BS: Small hope for Israel/Palestine

Subject: RE: BS: Small hope for Israel/Palestine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 May 13 - 03:02 AM

McG, some estimates of those casualties are given here.
IDF did target Hamas Police, regarding them as combatants.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Gaza_War

Jim I was referring to Pillar of Cloud operation.
Are you talking about something else?
Please be specific re what you think need verifying.

Subject: RE: BS: Small hope for Israel/Palestine
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 May 13 - 02:50 AM

AS I pointed out, this was not legitimate combat - it was an assassination where rules of combat do not apply.
To carry out such an assassination on the homes of civilians IS YET ANOTHER ISRAELI WAR CRIME
"
Israel issued written warnings and made thousands of phone calls to Gaza residents, advising them to stay far away "
It was a secret operation - no advance warning was given.
Assuming you are deliberately avoiding the assassination and talking about the last incursion:
"phone calls to Gaza residents, advising them to stay far away "
Where do you suggest that the entire population of Gaza should have evacuated themselves to - are you seriously suggesting that the Israelis announced which homes were to be bombed in order to kill terrorists, in advance?
CAN YOU PLEASE GIVE LINKS TO ALL THESE CLAIMS OR DO YOU INTEND TO CONTINUE MAKING UP THIS INFORMATION AS YOU GO ALONG?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Small hope for Israel/Palestine
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 May 13 - 08:33 PM

Of 167 Palestinians killed in the last Gaza "war" 69 were identified by Israel as combatants. A fifth of the civilians killed were children under 12.

True enough if Israel had been aiming to maximise killing they could have killed a great many more, as they had demonstrated back in 2009 when well over a thousand were killed, most of them civilians and hundredsof those being children.

Subject: RE: BS: Small hope for Israel/Palestine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 May 13 - 05:43 PM

From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 20 Dec 12 - 08:14 AM

Don, they hit about 1500 targets in a heavily populated area and only killed about 100 civilians.

That means either that they are total incompetents at killing civilians, or they are brilliant at missing them.


Israel issued written warnings and made thousands of phone calls to Gaza residents, advising them to stay far away
from terrorist installations that would be targeted in air strikes.
Only 25 percent of those killed during NATO's operations in Kosovo were combatants, and that was a much less densely populated than Gaza.

Subject: RE: BS: Small hope for Israel/Palestine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 May 13 - 04:44 PM

Can you show us how they cases here "took reasonable efforts" to avoid or minimise casualties
Yes.
In accordance with the law, warning were issued before the strikes, and highly accurate munitions used near civilian homes.

How do you define "illegally operating"
Firing indiscriminate missiles loaded with explosives and fragments at civilians.

"As I said, they achieved an extraordinarily and historically low number of civilian casualties,"
Utter crap - where is your evidence to back this up?
How selective your memory is Jim!
We have discussed this all before.
I think it was Bobad who first posted the statistics with comparisons to recent similar actions like the NATO airstrikes in Yugoslavia.


Incidentally - none of this "international law" invention is in any way relevant to any of this.
Yes it is.
The IDF action was in response to the rain of anti-personnel missiles on its people.

Subject: RE: BS: Small hope for Israel/Palestine
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 May 13 - 12:17 PM

Incidentally - none of this "international law" invention is in any way relevant to any of this.
These were ASSASSINATIONS - no combat involved asn acts of terror in their own right.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Small hope for Israel/Palestine
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 May 13 - 11:13 AM

The point I was making is where civilians are killed in order to deter the civilian population from cooperating with the other side, or to punish it for doing so, that is in itself an act of terrorism. It is in fact an extreme form of hostage taking.

The Boston Marathon bombing would appear to fall into this category of terrorism.

Subject: RE: BS: Small hope for Israel/Palestine
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 May 13 - 10:55 AM

"You may target an enemy illegally operating in a civilian area if you make all reasonable efforts to avoid or minimise civilian casualties."
Can you show us how they cases here "took reasonable efforts" to avoid or minimise casualties while dropping a bomb on a block of flats (also those that were dropped during the incursion)
How do you define "illegally operating" - as the targets discussed were not "operating", but living there?
"As I said, they achieved an extraordinarily and historically low number of civilian casualties,"
Utter crap - where is your evidence to back this up?
"The head of the Shin Bet reported to the Israeli Cabinet that of the 810 Palestinians killed in Gaza in 2006 and 2007, 200 were civilians (a ratio of approximately 1:3). Haaretz assessed this to be an underestimation of civilian casualties. Using B'tselem's figures they calculated that 816 Palestinians had been killed in Gaza during the two-year period, 360 of whom were civilians.[25] 1,010 Israelis were killed between September 29, 2000 and January 1, 2005. Of these, 773 were civilians killed in Palestinian attacks, resulting in a ratio of approximately 5:1.[26]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualty_ratio#Israeli.E2.80.93Palestinian_conflict
Are we to take it that you no longer oppose the killing of civilians?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Small hope for Israel/Palestine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 May 13 - 10:16 AM

As I said, they achieved an extraordinarily and historically low number of civilian casualties, and some of those, like the BBC man's child, transpired to be from Palestinian missiles.

Subject: RE: BS: Small hope for Israel/Palestine
From: Stringsinger
Date: 15 May 13 - 09:29 AM

Yes International law condemns Israel for punishing collectively Palestinians. Rachel Corrie was targeted for defending the destruction of Palestinian homes.

Whose to say what is legal in targeting an "enemy" in a civilian area? And there is no
attempt to avoid or minimize Palestinian casualties. This is not true.

The small hope for Israel has to do with the people of Israel who still have a conscience and they are there protesting the brutal tactics of Netanyahu and the Israeli military.

Subject: RE: BS: Small hope for Israel/Palestine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 May 13 - 08:10 AM

In the final analyses this seeks to justify any and every action by parties in a conflict. It amounts to a licence for war criminals.

No. International law is quite clear on this.
Collective punishment is not allowed.
Targeting civilians is not allowed.
You may target an enemy illegally operating in a civilian area if you make all reasonable efforts to avoid or minimise civilian casualties.

Subject: RE: BS: Small hope for Israel/Palestine
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 May 13 - 08:04 AM

"I am afraid that is precisely the argument that has been used to justify attacks aimed at civilian targets"
It was exactly the excuse that the Nazis gave for the Lidice massacre following the assassination of Heydrich.
Keith has regularly accused Hamas of using human shields and hiding in occupied area - seems that his argument here is a movable feast to be applied as it suits his argument.
He has also stridently denied that he is in favour of killing hostages - which he appears now to be supporting.
"The six say that it is counter-productive for Israel."
Yet they also say that this is what was being done.
You have yet to respond to the fact that this is now regular practice by the Israelis, particulsarly during the last Gaza incursion (or are the links you have been given also "lies"?)
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Small hope for Israel/Palestine
From: bobad
Date: 15 May 13 - 07:19 AM

"Yes, that seems a fair description of the connection."

You just can't help yourself.

Subject: RE: BS: Small hope for Israel/Palestine
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 May 13 - 06:56 AM

"If a