01 AM "would that make me racist?" Point of information - Zionism is a religious objective created by a political group - not a race. Are there no limits to your ignorance of the subject you have championed. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 23 Nov 11 - 07:48 AM British Pakistanis are not a race either. They are a community, like the Zionist community. Lox, I knew nothing of Zionist culture. You tell me that "hundreds" have come out and said that aspects of their culture is "a type of brainwashing that encouraged them to let their views be informed by a feeling of loyalty over and above the facts of Israeli abuses." I do now believe that Zionists are culturally inclined to be unkind to their Arab neighbours, but only because of those testimonies, and acknowledging that only a minority succumb. Is that racist? |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Jim Carroll Date: 23 Nov 11 - 08:40 AM WHAT???????????????????????? British Pakistani groups are a national/religious group (Pakistani-Muslim) In making them a target for your racist abuse you have identified yourself as the racist you are. People here have not targetted Zionists for their beliefs, but for their behaviour towards the Palestinians in pursuit of their political/national aspirations - I can't speak for anybody else but I personally believe that allowing religion to have an influence - any religion, Christian, Jewish, Muslim..... whatever; but that is not really at issue here. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 23 Nov 11 - 08:49 AM I have made no-one "a target for your racist abuse" Either both statements are racist or, as I maintain, neither is. Neither opinion was mine. In both cases the opinion was presented by insiders of the culture. In neither case had I any knowledge or experience to form such an opinion myself. In both cases I was persuaded by their knowledge and experience. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Lox Date: 23 Nov 11 - 08:53 AM "I do now believe that Zionists are culturally inclined to be unkind to their Arab neighbours, but only because of those testimonies, and acknowledging that only a minority succumb. Is that racist?" Keith, You are clearly mad. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Lox Date: 23 Nov 11 - 08:59 AM s Jim says, Zionism is not a race or a culture. It is a political ideology - like Islamism - like socialism - like conservatism - like Nazism. There is no such ideology as Pakistanism - so to project any characteristic onto pakistanis, let alone one so offensive as "they are culturally predisposed to rape" is to discriminate on grounds of race. So yes - you are 100% racist. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 23 Nov 11 - 09:05 AM There is a Zionist community in Israel. You referred to their "culture" Lox. I do now believe that Zionists are culturally inclined to be unkind to their Arab neighbours, but only because of those testimonies, and acknowledging that only a minority succumb. Is that racist? |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Lox Date: 23 Nov 11 - 09:06 AM Zionism is an ideology of land ownership. Radical Zionism, the reason for constant expansion and settlement building, requires as its premise a view that palestinians have less right to live there than settlers. That is a racist premise. Radical Zionism is a problem that is destroying Israel and that is responsible for horrendous abuses against arabs in Gaza, Lebanon, the west bank etc |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Lox Date: 23 Nov 11 - 09:09 AM No Keith, The only mention of culture in my post was in a quote that i took from one of your posts. I never said anything about culture. I spoke about many Israeli Jews who rejected an ideology that they were brought up to believe. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 23 Nov 11 - 09:26 AM You did mention a "Zionist upbringing" Lox. Are you really denying the very existance of a Zionist community and a Zionist culture within Israel? I do now believe that Zionists are culturally inclined to be unkind to their Arab neighbours, but only because of those testimonies, and acknowledging that only a minority succumb. Is that racist? |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 23 Nov 11 - 09:40 AM "A new study on the religious-Zionist community in Israel has found growing ideological diversity as the community grows," |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 23 Nov 11 - 09:56 AM May I answer for you? It can not be racist because you think it is true, and you are not racists. I have no way of knowing if it is true or not. As in the other case, I was persuaded by the knowledge and experience of others. In the other case, those others were certainly not racists, were they? |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Lox Date: 23 Nov 11 - 10:05 AM Zionism is not a culture - it is an ideology. Zionism is the ideology that the existence of Israel is necessary so that Jews can have a homeland - this is based on the claim that Jews are a race (not just a religion) with a clear genetic line going right back to jerusalem etc Right wing Zionism believes that Israel should expand as much as it deems necessary and drive out any gentiles that get in the way, and smite any that are a perceived threat. In that regard, to be Israeli, or to accept the existence of Israel used to be synonymous with being Zionist. However, many Israelis are now rejecting Zionism and realizing that in the real world, people have to learn to live together or end up in a permanent state of war. Like the farmers, they can hardly be expected to get up and leave with nowhere to go. So I put it to you Keith that Israeli culture, which has developed and matured since 1948, iis characterized by a plurality of ideologies, one of which is zionism. Zionism is not itself a culture. So unless you wish to state that Jewish Israeli culture is predisposed to discriminating against palestinians, in which case you would be expressing yet another racist point of view, then my answer to your question iis this: Zionists are not a cultural group but a political group. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Lox Date: 23 Nov 11 - 10:14 AM You've tried three times to make your 'double standards paradox' work keith, without noting that the reason it didn't work work the first time wasn't down to how you have phrased it, but due instead to a flawed premise. You have tried to equate 'Pakistani' with 'Zionist'. And in the process you have made it clear that your line of reasoning depends on racist discrimination. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Jim Carroll Date: 23 Nov 11 - 10:22 AM THis gets crazier and crazier I seem to remember Keith trying to make out those opposed to his racist ideas as "racist" by claiming that the Catholic clergy could be considered "an ethnic group" - therfore all attacking them for child abuse could be considered racist. Looney Tunes!!!!That's All Folks Meanwhile - back in the real world: From The Irish Times this morning HARDLINE LIEBERMAN THREATENS TO PULL PARTY OUT OF ISRAELI GOVERNMENT MARK WEISS in Jerusalem ISRAEL'S FOREIGN minister Avigdor Lieberman has threat¬ened to pull his party out of the government if Israel demolishes illegal West Bank outposts or transfers tax revenues to the Palestinian Authority, Addressing Knesset members from his Yisrael Beiteinu party, the hardline foreign minister named two large West Bank outposts threatened with demolition. "Dismantling Migron and Givat Asaf would be grounds for dismantling the government." He also pre¬dicted that some members of prime minister Binyamin Netanya¬hu's ruling Likud party would also quit the coalition if the outposts were demolished. Settlers have set up scores of outposts on West Bank hilltops, which, unlike the 120 veteran Jewish settlements, were not authorised by Israeli governments. The international community con¬siders all West Bank Jewish com¬munities illegal. The Israeli high court has ordered Migron, north of Jerusalem, to be demolished by March 2012. "Migron is a community where children were born and later joined the army," Mr Lieberman said, "so how can it be con¬sidered illegal?" Yisrael Beiteinu, with 15 out of 120 Knesset mem¬bers, is the second largest member of Mr Netanyahu's governing coalition. With the next general election still two years away Mr Netanyahu's coalition remains relatively stable, certainly by Israeli standards, but if Yisrael Beiteinu quit the government, early elections would be almost inevitable. Mr Lieberman also warned that the transfer to the Palestinians of tax money collected on their behalf by Israel was another "red line" for his party. Israel held up the transfer of €73 million to the Palestinian Authority (PA) earlier this month after UN cultural organ¬isation Unesco accepted Palestine as a member state. Mr Lieberman said Israel should keep the money in response to Palestinian actions. "The PA is going to join a Hamas government... they've given a $5,000 grant to every one of the terrorists freed in the Shalit deal." Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 23 Nov 11 - 12:08 PM Lox, if the two are not comparable, why did you put them up for comparison? Neither of my statements are racist because there is every reason to believe they are true. Why Jim, now that I have got you to debate the Pakistani issue by pm, do you insist on debating it HERE AS WELL! Because your arguments have all failed! Your massacre at Jenin was shown never to have happened. Your evidence against Israel, was actually evidence for Israel. Your claims of Bedouin being expelled were false. So you go for me instead. As usual. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Jim Carroll Date: 23 Nov 11 - 03:12 PM "do you insist on debating it HERE AS WELL!" Apropos of nothing you have raised the question of Pakistan with your incredible claim that they are not a race - my previously having done so was in relation to my accusing Mike of racism and his claim..... You are not attempting to make rules for others while pleasing yourself whether you discuss 'forbidden' subjects yourself, are you? Please mind your own ******* business what I or anybody else on this forum choose to discuss; you have been warned before that you are not a adjudicator. Jenin may have been based on misinformation - understandably so as, in the first instance Israel forbade any enquiry into the battle, so it was regarded by the press and media at the time as a massacre - go and look for yourself. As far as the expulsion of the Bedouin is concerned, it has been proposed by the Israelis that 30,000 of them be expelled from their present homes, without consultation, never mind their agreement - a fact you have yet to comment on other than to claim that others abuse and persecute them, so why not the Israelis - part of your campaign for fairness, no doubt! You have spent a great deal of time and effort supporting a terrorist state widely believed (and found to have done so by several independant enquiries) to have committed war crimes. Nobody else has done that, or certainly not to the extent you have. You have continued to lie and contradict yourself in your PMs, still spinelessly blaming others for your racist remarks and still nowhere near to producing evidence for those claims that you "only said it because "experts" said it first". You now appear to be "not waving but drowning" - please stop; you are becoming an embarrasment again. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 23 Nov 11 - 03:42 PM Please mind your own ******* business what I or anybody else on this forum choose to discuss; You KEEP choosing to discuss this on EVERY thread! Then you come out with a grovelling apology for doing it. Then you do it AGAIN! Over and over again. It is not normal behaviour Jim. No-one else does it. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 24 Nov 11 - 01:30 AM Bedouin is concerned, it has been proposed by the Israelis that 30,000 of them be expelled from their present homes, without consultation, never mind their agreement - a fact you have yet to comment on They are being moved between two places within the tiniest of countries. They are being moved to replace their insanitary shacks with decent homes, with all services connected. Their conditions are so good that Israeli Bedouin are the fastest growing population ON THIS PLANET! How their brethren in Egypt must dream of changing places with them. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Jim Carroll Date: 24 Nov 11 - 02:41 AM Go away Keith - I couldn't possibly cope with the great mass of people you've managed to convert with your rational and well argued support of a terrorist state Off to the (comparatively) fresh air of Dublin Have a nice day Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 24 Nov 11 - 02:47 AM The three planks of your argument against Israel are gone. The massacre at Jenin that never happened. You blame the confusion on Israel (of course) but NOT ON THE LIARS who made up the smears and slanders against Israel knowing that prejudiced people like you would swallow it all without question! The treatment of the Bedouin, that is actually rather good. Sabra/Shatila. The only evidence you provide actually supports Israel's version! So you revert to posting about Pakistanis. On this and previous thread, you are a ridiculous irrelevance Jim. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Jim Carroll Date: 24 Nov 11 - 04:48 AM "The treatment of the Bedouin, that is actually rather good." As I said - have a nice day Jim Carroll "THE RUBBISH DUMP AND THE BEDOUIN'S VILLAGE 07-2010 Posted on May 30, 2011 by mirkozappacosta 150 families have been forcibly moved from Israeli territories to the other side of the separation wall in this arid valley of the West Bank, 15 km from Jerusalem. Concrete houses were built by the now settled nomads in previous years but Israeli authorities have demolished them declaring that only 'provisory material' could have been deployed to build 'temporary constructions'. However international aid, from several countries across Europe, Norway, Italy, France and Germany, have financed the construction of a school made of mud and corrugated aluminum. Radicalization of settlers The small Bedouin community used to have good relations with the settlers but recently some incidents have showed the increasingly intolerance of rich settlers living on the top of the hill overlooking the village. A couple of months ago, apparently without a plausible reason, Israeli settlers set on fire old tires rolling them down the hill in the direction of the Bedouins constructions. The women's Husband The women's husband, to whom I talked to, was in prison from 4 years now. She is allowed to go and visit him once every fifteen days starting her periodic journey at four in the morning to get to the prison in time. The family's income consist in 1.500 shekels approx 250 pounds per month having to feed two sons and three daughters. The Rubbish effects: Just about a kilometer away from the village a 150 m2 of smelly black lake, coming from a rubbish dump used mainly by west Jerusalem, Israeli settlements around and the Palestinian town of Abu Dis, emanate a disturbing smell which infests the Bedouins Village every time the wind blows on it. Strange health problems are also reported probably derivative to the dump. According to a goatherd, the main source of income for the village, two to five goats have being ding every month since four or five months now. Sickness, respiratory problems and head hakes are common things for the people here and more dramatically three children have been found with cancer. As we were talking to the representative of the Bedouins explaining their problems and frustrations, an old woman on her sixties came towards me looking at me as if she saw a dear person that didn't see from long time, she almost started crying for emotion, I was confused, later they explained me she went mad few years ago and she thought I was her brother in prison from years now." Israili moves towards friendship and unity with the Palestinians (This mornings Times) SECRETIVE HARDLINERS PREPARE BOYCOTT OF NON-JEWISH TRADERS SHEERA FRENKEL JERUSALEM The Chief Rabbi of Israel is to allow the import of an organic goose that tastes like pork. The office of Yona Metzger said that there is no Jewish injunction against eating goose, no matter what it tastes like, as long as it is slaughtered according to Jewish ritual. His spokesman said the Chief Rabbi wants the birds to be imported from Spain as soon as they reach the right weight for slaughter. Avi Blumenthal added that Mr Metzger would see that it passes "all the rabbinical kosher authorities to make sure it gets to Israel". , For Mahmoud Darwan, a Palestinian baker, Jewish customers- are the bread and butter of his business. Situated in the middle of the Machane Yehuda market in Jerusalem, Mr Darwan's small stall does a busy trade in traditional Middle Eastern pitta alongside Jewish holiday breads such as challah. "It was never an issue that I was Palestinian. My customers never seemed to notice as long as I said 'happy holiday' at the right time of year," he said. This week, however, someone started to notice. A group calling itself "Hebrew Labor" began patrolling the market in search of businesses that employed, or were owned by, non-Jews. Their goal is to create a listing of any businesses that have been "tainted" by Arabs and to help Jews "who wish to avoid" the businesses do so easily. Mr Darwan says he first thought that the bearded, dishevelled man taking copious notes was a possible terrorist. "I thought about calling the police. The way the guy was looking around and writing things down looked very suspicious, and he was giving people a bad feeling. Then he came up and asked what my name was," said Mr Darwan. The moment that he said Mahmoud, the man jotted something on his notepad and left. "He said his name was David and soon there would be a 'purification'. I really have no idea what he's talking about. For as long as anyone can remember, this market has been a place where Arabs and Jews can work together, buy together, and eat together." Other shopkeepers said the man told them that he was a representative of the Hebrew Labor group. "He ... was very suspicious and would not leave a phone number or business card," said Boaz Maor, a Jewish vegetable stall owner. "He kept asking questions about the Palestinians that worked in the market I told him it was none of his business," The Anti-Defamation League said: "The singling out of businesses that employ Arab labour by extremist Jews is abhorrent and reminiscent of vigilantism. It is outrageous and repug¬nant. This so-called project is antithetical to Israel's democratic society, and contrary to the core values of the state of Israel, which foster the full economic and social integration of all its citizens." The Hebrew Labor group could not be reached for comment, but an official from the northern West Bank settle¬ment of Yitzhar confirmed that the group originated there. Yitzhar openly promotes Jewish settlers forming armed vigilante groups. "It is a few dozen people who have started this as their own initiative with their own funds. This is a project of righteous people," said the official. "They will publish their listing in the beginning of next year." |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Jim Carroll Date: 24 Nov 11 - 04:59 AM Incidentally Jenin was never "a main plank of my argument" - I put it up onnce and having my mistake pointed out, I never referred to it again (unlike you, I read what othrs say and accept my mistakes) - there are many more Israeli massacres which have been produced and which you have chosen to ignore. Sabra and Shatila stand as evidence of your refusal to to accept any wrongdoing on the part of Israel - the Israelis have been found to have played a full part in making it happen - accomplices before, during and after the fact. It could not have haopened without their full co-operation. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 24 Nov 11 - 05:45 AM the Israelis have been found to have played a full part in making it happen - accomplices before, during and after the fact. It could not have haopened without their full co-operation. That is disputed, and you have only produced evidence AGAINST that Jim. Don't make yourself late for your Dublin trip. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Jim Carroll Date: 24 Nov 11 - 07:35 AM So you accept that the Bedouins are being treated like shit? Just in case you missed it http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2011/0921/1224304482182.html http://www.economist.com/node/21536645 http://oneworldgroup.org/2011/11/22/israel-urged-to-halt-bedouin-displacement/ http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/features/israel-cancels-plans-for-new-bedouin-neighborhood-1.394120 Looking forward to your thoughts!!! Jim Carroll PS Sorry - Dublin trip off!! |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Jim Carroll Date: 24 Nov 11 - 07:46 AM From the (no doubt highly biased) Le Monde Diplomatique Jiim Carroll TWENTY YEARS AFTER THE MASSACRES AT SABRA AND SHATILA The past is always present The massacres in the refugee camps of Sabra and Shatila in Lebanon in 1982, when hundreds of civilians were butchered by rightwing militia, remain crucial events in the history of the Palestinian people. by Pierre Péan TWENTY years have passed, but re-read the accounts (1) or speak to survivors in what remains of the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps, and the words still drip red. Time has not washed away the blood. All through my investigation I was horrified as I listened to story after story about children with their throats slit, or pregnant women with their bellies slashed open, or heads and limbs hacked off. I felt physically sick. I did not approach what remains of the Sabra and Shatila camps through the main entrance but via a dirty district on the periphery, home to new, mostly Asian, arrivals. I entered the main street that once linked Gaza hospital, which no longer exists, to the main entrance near the Kuwaiti embassy. The embassy stands out, incongruously luxurious, as is the nearby sports centre where Palestinian and Lebanese adults who escaped the massacre were questioned. People now made their way to the camp between shops and stalls selling fruit, CDs, new and second-hand goods, cars, scooters. How do you select between direct and indirect witnesses to the massacres? Their voices subdued, they brought alive the scenes of September 1982. Um Shawki, 52, lost 17 members of her family, including a 12-year-old son and her husband. She lived in the Bir Hassan district near the Kuwaiti embassy. After 1982, she moved with her 12 surviving children to the main street in Shatila and lives on the fourth floor of a poorly constructed building. Her apartment is clean; artificial flowers complement its soft furnishings and pictures are stuck or nailed to the walls, of Al Quds (Jerusalem) and the Hamas flag. She does not belong to Hamas: "I don't belong to any organisation. I would only join when I was sure of the outcome." And her children? "I don't want them to sacrifice themselves for anything, but on the day I am certain of getting my revenge, I'll encourage them and be at their side." Day and night she revisits the memories of the corpses, the mutilated bodies, the husband and son she never saw again, and whose fate she never knew. The colours of her room do not brighten her sombre dress and eyes. She is unsmiling. She becomes angry, though she does not raise her voice, as she relives her family's second tragedy, the first being their departure in 1948 from Tarisha, a village near Haifa. "Someone knocked at the door and said: 'We are Lebanese, we have come to search for weapons'. My husband opened the door. He was not worried because he didn't belong to any fighting group. He worked at the golf club, near the airport." She spoke of three Israeli soldiers and a soldier from the Lebanese Forces, the rightwing Christian militia. They entered the house, took her daughter's bracelets, tore out her own earrings - one of her earlobes is still torn - and beat them. She is sure those soldiers came from Israel. "They didn't wear the same uniforms as the Lebanese Forces and didn't speak Arabic. I don't know whether they were speaking Hebrew, but I am sure they were Israelis." That is not impossible. The Bir Hassan district, outside the camp perimeter, was occupied by the Israeli army. Like other Palestinian families, Um Shawki's family was taken inside the camps. "We were put in a lorry that took us to the entrance to the Shatila camp. The soldiers separated the men from the women and children. The Lebanese took the papers from three cousins and then shot them before our eyes. My husband, my son and other cousins were taken away by the Israelis." The women and children went on foot to the sports centre. By the roadside, women were crying and weeping, claiming that all the men had been killed. During the evening, in the chaos, Um Shawki and her children fled to the Al Helou barracks district. At first light, she left her children in a school and went to find out what had happened to her husband and son. She was not able to speak to any of the Israeli officers present. She heard orders being given in Arabic for the men to have their identity cards stamped. She saw an Israeli lorry full of adults and youngsters. A woman in tears, who had lost her whole family, showed her where the corpses had been dumped. The two women went to the Orsal district and climbed over Lebanese, Palestinian and Syrian dead. Um Shawki says that she saw hundreds of the dead. Most of the victims were in the Orsal district. "They were unrecognisable, their faces deformed and swollen. I saw 28 corpses of members of the same Lebanese family, including two disembowelled women. I tried to spot the clothing of my son and husband. I searched all day and went back the next day. I didn't recognise the body of anyone from Bir Hassan." Um Shawki saw Lebanese soldiers dig ditches to bury the dead. She never found her husband and son. She finds it even harder to talk about her daughter, who was raped. "I think about that day and night. I have brought up my children alone. I had to beg. I shall never forget. I want revenge for that. My heart is as black as my dress. I shall tell my children and my children's children what I saw." 'The end of the target zone' I walked through a maze of little alleys, with electric flex hanging everywhere and water running on the ground. Finally I came to a building with three or four offices. In one, at the back, Siham Balkis, president of the returnees' association, was sitting straight behind a small desk. Also seated in the office were a Palestinian official and two other survivors. Balkis is about 40. She is a committed and determined militant. Her family came from Kabe, near Acre, in Israel. She said, evenly: "The massacre began on Thursday evening at about 5.30pm. We could not believe it. We stayed inside the house until Saturday morning and were not aware of much except that on Thursday and Friday a small group of Palestinians and Lebanese had tried to defend themselves, but they were too few in number and did not have enough ammunition. During the night, we saw rocket fire light up the sky and heard shots. We thought it was the Israelis after the fighters and in search of arms. On Saturday morning, when it was calm again, we went out on the balcony and saw a group of Lebanese Forces accompanied by an Israeli officer. The Lebanese told us to come out. As we did, they shouted insults at us. The Israeli had a walkie-talkie. One of the Lebanese took it from him and said: 'We have reached the end of the target zone'." Siham is sure he was an Israeli because he was wearing a badge with Hebrew writing and did not look like an Arab. He spoke French with the Lebanese. Along with others, Siham was taken to Gaza hospital. The soldiers escorting them gathered together the foreign doctors and the people who had taken shelter around the hospital. "They killed about a dozen fighters. Among the doctors and nurses, they spotted a young Palestinian who had put on a white coat, and they killed him. When everyone had been assembled -hundreds of people - we set out towards the Kuwaiti embassy. The streets were littered with corpses. Young women with their wrists tied together. Houses destroyed. Tanks, probably Israeli. The remains of a baby crushed in the tracks of one of them. Before we reached the sports centre, the men were separated. Soldiers told the young men to crawl. Those who crawled well were considered to be fighters and killed by the Lebanese Forces. They kicked the others. "I saw Saad Haddad (2) with others in front of the Kuwaiti embassy. Then, when we got to the sports centre, lots of Israeli soldiers. An Israeli colonel said the women and children could go home. Later I saw my brother climb into a jeep, while others were put on lorries. I ran towards him, but to no avail. I heard an officer say in Arabic: 'We are going to hand you over to the Lebanese Forces. They'll be better at making you talk'." All the witnesses tell more or less the same story. Kemla Mhanna, a Lebanese woman who runs a grocery in the Orsal district said: "All those in our district who stayed were killed. Most of them were Lebanese. When I came back, I saw a pile of corpses. Next to my house, a Palestinian was hanging from a meat hook, split in two like a sheep's carcass. I saw that a first layer of bodies had been thrown into a big ditch, then a layer of sand, then another layer of bodies. I also saw another Lebanese man from Orsal district, Hamad Shamas, one of the few survivors of the massacre there. He was in a shelter when two Israelis came along in a jeep with seven or eight soldiers. "I am positive the soldiers were Israelis because they wore Israeli uniforms and did not speak Arabic properly. The soldiers told us to get out of the shelter and abused us. They told me to put down the child I was carrying and stand in line with the others. One who spoke good Arabic searched everyone and took one man's money; then they shot at us. I was only wounded in the head and thigh, under a pile of bodies. There were 23 dead. I stayed in a shelter all night. At dawn, the smell of death was all around." The same story There is nothing new in these accounts. They are like those that Leila Shahid, the Palestinian representative to France and one of the first to enter the camps after the massacres, collected alone, or with Jean Genet. Within memory, they also tally with the accounts of the English, Norwegian, Swedish, Finnish, German, Irish and American members of the medical team at Gaza hospital, and those recorded by many journalists. Elias Khoury, a Lebanese writer and dramatist (3), argues passionately that it is impossible for the Palestinian people to turn the past, and the Sabra and Shatila massacres, into a memory. "The normal process of memory does not work with the Palestinians because the massacres continue: Deir Yassine, Qibya (4), Sabra and Shatila and now Jenin. They cannot look to the past because the past is still the present. Since 1948 they have been caught in a cycle of hell. The Palestinians are the victims of the Israeli government's policy of orchestrated Shoah. Ethical standards stop at Israel's frontiers. In those circumstances, the idea of the tragedy of Sabra and Shatila becomes marginalised." So marginalised that, in Lebanon, the issue is taboo. First to be accused was Elie Hobeika (5), who had been a government minister. "The criminals seized power after the war," said Khoury. "The Palestinians have become the scapegoats for the war in Lebanon and are subject here to laws no better than the Vichy government applied to the Jews." Even the numbers of dead and disappeared remain vague. Estimates range from 500 to 5,000. Bayan Hout has been trying to fill the gap for 20 years. She is Lebanese, born in Jerusalem where she lived until she was nine; she is a historian and lecturer at the University of Beirut. She has closely questioned the families of the victims and the disappeared, analysed hundreds of questionnaires, crosschecked lists of humanitarian organisations and the Red Cross, and tried to locate all the cemeteries. She is now sure of her figures: 906 dead of 12 nationalities, half of them Palestinians, and 484 disappeared, 100 of them abducted. That makes 1,490 identified victims. The massacres and disappearances were part of the war the Israeli government launched on 6 June 1982 to neutralise the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO). The invasion of Lebanon left more than 12,000 civilians dead, 30,000 wounded and 200,000 homeless. In mid-June the Israelis began the siege of Beirut and surrounded 15,000 PLO fighters and their Lebanese and Syrian allies. In July US President Ronald Reagan sent Philip Habib, assisted by Morris Draper, to defuse the situation which threatened to ignite the Middle East and damage US interests. It became apparent that the way to resolve the crisis was to get the Palestinian fighters and Yasser Arafat to leave Beirut. Arafat was persuaded that there was no other solution. The discussions were complicated because the Israelis and Americans did not want to hold direct talks with the Palestinians (6): Elias Sarkis, Lebanon's Christian president, and his Sunni prime minister, Shafiq Wazzan, were to act as intermediaries. The Israelis were set on brutal military oppression and on obtaining the total and ignominious surrender of Arafat. Arafat made further concessions and tried to obtain guarantees of safety for Palestinian families remaining in Lebanon. He feared violence from Israeli soldiers and their Phalangist allies. As far as Arafat was concerned, the guarantees had to be given by the Americans and the international community. Habib finally obtained an assurance from the Israeli prime minister that his soldiers would not enter West Beirut or attack the Palestinians in the camps; an assurance from Lebanon's future prime minister, Bashir Gemayel, that the Phalangists would not move; and an assurance from the Pentagon that US Marines would be the ultimate guarantors of those commitments. On the strength of those promises, Habib gave a written undertaking on civilian safety. Two letters were addressed to the Lebanese prime minister. The US undertaking was contained in the fourth clause of the agreement on the PLO's departure, published by the US, the day before the first Palestinian fighters left (7). But Arafat was increasingly worried about the fate of the Palestinian civilians. Habib (8) again approached Gemayel, who renewed his promise. He stressed the role of the multinational force of 800 French, 500 Italians and 800 Americans. The first (French) contingent arrived to supervise the evacuation and collection of weapons. The force was to remain for about 30 days, prevent any untoward action and protect Palestinian families. Finally Arafat agreed to leave Beirut. No one kept their word But no one kept their word. Starting with the US. Defence Secretary Casper Weinberger, who ordered the Marines to leave Lebanon even as the Christian militiamen were taking up positions in the Bir Hassan district around the Sabra and Shatila camps. The American departure triggered the departure of the French and Italians. On 10 September the last soldier left Beirut, but the Habib plan had been based on evacuation between 21 and 26 September. When Bashir Gemayel, now Lebanese president, brought to power by the Israelis, was assassinated, Ariel Sharon used this as a pretext to invade West Beirut, surround the Sabra and Shatila camps and encourage the Lebanese militia to a cleansing operation. To this day, there has been only one official enquiry, that of the Israeli Commission chaired by Yitzhak Kahan, president of the Supreme Court, published in 1983. It points the finger at the Phalangists and, to a lesser degree, Ariel Sharon. The report first speaks of a grave mistake by Sharon, who failed to exercise supervision and prevent the massacres. It describes it as "puzzling" that Sharon did not in any way make Menachem Begin "privy to the decision to have the Phalangists enter the camps". It concludes that "responsibility has to be imputed to him for not ordering appropriate measures for preventing or remedying the danger of massacres". Sharon, it said, bore "personal responsibility" and must draw the personal conclusions. Israeli newspapers have published a number of articles confirming and reinforcing those conclusions, in particular in 1994. Relying on official documents, Amir Oren wrote in Davar in July 1994 that the massacres were part of a plan decided upon between Sharon and Gemayel. They used the Israeli secret services, headed by Abraham Shalom, who was ordered to exterminate all terrorists. The Lebanese militiamen were simply agents in the chain of command that led, via the secret services, to the Israeli authorities. The BBC's Panorama programme, "The Accused", broadcast in June 2001, further illuminated the events, particularly the evidence of Morris Draper, Habib's assistant, which is hardly open to challenge. Reminded of Sharon's claims that he could not predict what was to happen in the camps, Draper commented "compete and utter nonsense". He told of a meeting at the defence ministry in Tel Aviv with Sharon and Arnos Yaron, his chief of staff, on the day when the Israelis had already entered West Beirut, despite their undertaking. Yaron justified that decision, citing the desire to prevent the Phalangists from turning on the Palestinians after the assassination of Gemayel. Draper said: "The whole group of maybe 20 of us altogether fell silent. It was a dramatic moment." He explained that the US had rejected the Israeli proposal to deploy the Phalangists in West Beirut "because we knew it would be a massacre". He added: "There is no doubt whatsoever that Ariel Sharon was responsible. Well, more Israelis have to share in that responsibility." The former diplomat was not questioned about US responsibility or that of France and Italy, both of which withdrew troops once the Marines left. The families of the victims and the disappeared are entitled to the truth, to allow them to complete mourning. And the whole world is entitled to know who organised and perpetrated these acts, and how, and why. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 24 Nov 11 - 07:48 AM Thoughts on Bedouin. From Wiki. "Ismail Khaldi is the first Bedouin deputy consul of the State of Israel and the highest ranking Muslim in the Israeli foreign service.[85] Khaldi is a strong advocate of Israel. While acknowledging that the state of Israeli Bedouin minority is not ideal, he said I am a proud Israeli - along with many other non-Jewish Israelis such as Druze, Bahai, Bedouin, Christians and Muslims, who live in one of the most culturally diversified societies and the only true democracy in the Middle East. Like America, Israeli society is far from perfect, but let us deals honestly. By any yardstick you choose -- educational opportunity, economic development, women and gay's rights, freedom of speech and assembly, legislative representation -- Israel's minorities fare far better than any other country in the Middle East" I also read that, every year, between 5 and 10% of all Bedouin males reaching the required age VOLUNTEER for the army of Israel. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Jim Carroll Date: 24 Nov 11 - 08:29 AM |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Jim Carroll Date: 24 Nov 11 - 08:56 AM Can we establish exactly what you are claiming - that all the reports of the Bedouins being forcibly moved onto disease-ridden sites, and the protest they are mounting for having been moved - are all made up lies by a hostile press, or, in your book, such treatment is acceptible to already impoverished men women and children. Either one will do nicely, thank you Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: GUEST,keith A Date: 24 Nov 11 - 09:02 AM From your cut/paste. "To this day, there has been only one official enquiry, that of the Israeli Commission" So you lied about "official enquiries" and "independent enquiries" that you said existed and blamed Israel. Can we have an apology for those lies Jim? Your piece was written a quarter of a century later. The eye witnesses that could not be found at the time are now queing in droves. The same ones that witnessed the Jenin massacre? The ones that saw Jews throwing bodies off the Marmara? I am not impressed by another lefty jornalist swallowing it all uncritically. He says,"in what remains of the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps, " but forgets to mention that they were destroyed in a much worse massacre, more recently, by Muslim militias |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Jim Carroll Date: 24 Nov 11 - 09:48 AM Still denying they happened and still refusing to respond to your Bedouin claim? There have been at least two enquiries - one by the perpetrators of the massacre - the Israelis, and one led by Sean McBride The Israeli verdict on itself - "The Israeli government established the Kahan Commission to investigate, and in early 1983 it found that Israeli military personnel were aware that a massacre was in progress without taking serious steps to stop it. It therefore regarded Israel as having indirect responsibility." damning enough - if prejudiced in its own favour - Begin would have been tried for his part in it if he hadn't been appointed prime minister. And the Bedouins - I take it that your defence is that the reports (including The Irish Times and The Economist) fall under your description of lefty journals - thanks - that'll do nicely thank you. Dictionary definition of holocaust "any widespread horrific destruction of human life" - definition of holocaust denier - one who denies the above. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: GUEST,beardedbruce Date: 24 Nov 11 - 10:10 AM Still waiting on your reply to my posts.... .................................................................. Date: 18 Nov 11 - 09:30 AM Jim, The facts show that 1. There HAS been ethnic cleansing BY THE ARAB MOSLIMS from 1948 to 1967 1. The Fact of Israeli ethnic cleansing is not yet determined one way or the other. Looking at the Arab population of Israel vs the Jewish population of Arab nations, you are hard pressed to justify the claim, but feel free to try.If you have factual statements to make, rather than lying rants by known bigots, feel free to present them. MY questions were NOT "an eye for an eye". I was asking if you thought it better for Israel to 1. Continue to treat the Palestinians the way they are presently 2. OR Treat the Palestinians the way the Arab Moslims have treated the Jews, 3. OR Treat the Palestinians the way the Other Arab Moslim States have treated the Palestinians. I understand you may not want to consider answering a question, when you can rant about the person who disagrees with you, but I would like to know which YOU think is the best course of action for the Palestinians to hope for. .............................................................. From: beardedbruce Date: 18 Nov 11 - 11:13 AM Jim, As usual, you fail to address the question, and make claims without any factual basis. I take it you have nothing worthwhile to even say, from your reply. ................................................................... |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Jim Carroll Date: 24 Nov 11 - 11:55 AM "I take it you have nothing worthwhile to even say, from your reply. " It appears not Brucie Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Jim Carroll Date: 24 Nov 11 - 12:25 PM A little more time now: "There HAS been ethnic cleansing BY THE ARAB MOSLIMS from 1948 to 1967" No there hasn't - there has been a dispute over land in which no side has come out with clean hands. Since then, the Israelis have been pretty widely recognised as the aggressors and the human rights abusers, which is what concerns most of us here. Many of the victims were not even born in 1967 - let alone 1948. They have up to the present day been aiming that aggression at civilians - massacres of refugees (among others), chemical warfare, starvation of an already impoverished people, ghettoisation, seziure of land, the wholesale eviction of entire communities, the killing of aid workers (with tax theft I seem to remember your saying that the Palestinians have no right to occupy the land they are now living on - can you tell us what you feel should happen to they? The rest of your questions have been long answered - (eye-for-an-eye - remember) - maybe you have the same type of dislexia that Keith has been suffering from for so long. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: GUEST,beardedbruce Date: 24 Nov 11 - 01:00 PM That right- YOU don't think that Jews have any rights even in towns they have lived in for several hundred years, after founding them in unoccupied areas where no-one else lkived. I Think your comments are full of lies, and do NOT address the points I have asked, again. "I seem to remember your saying that the Palestinians have no right to occupy the land they are now living on - can you tell us what you feel should happen to they? " I seem to recall that YOU have never given the Jews any right to even live- killing Jews is just self-defense, from your comments. Moslim Palestinians have the right to go live in the 77% of the Mandate Palestine that Great Britain gave them in the 1920's. YOU seem to think that if Jews are driven out of an Arab land, THEY have no right to any land- so WHY do you give Moslim Palestinians rights that you deny to Jewish or Christian Palestinians? |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: GUEST,beardedbruce Date: 24 Nov 11 - 01:02 PM "The rest of your questions have been long answered - (eye-for-an-eye - remember) - maybe you have the same type of dislexia that Keith has been suffering from for so long." As usual, you answer with an outright lie... MY questions were NOT "an eye for an eye". I was asking if you thought it better for Israel to 1. Continue to treat the Palestinians the way they are presently 2. OR Treat the Palestinians the way the Arab Moslims have treated the Jews, 3. OR Treat the Palestinians the way the Other Arab Moslim States have treated the Palestinians. I understand you may not want to consider answering a question, when you can rant about the person who disagrees with you, but I would like to know which YOU think is the best course of action for the Palestinians to hope for. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Jim Carroll Date: 24 Nov 11 - 01:29 PM "As usual, you answer with an outright lie..." No it isn't you Zionist little shit. I replied that the Israelis should treat them as human beings - and the rest of the world for that matter. The Israelis are the last people in the world to complain of the treatment they have received - I'm quite sure you are aware of the incident where Israeli soldiers billeted themselves with a Palestinian family, were treated with politeness - hospitality even, and in return shat in all their cooking utensils. Or the Palestinian musician passing through a checkpoint and forced to play for jeering soldiers - chillingly reminiscent of Fania Fénelon. This is apart from the slaughter of civilians that you and your trained monkey continue to choose to ignore. I'm getting rather tired of armchair jackbooted thugs demanding answers to made up "facts" and bullying and blustering when they don't get the answers they prefer - you may not have left home with any manners but if you want to behave like that, go and join the Israeli army and pick on some Third-World Arabs who are not in the position to answer back And I asked you what should happen to the Palestinians - you are the one who suggested that they have no right to their homeland. Now go and learn some simple manners Best wishes, Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 24 Nov 11 - 03:26 PM Why do you have to call people such nasty, abusive names Jim? You said many times that you knew of enquiries (plural) that proved Israel's guilt. Now there are just two and neither accused Israel of participating. The Bedouin are the poorest Israelis of all. Despite what leftie journalists report, they are not being persecuted, they are just poor. Unlike the Coptics next door in Egypt who are poor AND persecuted. Those journalists could go into any country in the region and show the poorest people living in worse conditions than Bedouin Israelis. Their population is rising dramatically which shows how their conditions are being improved. Thousands of new houses are being built. Thirteen new towns. And remember, the streets of Jerusalem have been full of quite affluent Israelis who can not afford a home. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Stringsinger Date: 24 Nov 11 - 06:26 PM The best course of action is for Israel and Palestine to combine into one state and share political authority. (Like that's going to happen). Otherwise expect perpetual war and possibly the lead in to WWIII. Israel will never accept a Palestinian separate state because they are gradually turning in to a full grown theocracy. Mullahs and Rabbis don't get along very well. There are atrocities on both sides with Palestine getting the worst of the deal because the US had decided to support Israel by supplying them with weaponry which are being used in Palestine and Egypt. (Tear gas canisters in Egypt). This is a silly foreign policy by the US but is done because the defense contractors and corporations make money from it. The Fundie Xtians like it because it fulfills their bible prophecy. Cluster bombs are big business. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: MGM·Lion Date: 25 Nov 11 - 12:17 AM "No it isn't you Zionist little shit." ~~ Goodness me, Jim. "Zionist" a term of outright abuse; as it might be "fucking". And there was I, honouring the memory of my wonderful grandfather, Morris Myer, chased out of Romania at 24 just 12 hours ahead of the secret police, for his socialist activities in trying to found a TU for blacksmiths, which he was originally, founder of the only Yiddish daily newspaper in London, a founder-member of Poale Zion [Workers Of Zion] the Zionist-Labour Party; my father eventually editor of the paper and executive committee member of PZ and delegate to the World Zionist Congress of 1947; my sister, now 86, founder of the Hendon Branch of the Federation Of Zionist Youth at age 20, after 3 years military service as ATS driver in WWii... I hadn't appreciated what an obscene criminal background I come from. Great apologies, Jim ~~ NOT. ~Michael~ |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 25 Nov 11 - 02:46 AM Jim Carroll - PM Date: 16 Nov 11 - 05:26 AM "I need evidence" Who the hell do you think you are to "need evidence" of what has been long established by independant enquiries carried out by international bodies. Dishonest Jim. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Jim Carroll Date: 25 Nov 11 - 03:25 AM "Why do you have to call people such nasty, abusive names Jim?" I will not be called a liar by an extremist who has proposed that all Palestinians have no right to their homeland, because my answers to his questions do not suit his particular brand of extremism. "Despite what leftie journalists report, they are not being persecuted, they are just poor." I can't wait to get my letter into the Irish Times and The Economist - wionder if they are aware they are carrying "leftie" propaganda. 150 families forcibly moved next to a toxic dump good treatment - I'll live with your description of "dishonest" "Great apologies, Jim ~~ NOT." Do you really think the present Israeli administration lives up to your grandfather's heroic memory Mike - what exactly are your qualms about what is happening in Israel today - I see very little evidence of them here apart from lip-service? 'Racist stereotyping of Jews = racism' 'Racist stereotyping of Muslims" = not' I'll live quite comfortably with your disapproval since you seem to be quite happy to be part of Keith's anti-Muslim crusade. I watched a remarkable Israeli film last night, 'Waltz With Bashir' -an animated eye-witness account based on the experiences of a traumatised Israeli soldier who had been present and had witnessed up close the Sabra/Shatila massacres - just as described - massacres fully facilitated by the Israelis - highly recommended -and straight from Israel. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: MGM·Lion Date: 25 Nov 11 - 03:49 AM Jim ~ I have repeatedly said that present-day Israel is a grave disappointment to all that my grandfather, father, sister, uncles & aunts [one of my aunts, a distinguished ex-wartime officer, spent time in the 60s as advisor on admin to the Israeli govt at same time as my father was night editor of the Jerusalem Post ~ they shared a Jerusalem flat for a year} stood for and worked for and collected for and strove for. The Israelis are aggressive, territorial, oppressive of their minorities: not what any of us hoped for and dreamed of at all; the very opposite, in fact ~~ So that's 'lip-service', is it? What more do you want, for heaven's sake? But this doesn't mean that your distorted history of the entire aspiration, the movement, is accurate. You have your own axe to grind, Jim; you are agenda-driven: which blinds you to the difference between reasonable criticism of the activities of certain groups within certain demographics & the 'racism' which you spend your time shrilly denouncing like a demented parrot, in the brief intervals when your head is raised from the sand in which you spend most of the time with it buried. You're 'racist-crazy' the way brother Paul in the song is 'football-crazy': a breath of criticism of anyone, on whatever grounds, whose skin-tincture happens to be slightly different from that of the majority population, has the effect that "The anti-racism has robbed you of The little bit of sense you had". That's why you keep going on irrelevantly about Pakistanis in this thread where they just do not fit. You can't see anything beyond your antiracist blinkers. The only exception is that ~~ Oh, no ~ I agreed I wouldn't go down that road again, didn't I! ~M~ |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 25 Nov 11 - 04:22 AM What do the Bedouin themselves say Jim? The one in your Irish Times piece was quite clear that a Palestinian authority would be no better for them. Read again Ismail Khaldi's praise for Israel's treatment of his people. Note the extraordinary proportion of Bedouin who volunteer to fight FOR Israel, AGAINST their Arab brothers. Note that not one single Bedouin is serving in the army of Egypt. Note that Egyptian Bedouin are denied rights of citizenship and employment and education enjoyed by Bedouin Israelis. Note that no journalists ever make an issue of their predicament. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: MGM·Lion Date: 25 Nov 11 - 04:45 AM Jim ~~ I OP'd a thread 9 months ago on how I thought '"racism" has become a sort of catch-all complaint when anyone feels aggrieved for any reason; an unanswerable "yah-boo" justification for any sort of immoderate response' to which you responded "Mike, can't see a lot to disagree with here. People do over-use the term racism, which, as you say, devalues the coin" [26 feb 11] Do you not feel that your present made of going on at me, and others, is inconsistent with the opinion you expressed there? ~M~ |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Jim Carroll Date: 25 Nov 11 - 04:59 AM WHAT EXACTLY ARE YOU CLAIMING - THAT ALL THE ARTICLES REPORTING THAT THEY HAVE BEEN MOVED YO A TOXIC RUBBISH DUMP ARE FABRICATIONS OR THAT MOVING FAMILIES NEXT TO A TOXIC RUBBISH DUMP IS ACCEPTABLE AND "RATHER GOOD" TREATMENT? "I have repeatedly said that present-day Israel is a grave disappointment" Sorry Mike - in the face of the behaviour that is being discussed -lip service. Perhaps you would like to comment on the Israelis treatment of the Bedoiuns - fabrication or acceptable? It is not my "distorted history of the entire aspiration" - it is what is happening on a daily basis I have been criticising. I don't have a great deal of knowledge of Zionism as a philosophy (though I have made clear I do have reservations about any religious influence in the day-to-day running of any country), but I can pick up a newspaper and read what an Zionist influenced extremist government is doing in pursuit of its present day aims If you tell me that is a distortion of Zionism as you understand it, I will happily bow to your superior knowledge, but I do know that war against women and children is evil, whoever carries it out, and I do believe this is what the Israelis are doing, and that they are the aggressors here. None of this excuses your apparent racist double-standards - Keith has at least made his racism abundantly clear for all to see. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: MGM·Lion Date: 25 Nov 11 - 05:27 AM Ho hum again, Jim. So, OK ~ YOU tell me what word or phrase YOU would prefer to 'grave disappointment' ~ shock·horror? vomit-inducement? ~ to express my detestation of what I rubricated last time as their being "aggressive, territorial, oppressive of their minorities: not what any of us hoped for and dreamed of at all; the very opposite, in fact" which wouldn't be 'lipservice' & you can have it. Otherwise, what do you want? That I go to Tel-Aviv airport with a suicide bomb? ~~ You are being astoundingly THICK about all this, Jim. It's that agenda which drives you, I am afraid. My grave disappointment is not confined merely to the Israeli government & state. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Jim Carroll Date: 25 Nov 11 - 06:29 AM Yes - I know I'm being "astoundingly thick" and all that, but what exactly are your specific objections to the behaviour of the Israeli Govenment - I note that you have carefully avoided getting into keith's 'Bedouin' morass - there must be soemthing specific you object to, surely - the killing of civilians, the ghettoisation, the wall, stealing Palestinisn taxes, the humiliation, the chemical weapons..... anything, otherwise is it little more than a "tut-tut, naughty boys". Any clariication yet Keith? JIm Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 25 Nov 11 - 06:41 AM WHAT EXACTLY ARE YOU CLAIMING - THAT ALL THE ARTICLES REPORTING THAT THEY HAVE BEEN MOVED YO A TOXIC RUBBISH DUMP ARE FABRICATIONS Are YOU claiming that all Bedouin Israelis are being forced to live near this dump, or are hundreds more being created for them all? How near are they being forced to live? Is it ONLY Bedouin who live there, or other Israelis too? This "TOXIC RUBBISH DUMP" is being hyped to make another bit of propaganda. And Jim gulps it down without asking the obvious questions. In England, thousands live near rubbish dumps. In the next town to me (Broxbourne) are some very desirable homes (half a million pounds a pop!) built ON TOP of a vast rubbish dump! Listen to what the Bedouin Israelis say, not to all your Israel bashing journos. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: The Sandman Date: 25 Nov 11 - 08:06 AM This problem has arisen because an artificial state was created by the West. Problems have arisen in Africa because western colonials drew up new boundaries regardless of tribal boundaries. I cannot see a solution to the palestine problem. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: MGM·Lion Date: 25 Nov 11 - 08:54 AM "what exactly are your specific objections to the behaviour of the Israeli Govenment - I note that you have carefully avoided getting into keith's 'Bedouin' morass - there must be soemthing specific you object to, surely" ~~~ WHY must there, for Christ's sake? It's obviously your hobby to read every report avidly, looking for unspeakable iniquities. So enjoy your warm glow of contempt for the Evil Empire Of Israel. Can't you see why I don't? ~~ the whole thing is just too depressing to contemplate for me to want to go into the details: & you'd find it so too if you shared my history. It might help you to understand if you think of what your sort of person went thru at the time of the crushing of the Hungarian spring back in late 50s; or when you all had to perform that Orwellian trick when Stalinism was denounced by Kruschev in 1956; or when Gorbachev abolished the USSR in 1991... So my specific objections are the same as yours. I'll take your obviously impartial & objective word for it and join you in shouting 'Boo, Hiss, Bastards! ~ leave those poor lovely Muslims alone to fly their planes into our buildings, you Yiddy shits, and push you back into the sea as they are officially committed by policy to do!' There - will that do? If not, then go away. I have done. Just let me be and stop rubbing my nose in it, why can't you, you self-righteous little bully...? |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Jim Carroll Date: 25 Nov 11 - 10:10 AM "Are YOU claiming that all Bedouin Israelis are being forced to live near this dump, or are hundreds more being created for them all?" I've given you the articles - I make no claim beyond what they say - you have written them off as leftie propaganda - is that still your claim As you will see from one of the articles, the Israeli government has abandoned the building project agreed with the Bedouin leaders - so much for re-housing The Bedouins have been shifted to a site next to a rubbish dump - exclusively selected for them - READ THE ARTICLES The rubbish dumps here have been cited asd being toxic and of causing illness among those living here. You started off claiming that mistreatment of the Bedouins was acceptable because they recieved worse treatment elswhere. Then you moved on to they were well treated and reports to the contrary were "leftie Lies". Now you appear to be claiming that moving people near a toxic site is not harmful and that the Beduoins are perfectly happy. You really need to get your story straight - which is it to be? Apart from anything else the wholsale movement of communities without their having a say in the matter is chillingly reminiscent of what has happened in the past - these are people, not pawns in a chess game - and no -. And no Mike - I have not singleed the Israelis out for special treatment - I waws born in a period when people were being gassed for what they were and have always had a horror of ity happening again - put it down to poor upbringing if you like - it's obviously not a view you share. Jim Carroll As Keith seems to be incapable of reading evidernce placed before him - one more time regarding the "happy Bedouins - from the "leftie Economist, you will have to read the rest of the articles on the toxic waste dump yourself I'm afraid, but should you find this too difficult I'll happily put these up too. Palestine's Bedouin We want recognition too The Bedouin under Israeli rule have begun to campaign for their rights Nov 5th 2011 | WADI NAAM | from the print edition Correction to this article THE Bedouin of Israel are not a happy lot. Once nomadic lords, Binyamin Netanyahu's government plans to pen tens of thousands of them into cities. This may be Israel's biggest removal of Arabs from the land since the 1948 war. In this section In the Israeli-occupied West Bank, soldiers knock down their shacks with abandon. Plans are afoot to transfer some 2,000 to the edge of a rubbish dump to make way for more Jewish settlers east of Jerusalem. To cap it all, religious Jews recently torched a mosque in Tuba, a Bedouin town in the north-east of Israel. Traditionally split into often feuding clans, the nomads have been easy for Israel to divide, conquer, shift and, at least in the Israeli state's early days, expel. Whole tribes of Bedouin once roamed from Libya to Iraq. But concrete walls and a regime of permits have splintered them, reducing contact, commerce and marriage between Israel's 200,000 Bedouin, the West Bank's 40,000 and millions beyond, in Gaza, Jordan, Sinai and the Arabian peninsular. Forced first into narrow enclaves and then into towns, they have generally downsized from camels to goats. Many have abandoned their herds entirely. The West Bank's last surviving herders are hemmed in by Israeli military bases, by-pass roads and Jewish settlements. Israeli soldiers confiscate flocks that stray. The settlers see them as trespassers and bar access to springs. Life in Israel proper is little better. Nearly half the Negev's Bedouin live in villages often predating the state but officially unrecognised and so denied state support. There are no paved roads, public transport, electricity or water. Alongside Wadi Naam, a dusty Bedouin camp of 4,000 people, a toxic waste plant puffs away. The Bedouin once hoped to integrate. Unlike most Israeli Arabs, bar the Druze, some volunteered to serve in Israel's army. But the latest plan for mass resettlement is changing the mood. Mr Netanyahu's advisers say they are simply rehousing squatters. Even the Palestinian Authority, the proto-government on the West Bank, seems to hold its nose. Israeli officials say the masterplan for mass resettlement will entail an unprecedented transfer of government land to Israeli Arabs. Bedouin who can prove entitlement will receive half their land, or compensation. "By law the government owns the land," says Ehud Prawer, the official who devised the plan. "But as long as the dispute continues, the Bedouin can't cultivate it and we can't develop it. We need a compromise." "Concentrated" in new towns, he adds, the Bedouin will get all the services they are now denied. The Bedouin are refusing to budge. "When a Jewish Israeli wants to go and live in the Negev, it is called the development of the south," says Rawia Abu Rabia, a Bedou lawyer. "But when Bedouin already living there want to go on living in the same place, it is considered an effort to take over state lands." Some people say it could be a dry run for transferring Arabs in northern Israel to the West Bank. The Negev's Bedouin are forming a Council of Bedouin Tribes. Less genially, Tuba's youths protested against the torching of their mosque by vandalising the town council building. The sole Bedou in Israel's parliament, Taleb al-Sana, warns of a Bedouin intifada if the planners persist. In neighbouring countries, the Bedouin are also on the move. In Jordan, where they once were top dogs, they have staged protests against a monied, urbanised Palestinian elite. In Egyptian Sinai they have risen up against the remnants of the ousted Hosni Mubarak's security regime. Might a pan-Bedouin identity yet arise, linking the Bedouin under Israeli rule with the million or so scattered across the region? Many of Sinai's angry Bedouin carry Israeli mobile telephones, renewing contact across borders after decades of separation. The lucrative tunnels linking Gaza to Sinai are reviving commercial ties. A high birth-rate adds confidence in numbers. A newly educated elite is fashioning a political identity. "We're all victims of the same policy to dispossess us," says Muhammad Korshan, a West Bank Bedou activist. This year he went to New York to ask the UN's Forum on Indigenous Peoples to recognise the Bedouin as an ethnic-minority people with rights to tribal lands. They have a long way to go. Unlike Berbers and Kurds, they have no flags or leaders. But a belated bid for recognition has begun. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Jim Carroll Date: 25 Nov 11 - 10:21 AM What the hell - he's bound to claim it as Leftie propagande - so from the Leftie Irish Times Jim Carroll The Irish Times - Wednesday, September 21, 2011 BEDOUIN PEOPLE ISRAEL WANTS TO RELOCATE TO FORMER DUMP MICHAEL JANSEN IN KHAN AL-AHMAR WE SET out from Jerusalem on Route One, Israel's fine new West Bank highway, turn off on to the narrow shoulder, plunge down a steep ravine along a slithery, sandy track, duck under a tunnel and climb to the hilltop where 20 Jahaleen Bedouin families have settled. To the right is the school that proudly proclaims itself a "primary mixed school" where 70 boys and girls study through sixth form. During break, boys in blue T-shirts and jeans wrestle and rush about while girls in grey and white smocks, their hair neatly plaited, stroll round in threes and fours sharing packets of crisps. The school consists of five one- storey buildings constructed by the men of the community using old tyres and plastered with mud. Here and there they left indented patches where tyre treads are exposed. The sixth and final form holds classes in a shed. The UN Relief and Works Agency (Unrwa), which looks after Palestinian refugees, paid salaries to the men who worked 24 hours a day for a month to build the school with the help of Italian volunteers, nuns from Bethany, Rabbis for Human Rights, Israel's Peace Now movement and the Israeli Committee against Home Demolitions. The school walls are thick, which means the rooms are cool in summer and warm in winter. A small generator stands idle near the latrine building: the Bedouin do not have $30 a month to run the motor. On the other side of the fence marking the boundary of the school yard and just outside the window of the first-form classroom, the Israelis have placed vents for gas emitted by sewage piped to Route One from Kafr Adumim, the expanding Israeli settlement and outposts looming on the crests of hills rising high above Khan al-Ahmar. Israeli settlers have filed a petition for the school to be demolished. The Jahaleen stopped sending smaller children to schools in Jericho because five of them were killed on the road while waiting for a bus. In any case, families can no longer afford fares. After the new school was built in 2010, Israel cancelled work permits for the menfolk who had menial jobs in the settlements, depriving them of their main source of income. Only the shepherd has work these days. Unemployment is 99.99 per cent. Jahaleen men, women and children are slender and of medium height, and are totally dependent on Unrwa for sustenance. Some children have been stunted by malnutrition. The tidy, elegant school buildings contrast starkly with the shelters where 160 members of the community live. These are ramshackle dwellings constructed on wooden frames, with walls of press board and cloth, and roofed with plastic in summer and metal sheets in winter. Israel has issued demolition orders for eight shelters, several livestock pens, and the makeshift mosque – built without permits which Israel does not grant. The community lives in a tight enclave, bordered by the highway and the wadi below where the community's remaining 140 goats and sheep water. Spokesman Abu Khamis, an accountant who was employed as a bulldozer driver, invites us to his diwan. Slipping off our shoes, we sit on mattresses in the shade of a mulberry tree. Kafr Adumim with its settler houses gleaming white under red tile roofs sits on the horizon. A cool breeze stirs the leaves of the the mulberry, its twin and a pomegranate, heavy with ripening fruit. As sweet tea is served, Abu Khamis says, "We get water legally from Israel's Makarot company. Ten families have a supply, 10 do not." Asked about power, he quips, "Is there something called electricity? We use the generator when we have a feast, wedding or funeral . . . Settlers come any time, day or night. Drive around, walk into the school and our houses. They sing or throw pebbles at our homes, waking us. The children scream and cry. Many wet their beds." He shrugged when asked if the Palestinian leadership's bid for UN membership and recognition of statehood in East Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza could improve conditions. "The sulta [the Palestinian Authority] and the Israelis co-operate against us." The Jahaleen of Khan al-Ahmar are just one of 20 Bedouin communities, totalling 2,300 people, whom the Israelis intend to relocate to Jerusalem's vast rubbish dump at Bethany, the home of Lazarus raised by Jesus from the dead. On the way back to the holy city, we pause at the dump where bulldozers have already buried the rubbish and levelled the site, which still reeks of toxic fumes. To the east is the massive Israeli settlement of Maale Adumim, to the west Jerusalem, both forbidden to the Jahaleen. The move will destroy their way of life, force them to sell their livestock and compel traditional tribal antagonists to live together. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 25 Nov 11 - 10:49 AM That vast cut and paste also featured in your first post Jim. Look at some Google images of the Jabal dump at Bethany, Jerusalem. It is an ordinary household waste dump found in any town, is surrounded by homes and offices and is walking distance from the holiest sites of Jerusalem. Some Palestinians are saying that they should be allowed to live where the Bedouin are. The Bedouin interviewed in your cut and paste acknowledges that a Palestinian Authority would be no better for them. In your other pasted acreage it clearly states that Egyptian and Jordanian Bedouin all have the same complaints, so why single out Israel Jim? (Rhetorical question. I know why you do it!) |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 25 Nov 11 - 11:25 AM ""Note that not one single Bedouin is serving in the army of Egypt. Note that Egyptian Bedouin are denied rights of citizenship and employment and education enjoyed by Bedouin Israelis. Note that no journalists ever make an issue of their predicament."" Do we take it, then, that in your estimation Israel's behaviour toward its Bedouin community is perfectly acceptable, so long as Israel isn't treating them quite as badly as others in the region? That is what you are saying, and it seems to me a very dangerous concept. ""Listen to what the Bedouin Israelis say, not to all your Israel bashing journos."" So far Keith, you actually have just one Israeli Bedouin who is talking down the mistreatment of his own people. You can find one Lord Haw-Haw in any nation. Jim has found many more Bedouins who are against it, yet you dismiss them out of hand. Your witnesses (so-called) are always more believable than anybody else's aren't they..............BUT ONLY TO YOU! Doesn't that tell you something about the way you try to win every debate regardless of truth? Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: MGM·Lion Date: 25 Nov 11 - 11:40 AM 'Mike - I have not singleed the Israelis out for special treatment - I waws born in a period when people were being gassed for what they were and have always had a horror of ity happening again - put it down to poor upbringing if you like - it's obviously not a view you share.' Jim Carroll ~~~ Yes I do. What have I said that makes it 'obvious' that I don't, eh? ~M~ You are not a bully really, Jim; for all I said last time. I think that in fact you are a great big tease & saucebox! So Teehee & LoL, then ~ ~M~ |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Jim Carroll Date: 25 Nov 11 - 11:51 AM ".... vast cut and paste.....;." Do you really have so much trouble with the English language Keith - no wonder you are as every bit as ignorant as you claim. "Palestinian Authority would be no better for them" A single matter of opinion, but so what - one group of abusers does not excuse another - you've already tried this one in your defence of abuse (Egypt last time I think). No-one else has attempted to move them to where they are being poisoned. You claimed that Bedouins were well treated by the Israelis (you claimed it to be "the main plank to my argument, which you have disproved)- you have your proof and yet still you fail to acknowledge that they are not - where's all this "fairness" you keep claiming you have and the rest of us don't? Have we ever got round to discussion the time restriction put on Palestinians going abroad who lose their citizenship if they overstay their limit - perhaps you have an excuse for this too. You still have not accepted one single abuse carried out by the Israelis (the subject under discussion) - NOT ONE - unbiased my arse!! Don is right - it isn't about winning - not with us anyway - it's about sharing information and opinions. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 25 Nov 11 - 12:02 PM so long as Israel isn't treating them quite as badly as others in the region? If Israel is being demonized for it, I do think the comparison should at least be acknowledged Don. Have we ever got round to discussion the time restriction put on Palestinians going abroad who lose their citizenship if they overstay their limit I can give no comparison here. It has already happened to all the Jews in the surrounding countries. Do you ever get cross about that Jim? (rhetorical question again) |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Jim Carroll Date: 25 Nov 11 - 03:16 PM "Do you ever get cross about that Jim?" My introduction to man's inhumanity to man was in hearing stories of the Holocaust from my uncle (who was a decorated war hero who was among those to entered concentration camps when the Nazis fled) There is something deeply distressing when the persecuted become the persecuters. It is you and you alone who has defended inhumanity, the killing and maiming of civilians, by ignoring it, by trivialising it, by disputing that it happened and by suggesting that it is acceptable because others do it. It is what is happening in Palestine that is under discussion at the moment - of course you can travel the globe and find exploitation, injustice and persecution - want to open a thread about atrocities and war crimes by Britain, the US, Russia, former Yugoslavia, Uganda, Syria.... but do not attempt to justify terrorism, human rights abuses, war crimes.... because they happen elsewhere. Israel is a powerful terrorist state with a disregard for national boundries when it suits them and a proven contempt for and abuser of human rights. The fact that it is strongly influenced by religious fanatics - and is a nuclear power - should be of concern to us all (the same goes for Iran BTW.) As far as I'm concerned, all such states can go to their own chosen hell in a handcart, as long as they don't take the rest of us with them, Most people on this thread have confined their arguments to human rights abuses against non-combatants - you and you alone have defended those abuses with lies, distortions and simply by denying or ignoring the facts placed before you - though why people should bother is beyond me - you don't read what people write (you don't even deny it - cou can't - it's been pointed out to you so often) and complain when somebody posts anything bigger than a sound-bite. Can we now assume that the ill-treatment of the Bedouins has been removed from your "let's cover that one up" file, or do you intend to persist with that particularly nasty piece of persecution-defence. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 25 Nov 11 - 04:15 PM let's cover that one up" file, or do you intend to persist with that particularly nasty piece of persecution-defence. You put up a one sided view of that issue, as with all the other issues involving Israel. I just pointed out some flaws and provided a broader view, as I hope I have with the other issues too. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 25 Nov 11 - 06:05 PM ""If Israel is being demonized for it, I do think the comparison should at least be acknowledged Don."" Acknowledged?........... YES!! Used to absolve one side or the other from blame entirely (which is what you are doing) on the grounds that they are not the worst .......NO!! Nowhere have you admitted, or even hinted, that Israel bears any guilt whatever for its treatment of Palestinians or Bedouins. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 25 Nov 11 - 06:12 PM ""You put up a one sided view of that issue, as with all the other issues involving Israel. I just pointed out some flaws and provided a broader view, as I hope I have with the other issues too."" Another terminological inexactitude Keith! All others in this discussion have expressed views which take in the presence of blame on both sides. YOU, and you alone, have presented an utterly unremitting one sided view. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 26 Nov 11 - 01:51 AM All others in this discussion have expressed views which take in the presence of blame on both sides. Can you point me at any post where Jim even suggests Palestinians are blameworthy for anything at all. At least you and Lox refused to defend the Gaza rockets, but that was the only criticism I can remember you making either. Please correct me if I have forgotten anything Don. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Jim Carroll Date: 26 Nov 11 - 03:12 AM Nobody has excused the killing of civilians here anywhare - except you - you are the one who has distorted, denied and supported the killing of civiliand THE ONLY ONE What I and others have said is that, abhorrent as the rockets are, in the circumstances created by Israeli expansionist aggression, the terrorist retaliation is an inevitable consequence. ISRAEL IS THE AGGRESSOR - A WELL ARMED, WELL TRAINED FORCE ATTEMPTING TO SUPPRESS OPPOSITION TO ITS TERRITORIAL EXPANSIONISM, AND FULLY PREPARED TO USE THAT TRAINING AND THOSE WEAPONS ON ANYBODY WHO OPPOSES IT - MILITARY OR CIVILIAN, |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 26 Nov 11 - 04:11 AM "Israel is the aggressor" I would say it is an aggressor, but not the only aggressor. The Gaza rockets were not in "retaliation" but in hate. They were aimed at ordinary Jews and their children, not soldiers or "Zionists." Every issue here, beyond the UN membership the thread was supposed to be about, was raised by you and you put only the Palestinian case. An open minded, unprejudiced person would welcome the case for the other side being put. But not you. It makes you angry to be asked to justify a claim, or to show that it is disputed. If anyone challenges any claim, you call them by vile, ugly names, and you denigrate their personal character. In my opinion, that makes you something less than a decent human being. But, I accept that there are two sides to every argument. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Jim Carroll Date: 26 Nov 11 - 08:02 AM "the Palestinian case." The Palestinians are the ones under attack - for their land - the world has opposed the Israeli behaviour "and you denigrate their personal character." No I don't - if they tell lies I say they have told lies; if they make racist statements I say that is racist - you have cositently done both. I do get angry when you don't bother to read what others have to say (still you don't deny it - and when you attempt to justify human rights abuses and war crimes - which again, you have consistently. You insist in being prominent in these debates yet you continually refuse to take responsibility for (or even adimit to) your outrageous claims If you believe that being called a racist is a vile, ugly name (as I do) I ferely admit having done so - because I believe that inyour case it is true. A little honesty on your part instead of blaming others for your sordid statements might help your claim of being a victim - as you appear to be claiming here. Last time on this thread the claim that the male gender of an entire ethnic community is culturally tainted is thoughrouly evil and comes out of the "How to be a Good Nazi" handbook - you claimed it as your opinion - nobody else said it, and it makes you a racist. If you had claimed it publicly elsewhere you would have been banged up for inciting race hatred. I leave you to nurse your hurt feelings. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 26 Nov 11 - 11:53 AM If you had claimed it publicly elsewhere you would have been banged up for inciting race hatred. It was claimed publicly. It was in all the media, or I would not have known about it. I just repeated it here. (or even adimit to) your outrageous claims I do not admit any such. I can't remember making any claims at all. I just challenged yours. "Racist" is a vile and ugly name, but I was thinking of "Zionist little shit." |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Jim Carroll Date: 26 Nov 11 - 12:39 PM "It was claimed publicly." Produce your quote "I can't remember making any claims at all." Selective amnesia again ""Racist" is a vile and ugly name, but I was thinking of "Zionist little shit." In the present atmosphere - former in Britain, latter in Palestine - both racism and Zionism are far uglier. We've spent a long time here discussing what a Zionist extremist state is doing to an impoverished Third World people - you have defended those atrocities throughout. The individual I made my comment to had just called me a liar - having had his answer in full, and having previously suggested that Palestinians had no right to be in Palestine in the first place - what would you call him - (or, thinking about it, you probably agree with him). Whatever noble causes Zionism may have once espoused, todays mob seem to have reduced it to the persecution of a Third World People - and it is this that you and Brucie have been supporting - I make no apologies for expressing my contempt for both of you. Racism: Regarding your own ugly statement accusing "every male Pakistani.... (I'm sure you remember the rest). Have you any idea what effect it would have on members of the poorest ethinic community in Britain if it were to be taken seriously? You claim to have been a teacher (god save us all) Would you tell a Pakistani pupil he was likely to grow up a potential pervert because of his "cultural implant"? Would you warn the rest of the class to steer clear of him because of the potential danger he posed to your female pupils? Such inflamatory racist accusations are aimed at incitement to hatred and persecution - ask any non-white family who has has shit (or petrol) pushed through their letter-box, or a brick through the window, or whose children can't walk the streets unprotected. Ask the family of Stephen Lawrence whose parents are still trying to get justice for their murdered son (after 14 years of racist indifference by an "institutionally racist" justice system). Immigrants to Britain have enough to cope with from knuckles-along-the-floor thugs without having armchair Paki-bashers like yourself egging them on by dehumanising them in the way your outrageously racist statement does. Perhaps in future you might put what passes for a brain into gear and consider the damage such outrageously inflamatory statements have on the lives of helpless people. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 26 Nov 11 - 01:29 PM ""At least you and Lox refused to defend the Gaza rockets, but that was the only criticism I can remember you making either. Please correct me if I have forgotten anything Don."" Your lack of memory may in fact be due to your self admitted refusal to read any post which has more than a couple of soundbites. I have repeatedly stated throughout this, and other, threads on the subject, my opinion that both sides bear blame for the events under discussion. You just didn't bother to read them because you are right (in your own mind), so anything anyone else has to say is of no importance to you. So just stop lying, and if you can't be arsed to read our comments, kindly refrain from making them up. Don T |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 26 Nov 11 - 07:28 PM No "selective memory" Jim. I made no claims, outrageous or otherwise. You made the claims. I just challenged them. That is what was "outrageous" to you. You think we need to discuss the Pakistani issue at greater length and not privately. You are a sad, obsessed man. You know well who the 5 sources were. They each stated, separately, in their own words, that that specific offending by British Pakistanis was driven by British Pakistani culture. Not something I knew about, but you would need a good reason not to believe them. No-one has provided one, and no contradictions were ever published. I provided the links and pasted extracts from each in the thread. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 26 Nov 11 - 07:45 PM Don. my opinion that both sides bear blame for the events under discussion. That is my opinion too Don. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: The Sandman Date: 27 Nov 11 - 12:30 PM Jim is not a sad obsessed little man, he has a different opinion to you re israel and palestine. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 27 Nov 11 - 12:42 PM I have no problem with differences of views on anything. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Jim Carroll Date: 27 Nov 11 - 02:27 PM "have no problem with differences of views on anything. " You apparently have no views of your own - you hide behind the opinions of others "That is my opinion too Don." And you've just done the most amazing somersault - well done!!! And you still haven't produced your quote - though you have adapted your claim to; "They each stated, separately, in their own words," WE are getting there!! Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 27 Nov 11 - 03:18 PM I have views of my own, and express them here. Not about BP culture though. I know nothing about that. I have done no somersault. I have expressed the view that neither side is blameless before. And, I have not adapted any claim. That is what I have always said. To reiterate, You know well who the 5 sources were. They each stated, separately, in their own words, that that specific offending by British Pakistanis was driven by British Pakistani culture. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Jim Carroll Date: 27 Nov 11 - 03:51 PM Casualty figures since 2000 - to date. Palestinians = 6,537 Israelis = 1,092 Jim Carroll American news reports repeatedly describe Israeli military attacks against the Palestinian population as "retaliation." However, when one looks into the chronology of death in this conflict, the reality turns out to be quite different. Source: B'Tselem, The Israeli Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories. (Visit their statistics page, last updated September 30, 2011.) The numbers cited above include civilians and combatants killed by members of the opposing nationality (and therefore, do not include Palestinians killed by an explosive device that they set or was on their person, Israelis killed in 'friendly fire' incidents, etc.). The numbers also do not include the sizable number of Palestinians who died as a result of inability to reach medical care due to Israeli road closures, curfews, the Israeli closure of border crossing from Gaza, etc. The figure for Palestinian deaths is extremely conservative, since it is difficult for B'Tselem to report on deaths in the Palestinian territories. The Palestine Red Crescent Society, internationally respected for its statistical rigor, reports significantly higher numbers of Palestinian deaths. We do not doubt the reliability of their data, and only use B'Tselem's more conservative numbers because they collect data on both populations. In the past we used the statistics provided by Israel's military for the number of Israelis killed, but they have not updated their statistics page since early in 2006. In addition, there is reason to believe that their numbers may have been somewhat inflated. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 27 Nov 11 - 05:37 PM ""Don. my opinion that both sides bear blame for the events under discussion. That is my opinion too Don."" Based upon your previous posts to this thread, it is extremely difficult to give that statement the slightest credence. Nowhere have you admitted to any single wrong action on the part of the Israelis, in fact the complete opposite. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 28 Nov 11 - 01:10 AM Don, remember that on this and previous thread, every issue other than what the threads were supposed to be about, was raised by Jim Carroll. So, when I responded, the Palestinian case had already been put far better than I could ever put it, and the Israeli case not at all. Being the fair minded person you say you are, how could you possibly object to me redressing the balance, and why am I the only one criticised for being one sided? |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 28 Nov 11 - 01:59 AM Jim, most of those Palestinian deaths occurred during the Gaza incursion. Israel only, reluctantly, embarked on that, having forced out all its settlers and withdrawn. The incursion was solely in response the the Gazan missile offensive. So who was to blame? The heavy civilian casualties were only incurred because Hamas, illegally, placed military facilities in civilian areas and chose not to evacuate them. So who was to blame? Israel was careful to act within the law by issuing warnings and taking all possible steps to minimise civilian deaths. (Don, I deplored their use of WP smoke in a civilian area and stated it could have been illegal.) |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Jim Carroll Date: 28 Nov 11 - 03:44 AM "The incursion was solely in response the the Gazan missile offensive." The report says differently - do you have any evidence on this? Te only "evidence" here is that you are six times more likely to be killed if you are Palestinian than if you are if you are Israeli - simple mathematics. "it is extremely difficult to give that statement the slightest credence." Being a fair-minded it is impossible to find anywhere on this thread one single example of your accepting wrongdoing on the part of the Israelis; massacres, armed incursions on built-up areas, attempts to starve into submission, ghettoisition, mass eviction to toxic rubbish-dumps, the use of deadly chemical weapons, the slaughter and endangerment of civilian "hostages", the killing of aid-workers, attributing the bringing of relief, daily persecution and humiliation of an entire population, the confiscation of taxes essential to maintaining essentials, the sezure and destruction of homes...... you have either actively defended and justified all of these, claimed they haven't happenned or have given them your nod of approval by your silence. Now that's what I call being even-handed and fair!!!!!!! "stated it could have been illegal" No - the UN has stated that it could be illegal - you have described it as harmless Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 28 Nov 11 - 04:04 AM The report says differently - do you have any evidence on this? That was Israel's stated reason for the incursion. What report are you talking about Jim? Being a fair-minded person, it is impossible to find anywhere on this thread one single example of your accepting wrongdoing on the part of the Palestinians. You initiated the debate with the Palestinian case, and only the Palestinian case, every time. Obviously I will respond with the other side of the argument, because I am fair minded and unprejudiced. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 28 Nov 11 - 04:07 AM No - the UN has stated that it could be illegal - you have described it as harmless Are you denying that I have stated, many times, that it could have been illegal? It is a LIE that I have EVER described it as harmless! |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Jim Carroll Date: 28 Nov 11 - 05:13 AM "That was Israel's stated reason for the incursion." The American report above (which again - you appear not to have read when it is put out for you) points out that it is not as simple as that. You have argued the right of the Israelis to defend themselves - but not the Palastinians apparently The Israelis are the aggressors - the statistics alone show that, and the atrocities - which you have denied, and continue to do so. You are attempting to clain that peace would be arrived at if the Palestinians ceased their resistance - "throw down your peashooters and come out with your hands up!" What would prevent the Israelis from shifting them all to the nearest toxic rubbish dump as they have the Bedouin families? - oh, I forgot - you claim that haven't done that either, didn't you - leftie propaganda wasn't it? "It is a LIE that I have EVER described it as harmless! " You and Terrapin have consistantly argued it to be non-chemical and smoke producing - , show me one occasion that you have acknowledged the horrific injuries it can and has caused to humen beings - including children and hospital patients. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 28 Nov 11 - 05:52 AM Jim, IT WAS the stated reason for the incursion. show me one occasion that you have acknowledged the horrific injuries it can and has caused to humen beings Keith A of Hertford - PM Date: 26 Jul 10 - 03:21 AM . . I have never denied that smoke munitions can cause injury, and said its use here was deplorable and possibly illegal. Don pointed out that a direct hit, or a few feet away, will cause serious injuries. Conventional munitions are effective over a much greater range. WP smoke would not be deployed to cause casualties because it would cause vastly less casualties than conventional weapons. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 28 Nov 11 - 06:09 AM From Wiki. Israel's stated aim was to stop rocket fire into Israel[40] and arms import into the Gaza strip.[ |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Jim Carroll Date: 28 Nov 11 - 06:40 AM "It was stated.........." THEY ARE THE PERSISTANT AGGRESSORS, ABUSERS, WAR CRIMINALS - DESPITE YOUR CONTINUING TO IGNORE THAT FACT WHY SHOULD THEY BE BELIEVED - WOULD YOU SURRENDER TO SUCH PEOPLE ON THE BASIS OF A WIKI ENTRY You continue to claim non-bias (and accuse us of same) while unconditionally supporting only one side Israel HAS USED WP ON CIVILIANS - THIS IS NOT AN ACCADEMIC ARGUMENT -IT IS A DONE DEAL (WITH HORRIFIC PHOTOGRAPHS TO PROVE IT) - STOP PLAYING THAT FACT DOWN - THIS IS A NASTY BUNCH YOU ARE SUPPORTING - AND SUGGESTING THE PALESTINIANS SURRENDER TO. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 28 Nov 11 - 06:48 AM You continue to claim non-bias while unconditionally supporting only one side. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Jim Carroll Date: 28 Nov 11 - 08:12 AM "You continue to claim non-bias while unconditionally supporting only one side. " Isn't that exactly what you are not only doing - but what you have said you are doing "only putting the Israeli side" unquote You agreed with Don that the blame lies on both sides - what exactly do you accept that the Israelis have done - (apart from their sin of ommission by "failing to prevent" the biggest massacre of civilians since WW2 - which they facilitated in the first place Your arguments becomes surreal JIM Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: beardedbruce Date: 28 Nov 11 - 08:35 AM Jim, "the biggest massacre of civilians since WW2 -" Nice to see that you group Rwandans, Cambodians, and Croations with Jews as not worthy of your concern, and not to be considered as human beings. Of course, to expect you to bother with the truth has been shown to be a pointless task. Still waiting for you toa address the questions, instead of telling lies. "The rest of your questions have been long answered - (eye-for-an-eye - remember) - maybe you have the same type of dislexia that Keith has been suffering from for so long." As usual, you answer with an outright lie... MY questions were NOT "an eye for an eye". I was asking if you thought it better for Israel to 1. Continue to treat the Palestinians the way they are presently 2. OR Treat the Palestinians the way the Arab Moslims have treated the Jews, 3. OR Treat the Palestinians the way the Other Arab Moslim States have treated the Palestinians. I understand you may not want to consider answering a question, when you can rant about the person who disagrees with you, but I would like to know which YOU think is the best course of action for the Palestinians to hope for. BTW IF you think my facts are made up, try arguing about THEM instead of attacking me- You might even get some agreement with your views, IF YOU PRESENT FACTS with support instead of the rumors and lies you have been posting "you are the one who suggested that they have no right to their homeland." No I stated that they have no right to the Jewish Homeland, and DO have the right to the Arab Moslim Homeland of TransJordan. YOU have stated that Jews have no right to the Jewish Homeland, repeatedly, and NO right to any of the lands Jews were driven from in 1948. ",No it isn't you Zionist little shit. ... Now go and learn some simple manners Best wishes, Jim Carroll" seems to sum up your entire argument. Hardly a valid discussion of the merits of any arguement. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 28 Nov 11 - 08:38 AM "That was Israel's stated reason for the incursion." So what? I cannot envisage that Keith would regard "That was Hamas's stated reason for..." as in itself having much evidential status. The question isn't whether something has been stated to be true by either side, but rather whether it is in fact true. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: beardedbruce Date: 28 Nov 11 - 08:42 AM "a Maronite group, also called Lebanese Forces militia group, entered the camp and murdered inhabitants during the night. The exact number of victims is disputed, from 700–800 to 3,500 (depending on the source)." "The September 11 attacks (also referred to as September 11, September 11th or 9/11[nb 1]) were a series of four coordinated suicide attacks upon the United States in New York City and the Washington, D.C., area on September 11, 2001. On that Tuesday morning, 19 terrorists from the Islamist militant group al-Qaeda hijacked four passenger jets. The hijackers intentionally crashed two planes, American Airlines Flight 11 and United Airlines Flight 175, into the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center in New York City; both towers collapsed within two hours. Hijackers crashed American Airlines Flight 77 into the Pentagon in Arlington, Virginia. The fourth jet, United Airlines Flight 93, crashed into a field near Shanksville, Pennsylvania, after passengers attempted to take control before it could reach the hijacker's intended target in Washington, D.C. Nearly 3,000 died in the attacks." Glad to see that US Citizens are also less than human by YOUR standards. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: beardedbruce Date: 28 Nov 11 - 08:47 AM On September 15, King Hussein declared martial law. The next day, Jordanian tanks (the 60th Armored Brigade of the Jordanian Army) attacked the headquarters of Palestinian organizations in Amman; the army also attacked camps in Irbid, Salt, Sweileh, Baq'aa, Wehdat and Zarqa. Then the head of Pakistani training mission to Jordan, Brigadier Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq (later Chief of Army Staff and President of Pakistan), took command of the 2nd division.[13][14] However, the Jordanians could not devote all their attention to the Palestinians. The 3rd Armoured Division of the Iraqi Army had remained in Jordan after the 1967 war. The Iraqi regime sympathised with the Palestinians, and it was unclear whether the division would intervene on the part of the Palestinians. Thus the 99th Brigade of the Jordanian 3rd Armoured Division had to be retained to watch the Iraqi division.[15] Arafat later claimed that the Jordanian army killed between 10,000 and 25,000 Palestinians, although more conservative estimates put the number between 1000 and 2000.[16][17] |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: GUEST,keith A Date: 28 Nov 11 - 08:57 AM Kevin McGrath, Israel warned they would take action if the missiles did not stop. They then took action, because the miisiles did not stop or even decrease, stating that they were doing it to stop the missiles. All their actions were consistent with that being the aim. If another motive is being suggested, let's have it up for discussion with whatever evidence you have. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: GUEST,keith A Date: 28 Nov 11 - 09:02 AM You could start with Jim's "report." You must know what it is. You do read his posts, don't you? |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: beardedbruce Date: 28 Nov 11 - 09:04 AM Casualties See also: Palestinian casualties of war Estimates of the number of the people killed in the ten days of Black September range from three thousand to more than five thousand, although exact numbers are unknown. The Palestinian death toll in 11 days of fighting was estimated by Jordan at 3,400, while Palestinian sources often cite the number 5,000, mainly civilians, killed. Arafat at some point claimed that 10,000 had been killed.[21][22] The Western reporters were concentrated at the Intercontinental Hotel, away from the action.[citation needed] Nasser's state-controlled Voice of the Arabs from Cairo reported genocide. [edit] But, Since ONLY killing by Jews matters, Jim considers this type of thing to be OK. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 28 Nov 11 - 09:14 AM There had been sporadic rockets from the Gaza strip form mnay years, and Israel,had consistently responded. (Or as the Paleswtians would see it, the other way round, with the rockets being seen as a response to Israeli actions) But the "response" was relatively, very different from the ferocious attack in December and January. One factor that has been suggested is that there was an Israeli election due in February. All government statements in all circumstances should be viewed with suspicion. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 28 Nov 11 - 09:54 AM And by "all governments" I mean all, everywhere. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: GUEST,keith A Date: 28 Nov 11 - 10:09 AM The significance of the election is that the government would be judged on how it dealt with the missile attacks. The aim would still be the stated one of stopping the missiles. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 28 Nov 11 - 12:00 PM confirming my posts |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: GUEST,Teribus Date: 28 Nov 11 - 12:57 PM "THIS IS A NASTY BUNCH YOU ARE SUPPORTING - AND SUGGESTING THE PALESTINIANS SURRENDER TO." - Jim Carroll Who is suggesting that the Palestinians surrender to anyone? Another idiotic, hysterical rant from Jim lad. What the Palestinians want to do is to try a period of not attacking and killing their neighbours to find out what sort of result they get. Oh by the bye on the subject of White Phosphorus here is the Convention on Chemical Weapons please show me where White Phosphorus is listed as being prohibited. Please show me where within this convention White Phosphorus is even mentioned. Chemical Weapons Convention Where White Phosphorus Munitions are mentioned: Conventional Weapons Protocol III - Incendiary Weapons The important bit extracted from the above: "Protocol III lists certain munition types like smoke shells which, even if they contain White Phosphorus, only have a secondary incendiary effect; these munition types are not considered to be incendiary weapons." Please provide details of IDF white phosphorus munitions used - (Only kidding I know that you won't do anything of the sort - they used the M825A1 which contains 116 felt wedges impregnated with white phosphorus which, once dispersed by a high-explosive charge, start to burn within four to five seconds. They then burn for five to ten minutes. The smoke screen produced is extremely effective, it is NOT classified as an incediary weapon - NO OTHER WEAPONS CONTAINING WHITE PHOSPHORUS WERE USED). MGOH - over 8000 missiles, rockets and mortar bombs fired from Gaza into Israel since the IDF cleared all Israeli citizens from Gaza. There have been recorded instances of some of these munitions being filled with White Phosphorus (September 2010; March 2011 & August 2011) - Note filled with white phosphorus not impregnated felt wedges - these ARE INCENDIARY WEAPONS usage of which against civilian targets is illegal. Now then Kevin you tell me how many missiles, rockets or mortar bombs would you expect the UK Government to accept landing in our green and pleasant land before retailiating? I sincerely hope it would nothing like 8000. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Jim Carroll Date: 28 Nov 11 - 02:14 PM I see BB is back with his eye-for-an-eye philosophy None of the incidents listed can be laid at the door of the ordinary Palestinian people - who are the main victims of Israeli aggression - what's your point - that they Palestinians hijackes a few planes and flew them to NY - or - more likely - they are al A-rabs and so deservng of indiscriminate revenge? Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: beardedbruce Date: 28 Nov 11 - 02:29 PM Jim, The point is that YOUR comment ""the biggest massacre of civilians since WW2 -"" is an outright lie and that your presenting it proves you have no interest in the truth. You have made claims that are proven false by facts, and then tell others their claims are false ( after being provided facts) because the person presenting them are just are "Zionist little shit"(s). I think we can safely determine just what kind off a bigot YOU are from your comments. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: beardedbruce Date: 28 Nov 11 - 03:17 PM MY questions were NOT "an eye for an eye". I was asking if you thought it better for Israel to 1. Continue to treat the Palestinians the way they are presently 2. OR Treat the Palestinians the way the Arab Moslims have treated the Jews, 3. OR Treat the Palestinians the way the Other Arab Moslim States have treated the Palestinians. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 28 Nov 11 - 04:37 PM Jim, your own expert, cut and pasted by you, confirmed the type of smoke rounds used. Even you can not argue with international convention. Not chemical weapons. Not incendiary weapons. Not any kind of weapon at all! All this has been explained to you many times, but your case is so weak you have to cling on to every lie, and just keep repeating it as if that will ever make it true. It is a lie to claim that IDF ever, EVER, used chemical weapons. If your argument requires you to make a liar of yourself, what is it worth Jim? |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: GUEST,Teribus Date: 28 Nov 11 - 04:56 PM Plain and simple truth is that Jim Carroll is not interested in the truth, he is not interested in any fact, no matter how well substantiated. His bias and his bigotry are his guiding lights, for his over stated, hysterical over dramatical rants. He even dismisses and ignores the passages from his massive "cut'n'pastes" that show that his assertions are wrong. Nothing he says is of any interest or import, best left ignored. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Jim Carroll Date: 29 Nov 11 - 03:22 AM Bruce At the time of the Sabra, Shatila it was the largerst massacre of civilians since WW2 - I believe 9/11 happened - when???? I asked what you think should happen to the Palestinians - I received no reply, so looking back - I think this is one of yours; "The Palestinians were never owners of the Jewish Homeland"; one of your fellow Zionists even went so far as to propose a name for the new home for the people you propose be driven out; "Arabania" wasn't it? Again you choose to cringe behind "If you criticise us you must be anti-Semite" There is no greater manifestation of racisism or bigotry than to move whole peoples about like so many cattle, to divide the world into hostile groups of believer and non-believer, black and white, Christian and heathen, Catholic and Protestant, Jew and Gentile.... or talk about "Chosen People" or "Promised Lands". In the absence of an answer to my question, I'll just have to supply my own - if all else fails, move them next to a toxic rubbish dump - as is happening to the Bedouins - "rather good treatment" don't you think? Nice to have you back Terrabyte - I've missed the jackbooted rant. Keith; I asked "what exactly do you accept that the Israelis have done" - I recieved no reply; fair enough, it was a rhetorical question. We are all aware of your unconditional support for the massacres, the evictions, the blockade, the murder of aid workers.... And still you downgrade the chemicals used on civilians and ignore the horrific injuries - par for the course really. At least that clears up the question of bias and even-handedness on this thread, if nothing else. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 29 Nov 11 - 03:51 AM I do not "downgrade" anything. I am guided by the classification agreed on by the world's expert authorities on these munitions. But, Jim Carroll disagrees with them. Such deranged hubris! Why should we listen or take you seriously Jim? We are all aware of your unconditional support for the terror missiles of Gaza, bombing of bus loads of school kids, .... At least that clears up the question of bias and even-handedness on this thread, if nothing else. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Jim Carroll Date: 29 Nov 11 - 06:02 AM "But, Jim Carroll disagrees with them." No - they are marginally accepted as chemical by many "experts - that word again - surely your favourite hiding place) my concern rests entirely with the use they are made on human beings by other (less than) human beings, and the effect that it has on them - not apparently an issue with you. And your criticism of Israel is..............? Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 29 Nov 11 - 06:09 AM No - they are marginally accepted as chemical by many "experts I dispute that Jim, and I do not think you can possibly justify that claim. If you were just concerned about usage we could have agreed, but you needed to demonize Israel by falsely and dishonestly claiming that they used "chemical weapons". A lie. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Jim Carroll Date: 29 Nov 11 - 06:33 AM Pick your "expert Jim Carroll http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4442988.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4442988.stm http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/16/phosphorus-bombs-video-israel-gaza http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/news/israeli-armys-use-white-phosphorus-gaza-clear-undeniable-20090119 http://www.vtjp.org/background/gazaweapons.php http://uk.reuters.com/article/2009/01/10/uk-palestinians-israel-phosphorus-factbo-idUKTRE50922H20090110 http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1124770688802666702# http://mondoweiss.net/2009/01/white-phosphorus-terror-weapon.html http://www.expose-the-war-profiteers.org/DOD/south_lebanon_white_phosphorus/index.htm http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009/01/israel-launches/ http://www.icrc.org/eng/resources/documents/interview/weapons-interview-170109.htm http://www.rense.com/general72/PHOS.HTM http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?arnumber=5596102 http://www.hrw.org/news/2009/01/10/q-israel-s-use-white-phosphorus-gaza |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Jim Carroll Date: 29 Nov 11 - 07:11 AM BTW "If you were just concerned about usage we could have agreed," As you still havn'e accepted one single piece of wrongdoing on the part of the Israelis, despite your agreement that "blame lies on both sides" we certainly could not have agreed about anything And your criticism of Israel is..............? Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: beardedbruce Date: 29 Nov 11 - 07:21 AM Try READING posts, Jim... Casualties See also: Palestinian casualties of war Estimates of the number of the people killed in the ten days of Black September range from three thousand to more than five thousand, although exact numbers are unknown. The Palestinian death toll in 11 days of fighting was estimated by Jordan at 3,400, while Palestinian sources often cite the number 5,000, mainly civilians, killed. Arafat at some point claimed that 10,000 had been killed.[21][22] The Western reporters were concentrated at the Intercontinental Hotel, away from the action.[citation needed] Nasser's state-controlled Voice of the Arabs from Cairo reported genocide. [edit] This refers to the killing of Palestinians by Jordanians. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: beardedbruce Date: 29 Nov 11 - 07:23 AM Jim, "by other (less than) human beings,"??? Are you sure you want to say this? It does NOT make you look like a decent human being. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: beardedbruce Date: 29 Nov 11 - 07:44 AM Black September, The PLO's attempt to take over Jordan in 1970 The Sabra and Shatila massacre took place in the Sabra and Shatila Palestinian refugee camps in Beirut, Lebanon between September 16 and September 18, 1982, during the Lebanese civil war. Palestinian and Lebanese civilians were massacred in the camps by Christian Lebanese Phalangists while the camp was surrounded by the Israel Defense Force. A few of us might just suspect that 1970 was before 1982... A pity you can't even bother to learn ANY of the history of the Palestinian People. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: beardedbruce Date: 29 Nov 11 - 07:49 AM "At the time of the Sabra, Shatila it was the largerst massacre of civilians since WW2 " And Cambodia?- 500- 3500 dead is not even a blip on the radar when it comes to massacres, yet you make a provably false statement. I presume this is because you have no valid points to bring up, yet need to make some reply to pretend you care about people that you can't bother to learn the history ( as defined BY THEMSELVES) of. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 29 Nov 11 - 07:55 AM I picked 2 at random. Amnesty did not work. Reuters had only this hit for the word "chemical" "White phosphorus is not considered a chemical weapon under international conventions" I have criticised Israel's use of smoke, and its blockade of Gaza. You still have not accepted one single piece of wrongdoing on the part of the Palestinians. And your criticism of Palestinians is..............? |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 29 Nov 11 - 08:10 AM Keith A of Hertford - PM Date: 17 Jun 10 - 10:09 AM OK let me clear it up now. I do not support the blockade. I think it right for activists to challenge it. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 29 Nov 11 - 08:44 AM From: Keith A of Hertford - PM Date: 14 Nov 11 - 02:46 AM .... You can argue that the (Israeli) response (to missile onslaught) was disproportionate, and I might agree, |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Jim Carroll Date: 29 Nov 11 - 08:55 AM "Are you sure you want to say this? It does NOT make you look like a decent human being." People who use chemical weapons on civilians demean the term "human" How would you describe them? Keith thinks it so bad that he apears not to want to venture beyond 2 references - and who's to blame him considering the stance he has taken about the slaughter of civilians And before you attempt to make this a piece of anti-semitism - it refers to the behaviour of these people, not their race or religion And let me remind you it is you who would deprive a whole national group of a legitiate right to a homeland - how racist can you get? "And Cambodia?-" Khymer Rouge period - (1975–1979)" - Sabra Shatila 1982 From Le Monde on Sabra Shatila "Even the numbers of dead and disappeared remain vague. Estimates range from 500 to 5,000." "I do not support the blockade." The Blockade - that's it - massacres, civilian slaughter..... et al, and you reserve your disapproval for opposiition to what you have described as "politically motivated unwanted rubbish" - well done Keith. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: beardedbruce Date: 29 Nov 11 - 08:58 AM 1958-1961 "During the Great Leap Forward between 200,000 and 1,000,000 Tibetans died,[49]" The Great Leap Forward (simplified Chinese: 大跃进; traditional Chinese: 大躍進; pinyin: Dà yuè jìn) of the People's Republic of China (PRC) was an economic and social campaign of the Communist Party of China (CPC), reflected in planning decisions from 1958 to 1961, 1975 - 1978 The Khmer Rouge reached Phnom Penh and took power in 1975. The regime, led by Pol Pot, changed the official name of the country to Democratic Kampuchea. They immediately evacuated the cities and sent the entire population on forced marches to rural work projects. They attempted to rebuild the country's agriculture on the model of the 11th century, discarded Western medicine, and destroyed temples, libraries, and anything considered Western. At least a million Cambodians, out of a total population of 8 million, died from executions, overwork, starvation and disease.[34] Estimates as to how many people were killed by the Khmer Rouge regime range from approximately one to three million; the most commonly cited figure is two million (about one-third of the population).[35][36] This era gave rise to the term Killing Fields, and the prison Tuol Sleng became notorious for its history of mass killing. Hundreds of thousands fled across the border into neighbouring Thailand. The regime disproportionately targeted ethnic minority groups. The Cham Muslims suffered serious purges with as much as half of their population exterminated.[37] 1994 The Rwandan Genocide was the 1994 mass murder of an estimated 800,000 people in the small East African nation of Rwanda. Over the course of approximately 100 days (from the assassination of Juvénal Habyarimana and Cyprien Ntaryamira on April 6) through mid-July, over 500,000 people were killed, according to a Human Rights Watch estimate.[1] Estimates of the death toll have ranged between 500,000 and 1,000,000,[2] or as much as 20% of the country's total population. 1995 The events in Srebrenica in 1995 included the killing of more than 8,000 Bosnian Muslims as well as the mass expulsion of another 25,000–30,000 Bosnian Muslims, in and around the town of Srebrenica in Bosnia and Herzegovina, committed by units of the Army of Republika Srpska (VRS) under the command of General Ratko Mladić.[2][3] 2003- 2010 The Darfur Conflict[14][15] was a guerrilla conflict or civil war centered on the Darfur region of Sudan. It began in February 2003 when the Sudan Liberation Movement/Army (SLM/A) and Justice and Equality Movement (JEM) groups in Darfur took up arms, accusing the Sudanese government of oppressing non-Arab Sudanese in favor of Sudanese Arabs. ...There are various estimates on the number of human casualties, ranging from under twenty thousand to several hundred thousand dead, from either direct combat or starvation and disease inflicted by the conflict. There have also been mass displacements and coercive migrations, forcing millions into refugee camps or over the border and creating a large humanitarian crisis and is regarded by many as a genocide. A list of 20th century accused genocides... Sabra-Shatila, Lebanon IS listed, but by no stretch of any imagination could be called the worst, except by a bigot. "The Sabra and Shatila massacre was carried out in September 1982 against Palestinians in the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps by Lebanese Maronite Christian/Phalange militias, near the beginning of the 1982–2000 South Lebanon conflict. The number of victims of the massacre is estimated at 700-3500. Responsibility for the massacre has been attributed to the Phalangists as the perpetrators, and indirectly to Israel as the ally of the Phalangists.[260] On December 16, 1982, the United Nations General Assembly condemned the massacre and declared it to be an act of genocide.[261] Paragraph 2, which "resolved that the massacre was an act of genocide", was adopted by ninety-eight votes to nineteen, with twenty-three abstentions: All Western democracies abstained from voting.[262][263] According to William Schabas, director of the Irish Centre for Human Rights at the National University of Ireland,[264] "the term genocide (...) had obviously been chosen to embarrass Israel rather than out of any concern with legal precision".[263] This opinion is a reflection of the comments made by some of the delegates who took part in the debate. While all acknowledged that it was a massacre, the claim that it was a genocide was disputed, for example the delegate for Canada stated "[t]he term genocide cannot, in our view, be applied to this particular inhuman act".[263] The delegate of Singapore added that "[his] delegation regret[ted] the use of the term "an act of genocide" (...) [as] the term 'genocide' is used to mean acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group".[263] and that "[he] also question[ned] whether the General Assembly ha[d] the competence to make such determination",[263] and the United States commented that "[w]hile the criminality of the massacre was beyond question, it was a serious and reckless misuse of language to label this tragedy genocide as defined in the 1948 Convention (...)".[263] Citing Sabra and Shatila as an example, Leo Kuper notes the reluctance of the United Nations to respond or take action in actual cases of genocide against the most egregious violators, but its willingness to charge "certain vilified states, and notably Israel", with genocide. In his view: This availability of a scapegoat state in the UN restores members with a record of murderous violence against their subjects a self-righteous sense of moral purpose as principled members of 'the community of nations'... Estimates of the numbers killed in the Sabra-Shatila massacres range from about four hundred to eight hundred - a minor catastrophe in the contemporary statistics of mass murder. Yet a carefully planned UN campaign found Israel guilty of genocide, without reference to the role of the Phalangists in perpetrating the massacres on their own initiative. The procedures were unique in the annals of the United Nations.[265]" 2.3 1915 to 1950 2.3.1 Ottoman Empire/Turkey 2.3.1.1 Armenian 2.3.1.2 Assyrian 2.3.1.3 Greek 2.3.1.4 Dersim Kurds 2.3.2 Soviet Union 2.3.2.1 Katyn Massacres 2.3.2.2 Decossackisation 2.3.2.3 Holodomor 2.3.2.4 Post-World War II deportations of North Caucasian and Baltic Sea peoples 2.3.3 Croatia 2.3.4 Dominican Republic 2.3.5 Nazi Germany and occupied Europe 2.3.6 Partition of India in 1947 2.3.7 Republic of China and Tibet 2.4 1951 to 2000 2.4.1 Expulsion of Germans after World War II 2.4.2 Australia 1900-1969 2.4.3 Zanzibar 2.4.4 Guatemala 1968-1996 2.4.5 Pakistan (Bangladesh War of 1971) 2.4.6 Burundi 1972 and 1993 2.4.7 Rwanda 1994 2.4.8 North Korea 2.4.9 Equatorial Guinea 2.4.10 Cambodia 2.4.11 East Timor under Indonesian occupation 2.4.12 Dirty War in Argentina 2.4.13 Sabra-Shatila, Lebanon 2.4.14 Soviet invasion of Afghanistan 2.4.15 US invasion of Vietnam 2.4.16 Ethiopia 2.4.17 Iraqi Kurds 2.4.18 India 2.4.19 Tibet 2.4.20 Brazil 2.4.21 Democratic Republic of Congo 2.4.22 Somalia |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: beardedbruce Date: 29 Nov 11 - 09:00 AM "And Cambodia?-" Khymer Rouge period - (1975–1979)" - Sabra Shatila 1982 So you even admit that 1979 was BEFORE 1982?????? NOW we ARE getting somewhere! |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: beardedbruce Date: 29 Nov 11 - 09:03 AM "People who use chemical weapons on civilians demean the term "human"" You forget it was ONLY the Palestinians who were determined to have used WP AS A WEAPON against civilians. "And let me remind you it is you who would deprive a whole national group of a legitiate right to a homeland - how racist can you get? " AND YOU HAVE CONSISTENTLY DENIED THAT JEWS HAVE A RIGHT TO THE HOMELAND ESTABLISHED IN 1921. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 29 Nov 11 - 09:31 AM Jim, you asked what criticism of Israel I had ever made, and I gave you three straight off. I asked for what criticism you had ever made of Palestinian murdering. Nothing. Don and me, being fair minded and unprejudiced, acknowledge that fault lies on both sides. You just lie on both sides. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 29 Nov 11 - 12:50 PM ""(Don, I deplored their use of WP smoke in a civilian area and stated it could have been illegal.)"" Could have been doesn't cut it if you are claiming to be fair minded, and I don't think those burn victims in the hospital they targetted would agree that it was "smoke". You swallow whole all the "reasons" given for the destruction visited upon civilian homes, and who is your "credible" source for those assertions? The IDF!! Well that makes it all so certain because they wouldn't lie.........would they? Which still leaves us with everybody else deploring the violence on both sides and you claiming that the kind and gentle Israeli forces are the victims, defending themselves against Palestinian aggression (with overwhelming violence against a third world country still denied recognition as a state by Israeli and US influence through veto at the UN). Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Jim Carroll Date: 29 Nov 11 - 01:18 PM "The Great Leap Forward You seem to be attempting to excuse the Sabra - Shatila massacres by bean counting - squalid that you are S and S were a single planned and exectuted massacre over three days facilitated by and participated in by the Israelis As far as I can see all the others are a series of killings carried out over a length of time - in some cases years, none, as far as I can see can be described as "a massacre", rather, a sequence of killings, including some massacres. The claim (not mine) was that S & S was the largest single massacre to have taken place since W.W.2 If it's any help, you might like to dispute the figures by not counting the bodies buried (by the Falangists and the Israelis, with the help of the latter's bulldozers) under what is now the Stadium, because we will never know how many there where without tearing down the construction) - hope that's of some help. What kind of people are you?? Keith - my stance on the Palestinian response to Israeli aggression has been put up on this and other threads; if you can't manage it yourself, perhaps you might get a friend to read it for you. Your response is a joke - the punch-line being your opposition to a blockade you have sneered at from the beginning. I wonder how happy Don is having you claim him as an ally Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: beardedbruce Date: 29 Nov 11 - 01:26 PM "The claim (not mine) was that S & S was the largest single massacre to have taken place since W.W.2" Whose, then, so we know whose lies YOU accept without thought? "You seem to be attempting to excuse the Sabra - Shatila massacres by bean counting - squalid that you are" No, I seem to be pointing out your comment is false and a lie. As for "squalid", an admitted racist who has called Palestinians "sub-human" such as yourself has no room to talk, IMO. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: beardedbruce Date: 29 Nov 11 - 01:47 PM Jim, Note that I HAVE included the range of estimates for those killed- Since I do not KNOW the exact number, I DO NOT CHANGE IT TO MAKE MY POINT, as you seem to like to do. The Cambodians lost 900 to 2800 PER DAY The Rwandans lost at LEAST 5000 per day. S-S was 250 to 1750 killed per day. We would agree that this is far too great a number- BUT IT IS NOT THE WORST MASSACRE BY FAR. Using the PLO claims, the killings BY JORDANIANS of Palestinians was worse. and over a longer time as well. But YOU seem to have no problem with Palestinian civilians being killed as long as it is not by Israelis. You have ignored that the PALESTINIANS have ben determine to HAVE committed war crimes, and the Israelis have been accused- You excuse the Palestinians and object to the Israelis??? The Palestinians have put WP into incendiary rockets and fired them at civilians- THAT you have no problem with. The Israelis fire smoke shells into military positions THAT THE PALESTINIANS have illegally placed in civilian areas, and YOU raise hell about it. It would be interesting to hear you explain why we should not call you a bigot, as you seem to be one, who has no regard for human life on ANY side. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Jim Carroll Date: 29 Nov 11 - 03:32 PM Whose, then, so we know whose lies YOU accept without thought? It's in some of the earlier cut-n-pastes you look for it as you seem to havse decided it's a lie in advance. Of course - you could produce a single massacre that outstrips the "up to 5000" suggested by the "lying" LeMonde reporter. Both the Rwandan and the Cambodian were country wide conflicts - see 'The Killing Fields' and the amazing personal account on the Rwandan conflict (the name of which escapes me for the moment as it's on loan). "The Israelis fire smoke shells into military positions THAT THE PALESTINIANS have illegally placed in civilian areas, and YOU raise hell about it. " Been there and done that with Keith - search "killing hostages" which you seem to be advocating, along with him. "It would be interesting to hear you explain why we should not call you a bigot," It would be interesting to hear why you should not be called an out-and-out racist as you and your mob are suggesting that a whole nation has no valid right to their homeland - don't suppose either of us are going to get an answer. However, unless you can show that the barbarism shown by The Israeli administration is representative of the Jewish people as a whole (which I know is not the case from personal experience) - I would say you have no case, don't you? You peaple shame the Jewish people by making such a suggestion. Jews I have known would cringe to be compared with people like you - Benny Rothman, who fought Facists in Spain alongside my father; my landlord in London, Hugh Faulkner, who, as a medical student risked his life by joining Moseley's Blackshirts in order to pass on information on the marches and street meetings so they could be disrupted. Or all those wonderful activists I knew in Manchester, many of whom had lost their entire families in The Holocaust and who still felt such a sense of outrage that they devoted their lives to bettering the lives of their fellow workers and fighting for peace. You don't even feature next to any of them "As for "squalid", an admitted racist who has called Palestinians "sub-human" I'm sure you mean "Israelis" and I have done no such thing - I have called "less than human", those who have persistantly persecuted, non combatants, terrorised, dehumanised, slaughtered, ghettoised, attempted to starve into submission, used chemicals on house-dwellers, destroyed homes, usurped land, driven hundreds of families to live near toxic rubbish dumps...... AND CONTINUE TO DO SO.... Their race and religion was neither mentioned nor is it relevant I would include in my description those who attempt to justify such action with denials and distortions - especially those who claim that people who belong to any particular race or culture should be immune from criticism for such behaviour. You really are scraping the bottom a an extremely unwholesome barrel for your arguments Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: beardedbruce Date: 29 Nov 11 - 03:47 PM Repeating, since you have that comprehension problem: "People who use chemical weapons on civilians demean the term "human"" You forget it was ONLY the Palestinians who were determined to have used WP AS A WEAPON against civilians. "And let me remind you it is you who would deprive a whole national group of a legitiate right to a homeland - how racist can you get? " AND YOU HAVE CONSISTENTLY DENIED THAT JEWS HAVE A RIGHT TO THE HOMELAND ESTABLISHED IN 1921. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 30 Nov 11 - 01:36 AM Don, you claim to be fair minded, but you make no criticism of Jim while vilifying me. Jim supported every Palestinian crime without question. I answered your challenge for examples of even handedness from me. I only put Israel's case on any issue AFTER Jim had exclusively put the Palestinian case. He has just acknowledged again, without criticism, the taking of innocent "hostages" (his word) for use as human shields by Hamas. The indiscriminate slaughter of ordinary Jews and their children with missiles packed with ball bearings is a crime against humanity and a wicked war crime, compounded by using innocents as hostages and shields to prevent retaliation. Which side benefits from the news images of horribly injured children? Does that not raise any dark suspicions in your mind Don. It would in an open, fair mind. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Jim Carroll Date: 30 Nov 11 - 04:03 AM "AND YOU HAVE CONSISTENTLY DENIED THAT JEWS HAVE A RIGHT TO THE HOMELAND ESTABLISHED IN 1921." Perhaps you might point out where I have ever made such a statement - my argument lies in location of that homeland; what should happen to the Palestinians legitimately (disputed by you) living there; whether it includes the occupied territories, whether the Israelis have a right to extend it, as they appear to be doing, and the inhuman treatment consistently and over a long period meted out to those who have no part in this argument and who are just trying to live their lives and feed themselves and their families I have no great understanding of or interest in the present political dispute surrounding the Jewish Homeland other than it should in no way impinge on the lives of those not actually involved in any debates taking place in its maintenance; I was brought up in a family that totally supported a Jewish homeland following the horrific events of WW2 - that remains my position. My prime interest in this topic is a humanitarian one - an aspect you and your friends here have either ignored or wheedled out of by either supporting or denying the acts of vicious militaristic suppression - including behaviour that can be described as war crimes and abuses of human rights. "Repeating, since you have that comprehension problem:" Please don't talk down to me - you really aren't good enough at it. Your bullying and hectoring and your overuse of the word "liar" is somewhat reminiscent of the old black-and-white Prisoner-of-War 'Colditz Story' type films - any minute I expect to receive "Ve haf ways of making you talk" - stop it, you jumped up little no-mark. Keith; "Jim supported every Palestinian crime without question. Once again you are deliberately distorting what I have said to cover your own unconditional (to the point of fanaticism) support of Israeli atrocities and war crimes. I have described the Palestinian response to Israeli aggression in pursuit of its territorial aims as "inevitable" in the circumstances - a weak, poorly armed and equipped people facing a highly trained, well equipped army (to the point of nuclear capability). I believe that, should the Palestinians cease resistance to the Israeli juggernaut they are as likely to find themselves subject to the "rather good treatment" that the Bedouin families have had bestowed on them - ie living next to a toxic rubbish dump. If you have any examples of my saying otherwise - please put them up. Incidentally - apart from the US and other countries pursuing a policy of political and economic self-interest (openly admitted by the US) that is the view taken by the United Nations, UNESCO and other international bodies - and sympathetic responses to specific cases of atrocities have come from - Israeli enquiries - where else? "He has just acknowledged again, without criticism, the taking of innocent "hostages" (his word) for use as human shields by Hamas." No he has not - he has, from the beginning, questioned whether these are hostages and pointed out that Hamas is not a force parachuted in from Mars but made up of Palestinians living in the areas they have defended. That both sides have put the lives of civilians at risk in the conflict is beyond question, but it is the vastly superior Israeli military who have chosen the battlegrounds and deliberately targetted built-up areas. If you care to make the effort to read some of the links you have been given you will find that Israel has been found to have used hostages as human shields throughout their incursion into Gaza. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/23/gaza-human-shields-claim http://www.adalah.org/newsletter/eng/jul09/Rana_Human_Shields_update_report_Englsih_july_2009.pdf "I only put Israel's case on any issue AFTER Jim had exclusively put the Palestinian case." You have been unconditionally supporting the Israeli case as early as your attempts to excuse the murder of aid workers - before I ever became involved in these discussions - want be to jog your memory? Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 30 Nov 11 - 04:13 AM want be to jog your memory? Yes please. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Jim Carroll Date: 30 Nov 11 - 05:28 AM Piss of Keith - you know as well as I do it's on the thread concerning the Israeli attack on the aid ship - what are you disputing - that you didn't support the killings or that it didn't preceed this discussion When I get time I'll drag out the link - in the meantime you can be making your excuses. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 30 Nov 11 - 05:33 AM You did offer Jim. I am saying that in that instance, as in these threads, I put the Israeli perspective AFTER the Palestinian one had already been exhaustively posted. I look forward to you trying to show otherwise. So, yes please. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Jim Carroll Date: 30 Nov 11 - 05:41 AM "New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid " There you go - slightly earlier than you "I only put Israel's case on any issue AFTER Jim had exclusively put the Palestinian case." Now piss off and sort it out for yourself. Jim Car5roll |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 30 Nov 11 - 05:52 AM I do not understand your post Jim. (does anyone?) This was what you undertook to do. "You have been unconditionally supporting the Israeli case as early as your attempts to excuse the murder of aid workers - before I ever became involved in these discussions - want be to jog your memory?" I DO want you to jog my memory please. I think yours is playing tricks. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 30 Nov 11 - 06:43 AM Jim, I have looked at the "Gaza Aid" thread you refer to. Before I made my first post (7th June) the exclusively Palestinian case had already been put in, 11 posts by you. 11 posts by Don T. 19 posts by Lox. 15 posts by McGrath, and a hundred or more by Carol C. So Jim, whose memory needed jogging? |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: beardedbruce Date: 30 Nov 11 - 07:25 AM Jim, " your overuse of the word "liar"" Well, if you don't want to be called a liar, then stop posting verifiably false statements and claiming them to be true, after being presented with factual evidence that they are not. "stop it, you jumped up little no-mark." Stop what? Pointing out your bigotry, obvious lies, and failure to answer any questions with facts??? YOU have not presented ANY evidence you care about the Palestinian people, or anyone else- When you denounce the Palestinians for putting tires filled with gasoline around political opponents ( also Palestinians) and lighting them on fire, or placing the launchers for rockets ( being launched at civilians in violation of the Geneva conventions) in schools and hospitals IN ORDER TO CAUSE PALESTINIAN CIVILIAN casualties, THEN you can get on a "humanitarian" high horse- as long as you acknowledge that you are admitting YOU have declared Jews not to be fully human, just by their existence. As for "I was brought up in a family that totally supported a Jewish homeland following the horrific events of WW2 - that remains my position. " you fail to acknowledge where you would accept it- since you DENY the Mandate Palestine idea, FROM WW 1. **I** grew up with Palestinian neighbors, who came from the town of Ramallah. They were members of the one of the six founding families there ALL CHRISTIAN, who were driven out by the Arab Moslims in 1948. You have NEVER addressed the FACT that there were MORE Jewish Arab refugess than Moslim Arab ones- and you have consistently denied that Jews have the "rights" that you demand for the Palestinian Moslims. You have only decried that the Israelis have the audacity to fight back against the attacks and bigotry that you express so very well. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Jim Carroll Date: 30 Nov 11 - 09:52 AM "I do not understand your post Jim." Course you don't Keith - my point was to show that you have been supporting Israeli atrocities since at the very least May 2010 despite your claim that "I only put Israel's case on any issue AFTER Jim had exclusively put the Palestinian case." I was not supporting the Palestine on the "New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid " - I wsa objecting to the cold-blooded murder of aid workers - which you were supporting. "Well, if you don't want to be called a liar, then stop posting verifiably false statements" I don't post false statements - if I have made a mistake I admit to having done so - I do not see the point of getting involved in discussion threads and doing otherwise. You, on the other hand, have desperately tried to make this a racist issue on my part, failed miserably and moved on without having the good grace to admit you were wrong. You have claimed that I oppose the Jewish homeland - failed miserbly to even to make an approach on this one - so you move on without having the good grace to admit you were wrong. You called me a liar when I said I had responded to a question you asked - when I pointed out that I had, you moved on without having the good grace to admit you were wrong. You have said that the Palestinians have no claim to Palestine, when challenged, you ignore requests as to what should happen to the Palestinians - you ignore those requests. Personally I find it despicable - as low as anybody can sink for anybody to hide behind centuries of victims of anti-Semitism to defend the inhuman and criminal behaviour on the part of the religious extremeists who run modern Israel - it is no defence to point at other criminals who are guilty of other atrocities - you have operated an eye-for-an-eye argument throughout this thread - why not, you bear all the hallmarks of a religious extremist yourself. This is a discussion about Palestine and the atrocities that are taking place there; Israell is the aggressor and its victims are mainly civilians; men women or children, it appears not to amtter to the Israelis and their supporters; killed, maimed, made homeless deprived of basic needs of life... for the pursuit of territory. That is a fact that is recognised throughout the civiliesed world - address that one insted of crouching behind the dead for your argument. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: beardedbruce Date: 30 Nov 11 - 10:27 AM Jim, "I don't post false statements - if I have made a mistake I admit to having done so - I do not see the point of getting involved in discussion threads and doing otherwise." Yet I have pointed out false statements YOU have posted, and you have neither acknowledged the facts, nor provided any support for your statements. A lie on your part. "You, on the other hand, have desperately tried to make this a racist issue on my part, failed miserably and moved on without having the good grace to admit you were wrong." I have seen you complain about Israeli actions, yet defend the SAME actions or worse when the Palestinians were shown to have done them. If you have a reason other than bigotry, please provide it, as requested before and ignored by you. 2nd New Lie "You have claimed that I oppose the Jewish homeland - failed miserbly to even to make an approach on this one - so you move on without having the good grace to admit you were wrong." I have asked where you would put it, and why you do not acknowledge the Balfour Declaration, as the rest of the civilized worrld has. I have pointed out that the Arab Moslim Palestinians WERE given their own state, in 1923 or so, and you have never acknowledged that. "You called me a liar when I said I had responded to a question you asked - when I pointed out that I had, you moved on without having the good grace to admit you were wrong." Since YOUR saying you had replied was NOT accompanied by any answer or response addressing the question, I fail to see how I was wrong. "You have said that the Palestinians have no claim to Palestine, when challenged, you ignore requests as to what should happen to the Palestinians - you ignore those requests." Actually, I have stated that the ISRAELIS have a BETTER claim to the West Bank. IMO, the FACT that Israel is willing to NEGOTIATE the trade of LAND ( ISRAELI LAND) for peace with the Palestinians, and the Palestinians are not should tell you something. What I can see id that you have not addressed the questions I have repeatedly asked, and you lie about doing so. You have continued to insist that the NO Palestinians have NO RESPONSIBILITY for the actions of ANY Palestinians, even when supported by the Palestinian authorities, and that ALL ISRAELIS are responsible for the actions of ANY Israeli and should be collectively punished. In addition you deny the greater number of Arab Jewish refugees, and their rights. Again, MY questions were NOT "an eye for an eye". I was asking if you thought it better for Israel to 1. Continue to treat the Palestinians the way they are presently 2. OR Treat the Palestinians the way the Arab Moslims have treated the Jews, 3. OR Treat the Palestinians the way the Other Arab Moslim States have treated the Palestinians. Easy question- Should the Palestinians be treated 1. As Israel treats them now? 2. As the Arab Moslims have treated the Arab Jews? 3. As the other Arab Moslim countries have treated the Palestinians? I will even allow you to pick 4. As the Palestinians have treated the Israelis, since you talk about an eye for an eye. If you have another choice, PLEASE let us know, and WHY you think it is justified. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: beardedbruce Date: 30 Nov 11 - 10:31 AM sorry "NO Palestinians have NO RESPONSIBILITY" should have been "NO Palestinians have ANY RESPONSIBILITY" |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 30 Nov 11 - 10:51 AM I was not supporting the Palestine on the "New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid " - I wsa objecting to the cold-blooded murder of aid workers - That was the Palestinian argument Jim. Israel refuted that version of events. I only put Israel's case on any issue AFTER Jim had exclusively put the Palestinian case. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Jim Carroll Date: 30 Nov 11 - 12:33 PM "I will even allow you to pick " You self righteous, pompous prick - stuff your choices "Arab Moslims" The ARAB MOSLIMS have not treated the Jews any way - some of their leaders have treated them badly, just as the present leadership in Israel is treating the Palestinians badly now TO BLAME THE ARAB MOSLIMS AS A WHOLE FOR BAD TREATMENT OF THE JEWS IS RACIST IN THE EXTREME - EVERY BIT AS RACIST AS SUGGESTING THAT "ALL MALE PAKISTANIS" ARE CULTURALLY IMPLANTED PERVERTS - it is you who is the racist here. The protest here if of the treatment of Palestinian civilians. There is a territorial dispute- the Palestinian people as a whole should not be subject to war crimes as they are. Again the same answer to your question THE PALESTINIANS SHOULD BE TREATED AS THE HUMAN BEINGS THEY ARE - not targets of heavy weaponry as the Israelis have made them. I ask you again - what you do with the Palestyinians you would deny a legitimate claim on where they live? You say I hve not replied to 'false statements' I have made none - yo have skulked nbehind cowardly accusations of anti Semitism, of my denying the right of the Israel to a state - you have retracted neither, yet you have bullied, bluistered, demanded answers and still refuse to acknowledge that you have received answers - take your religios fanaticism and stiuffit in the same place as your choices. It is you who has lied throughout this thread. "That was the Palestinian argument Jim." No it was not - it was the aid workers who were the victims of the attack - and the almost unniversal condemnation from the rest of the world. "Israel refuted that version of events." We really will have to adopt a legal system where the criminals try themselves - that would be fair and unbiased, wouldn't it? Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 30 Nov 11 - 01:18 PM The "aid workers" who included Islamist activists, Jihadists and Hamas members, did indeed put the Palestinian version of events, repeated by you and others. There are two sides to this and all arguments Jim.(Right Don?) I put the other side. Why the outrage Jim? |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Jim Carroll Date: 30 Nov 11 - 01:28 PM No ourage Keith - we've become well used to your "putting the other side" - the killing of aid workers is par for the course. Making them Jihadists is fairly common practice when you want to kill them - this was downright slaughter and was widely recognised and condemned as such (exept by you - again. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 30 Nov 11 - 02:03 PM Be clear Jim. Do you object to anyone putting Israel's case on the forum? If not, what are you saying? |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: beardedbruce Date: 30 Nov 11 - 02:13 PM Jim, You are NOW stating that the actions of the government of a people ARE NOT THE RESPONSIBILITY of those people? SO HOW DO YOU JUSTIFY THE PALESTINIAN ATTACKS ON ISRAELIS??????? And WHY should Israeli settlers (who have a claim to the West Bank at least as great as the Moslim Palestinians) be punished for the actions of their government? Why should THEY have to move out of their homes, and give them to the Palestinians, as in Gaza? There is a territorial dispute- the Israeli people as a whole should not be subject to war crimes as they are. Yet you are quite happy with the Palestinian Authorities providing support for those Palestinians who do so. "You say I hve not replied to 'false statements' I have made none" Another lie on your part, as there have been facts presented that show what you posted to be false, and you have provided nothing to support those lies. I ask YOU - what you do with the israelis you would deny a legitimate claim on where they live? YOU have still not answered MY questions, nor provided a factual basis for ANY comments that have been questioned. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Jim Carroll Date: 30 Nov 11 - 03:31 PM "SO HOW DO YOU JUSTIFY THE PALESTINIAN ATTACKS ON ISRAELIS???????" If Israel is the aggressor, as the world believes it is, then the Palestinian attacks can be accurately described as the self-defence of a poor, badly armed people aganst a bully with nuclear potential - what is your justification for Israeli attacks on Palestinian civilians and the bullying oppression that has drawn the contempt of the world? "Another lie! There you go again, If it is, where is your retraction of my "racism" or my "denying the right of Israel to have a state" - if I am a liar then we both are liars - you have not retracted one single accusation you have made. Both sides are "subject to war crimes" where is your acknowledgement of that. "I ask YOU - what you do with the israelis you would deny a legitimate claim on where they live? " And once again you are inventing an opinion I do not hold - I'm sure I'm wasting my time but - please point out where I have challenged Israel's right to live where they live legitimately? Where is your response to my question as to what is to happen to a people who have no legitimate right to a state? Your accusations are getting more wild and desperate and I'm afraid your responses are getting somewhat hysterical and inarticulate - would a prayer help, do you think? "what are you saying?" I am saying that you are claiming to be fair and unbiased and accusing those of us who oppose you (nearly everbody here - once again) to be the opposite, yet you continue to admit regularly that you are "only putting Israel's case" - and from your own admission, have been doing so since the murder of the aid workers in May last year - are you really so stupid as not to see how ridiculous this makes you out to be - from your own mouth. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 30 Nov 11 - 03:55 PM you continue to admit regularly that you are "only putting Israel's case" - and from your own admission, have been doing so since the murder of the aid workers in May last year - are you really so stupid as not to see how ridiculous this makes you out to be Why does that make me ridiculous? Does "only putting the Palestinian case" make you ridiculous? Israel's case is that there were no "murders" on the Marmara. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 30 Nov 11 - 05:48 PM ""Don, you claim to be fair minded, but you make no criticism of Jim while vilifying me."" Jim is responsible for his own thoughts and words, and guilt by association doesn't apply here, since Jim has indeed repeatedly said that he DOES NOT CONDONE THE MISSILE ATTACKS ON ISRAEL!! But you wouldn't know that, having, by your own admission refused to read anything more than two or three sentences long. Get it? You are the ONLY poster who has attempted to absolve one side from all blame. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 30 Nov 11 - 06:01 PM ""The indiscriminate slaughter of ordinary Jews and their children with missiles packed with ball bearings is a crime against humanity and a wicked war crime, compounded by using innocents as hostages and shields to prevent retaliation. Which side benefits from the news images of horribly injured children?"" Indeed, your statement, as with most of what you say, does raise some dark thoughts. Of course the missiles are an unacceptable means of expressing frustration and nobody here is claiming otherwise. You, however, are denying that the Palestinians have any reason to be frustrated, denying that Israel is in any way responsible for their frustration and claiming that their massive, disproportionate, indiscriminate response is wholly justified, even though they are killing Palestinian men, women and children at a rate that is many times greater than the number of deaths caused by those missiles. The dark thoughts are increased by the knowledge that you are basing you arguments entirely upon the claims of the Israeli government and the IDF. And those two organisations are acting as Judge and Jury on their own actions, and executioner of the Palestinian population, terrorist or not. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 01 Dec 11 - 12:56 AM Jim has indeed repeatedly said that he DOES NOT CONDONE THE MISSILE ATTACKS ON ISRAEL!! You have imagined or dreamt that Don. He has NEVER said that. Just anodyne, trite statements deploring "all violence" He has refused to specifically condemn the missiles, even on Lox's thread for that very purpose. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 01 Dec 11 - 02:48 AM Don't just take my word Don. McGrath, "I think the use of missiles is wrong, and also tends to hurt Palestinians, since it helps the Israel government to justify its own reliance on far greater levels of violence than the Palestinians have ever been able to deploy. I disagree with Jim on this point." |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 01 Dec 11 - 03:28 AM Don, You are the ONLY poster who has attempted to absolve one side from all blame. I have just given you examples of even-handed blame from me Don. JIM CARROLL is the only poster who has attempted to absolve one side from all blame. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Jim Carroll Date: 01 Dec 11 - 04:04 AM "Why does that make me ridiculous?" Here's why "Israel's case is that there were no "murders" on the Marmara." One more time - I have never at any time condoned the the use of rockets on Israel - show me where I have. I have said that I believe they are an inevitable consequence of a conflict caused by the oppression of a powerful state on a weak and defencless Third World people in order to expand its territory. My stance on this matter is a humanitarian one - I support neither Israili Zionism (as you do) nor Muslim extremism - I have always argued that religion in any shape or form should never be an influencing factor in the running of any country - my statement exactly: "As far as I'm concerned, all such states can go to their own chosen hell in a handcart, as long as they don't take the rest of us with them" Now perhaps you can tell us where I have ever at any time advocated the use of weaponry of any sort on civilians - quoting another member of this forum who says he disagrees with me (I can't see any wide discrepancy between his argument and mine) is no proof of anything other than we might disagree on some things, nothing more. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 01 Dec 11 - 04:15 AM Israel's case IS that there were no murders. It is ridiculous to ignore that fact. You have justified the missiles as self defence Jim. To end this confusion for good, Do you condone the missiles, yes or no? Are they justified, yes or no? Surprise me and give two straight answers Jim. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Jim Carroll Date: 01 Dec 11 - 09:59 AM "Israel's case IS that there were no murders." This gets more and more bizzare - if you had been caught wearing a striped jumper and a mask and climbing out of a window carrying a bag marked "swag" wouldn't you say you didn't do it? I'm quite sure that if Jack the Ripper had been caught he would have said something similar The world's case is that there have been murders and Israel dunnem OF COURSE THEY HAVE CLAIMED INNOCENCE - WOULDN'T YOU????? "Do you condone the missiles, yes or no?" No I do not - as I said, I believe they are inevitable given the aggression of the Israelis "Are they justified, yes or no?" How can they be either justified or unjustified by anybody - justice does not come into the matter if it is inevitable. They are the inevitable consequences of a small poorly armed people retaliating against the armed aggression and persecution of the Palestinians - if there is any blame to be levelled, the Israelis must take the lion's share of it because it is they who are the aggressors.. You have consistently defended, directly, by your denials or by your silence: the massacres of refugees, the use of horrendous weapons in built up areas, the shelling of hospitals and schools, the killing of what you describe as "hostages", the attempts to starve an impoverished population into submission, the building of a wall to partition a people off from foods and means of livelihood, the killing of aid bringers, the eviction of householders in order to make use of their land, the mass movement of whole families next to a poisonous rubbish dump, the confiscation off taxes necessary for the running of a city, the everyday persecution and humiliation of ordinary citizens going about their business..... which of these actions would you describe as "justified" - if any Jim Carroll PS Do you still beat your wife and children YES OR NO? |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 01 Dec 11 - 11:10 AM Young children caught doing wrong sometimes claim it is not their fault, because "John made me do it." You acknowledge that the rockets are launched to murder innocent Jews and their children; that they are a crime against humanity, and a war-crime. SO, you do not condone them. BUT the Jews make them do it. In the Gaza aid thread a video clip was produced. It was said to show the murder of a named activist. It was a lie. No-one was being shot in that clip. Lying anti-Israel propaganda, like the "witnessed" body piles and the "witnessed" bodies thrown overboard by Jews. The boarding was legal. The boarders held paint-ball guns. They carried pistols but in closed holsters. They were attacked with deadly force. People were killed. Many had expressed their intention to be killed fighting Jews. There is no evidence for murder. How are you so certain that you find it "ridiculous" not to believe in murder? Prejudice. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Jim Carroll Date: 01 Dec 11 - 12:18 PM "Young children caught doing wrong sometimes claim it is not their fault, because "John made me do it."" A perfect summing up of your stance on Pakistani perverts The rest is twisting what I have said You continue to defend far greater war crimes by the Israelis - you can't have it both ways "not to believe in murder?" You are not claiming not to believe in murderer - you are acceptng the word of the murderer on trust - and you are claiming that those of us who disagree with you are prejudiced - that is what make you ridiculous - you have admitted again and again only to be arguing for one side. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 01 Dec 11 - 12:34 PM ""People were killed. Many had expressed their intention to be killed fighting Jews. There is no evidence for murder."" My God, those paintball guns must be powerful. And once again you accept without rational consideration everything the Israelis tell you. Or are you claiming the victims committed suicide when faced with toy guns?......GET REAL! Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 01 Dec 11 - 12:37 PM It is a complete waste of time trying to open a closed mind Keith, and you are no longer worth the bother. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Jim Carroll Date: 01 Dec 11 - 01:15 PM Drink to that Don - done my civic duty this week without having to look after the village idiot Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 01 Dec 11 - 02:44 PM Don, it is an incontrovertible FACT that the borders held paintball guns and carried holstered pistols. They can be clearly seen in the videos, which show them being attacked and some overwhelmed. We know for certain some of the activists were killed. There is no evidence that it was murder. Or do you have some, Don or Jim? You must have some. Fair minded people would not make up their minds without any at all. Would they? |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Jim Carroll Date: 01 Dec 11 - 02:57 PM You're getting to sound more like Uriah Heep with every posting Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 01 Dec 11 - 03:36 PM What did I get wrong Jim? Do you deny the paintball guns, and pistols in secured in back holsters? Do you deny the absence of any evidence for murder? Tell us what convinces you, and we will all be convinced. Or is it just blind, bigoted prejudice? |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 01 Dec 11 - 05:10 PM Next thing you know Jim, he'll be explaining how those unarmed activists were so overwhelmed by remorse at their rough treatment of the (as far as they could tell) heavily armed soldiers, that they committed suicide. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: MGM·Lion Date: 02 Dec 11 - 01:07 AM Back to stick my oar in again after days & days & days away. Blimey, nothing's changed, has it? Jim & Don [esp Jim: occasional bit of something approaching sense from Don] still engaged in fatuous ad hominem attacks on poor old Keith, who manfully keeps his end up; without, needless to say, addressing any of his perfectly germane points & questions. Ah well ~~ par for the course, as they say. Ho-hum. Think I'll go back to bed... ❤xxxMxxx❤ |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 02 Dec 11 - 01:26 AM Sleep well Michael. Don, you can make unfunny jokes, but you can not challenge a single one of my facts, or put up any counter evidence at all. So, you are being laughed at, but not for the pathetic "jokes." |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Jim Carroll Date: 02 Dec 11 - 04:06 AM "poor old Keith," Yes MIke - Keith continues with his shyster-lawyer-type "but my client says he didn't do it Your Honour" defence of war crimes and atrocities, and you give him your occasional paternal nod of approval, Oblomov-like, from the comfort of your bed. As you say - nothing changes Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 02 Dec 11 - 04:09 AM If the prosecution says he did it, but has no evidence at all, what would be the verdict? |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Jim Carroll Date: 02 Dec 11 - 05:35 AM You've had the evidence but choose to ignore it - or deny it without evidence of your own Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: MGM·Lion Date: 02 Dec 11 - 05:43 AM Round and round goes the jolly old thread Till we could all scream off our heads... 〠〠〠〠〠〠〠 ☺☺☺☺☺☺ ☹☹☹☹☹☹ |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Jim Carroll Date: 02 Dec 11 - 05:49 AM Sorry - to be fair "without evidence of your own" Expept - "My client says he didn't do it your honour". Finished here - I'll leave you and your sleeping partner to get on with your defence of Israeli atrocities. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 02 Dec 11 - 06:10 AM Not that old ploy again Jim. You have evidence but choose not to disclose it! Laughable. The only evidence for murder turned out to be a malicious lie. Any denial of any of my stated facts? |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 02 Dec 11 - 07:11 AM "without evidence of your own" Expept - "My client says he didn't do it your honour". Evidence that the deaths may have been self defence. 1.The boarders held only paintball guns, with pistols in closed holsters on their backs. 2.While making a legal boarding, pre-planned attempts were made to murder them. 3.Many "aid workers" were videoed using steel and iron fittings from the ship to make deadly clubs. 4.The "aid workers" were videoed using both hands to swing iron clubs from above their heads onto the soldiers' bodies, clubbing them into helpless submission, disarming at least one, and throwing another over a 20 foot drop. 5.Many of the "aid workers" had expressed a determination to die killing Jews. Any challenge? Any counter evidence? (that you are prepared to reveal!) |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 02 Dec 11 - 07:44 AM So there you have it folks. Keith the "fair minded" (self styled) has established to his own complete satisfaction that the Israeli government and the (Nuclear Armed) IDF are just sweet innocent down home folks, who wouldn't hurt a fly, being victimised by those nasty Palestinians. Palestinians who are of course all (from five to ninety years old) terrorists, or being used as hostages by terrorists, which makes them legitimate targets for heavy artillery, aerial attack, incendiaries, modern automatic weapons etc. etc. WP (cunningly disguised as illuminations (watch out Blackpool) or smoke screen (I've never quite worked out how they can be both, given the thick white blanket they produce) is justified as a legitimate means of screening Israeli forces so the enemy can't chuck rocks at them, and can fired into buildings apparently ("oh no! They shouldn't have done that says Keith, still, it's only a mistake"). Meanwhile, those cunning terrorists are mounting a vicious and prolonged series of savage attacks upon innocent Israeli citizens by firing rockets which are home made (admitted by Keith), with sufficient aiming capabilities to hit a medium size town (sometimes). This of course makes them war criminals, because the IDF are not hiding behind them, being far too busy kicking the crap out of Palestinian "hostages". This little precis of Keith's oft repeated position seems somehow to lack balance. Jim says the rocket attacks are not justifiable, and neither is the response. I say both sides are at fault, and that both need to acknowledge that and get the job done before Akhmedinejad completes his nuclear plans and converts the whole bloody lot into smoke and cinders. I'm done arguing against an impregnable closed mind and Keith is welcome to keep on keeping on on his own. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 02 Dec 11 - 07:56 AM Your "jokes" get worse Don. You choose to try and be funny because you can refute none of my points, and because you have nothing to reply with. You pair of twats have made yourselves a joke. You just know that the Jews did it. No need for any reason. Pure prejudice. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 02 Dec 11 - 08:00 AM "" You pair of twats have made yourselves a joke. You just know that the Jews did it. No need for any reason. Pure prejudice. "" O.K. Just which part of "BOTH SIDES ARE RESPONSIBLE" is beyond your somewhat limited comprehension, Dickhead?....You can't even lie effectively. Don T |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 02 Dec 11 - 08:28 AM But, I have said that too Don. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Jim Carroll Date: 02 Dec 11 - 11:08 AM "Till we could all scream off our heads..." Back to bed Mike - you might be asked to substantiate your unease about the behaviour of the Israeli government - perish the thought. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Jim Carroll Date: 02 Dec 11 - 11:29 AM And BTW. You might fancy nipping across to the Norwegian massacre thread and giving your protegé a hand. He seems to have got himself into hot water by claiming that Breivik can't be considered a racist because you can't possibly be a racist and insane. 7th Cavalry desperately needed! Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 03 Dec 11 - 02:30 AM claiming that Breivik can't be considered a racist because you can't possibly be a racist and insane How appropriate that Jim finishes with a blatant, shameless lie. JIM CARROLL LIES. JIM CARROLL, LIAR. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 03 Dec 11 - 02:37 AM Here is the thread Jim referred to. thread.cfm?threadid=139307&messages=209&page=1&desc=yes Look for 2nd November posts. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: MGM·Lion Date: 03 Dec 11 - 04:30 AM Do you mean 2 DEC? There are no 2 Nov posts there. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 03 Dec 11 - 04:57 AM sorry. Thanks Michael. |
| Share Thread: |
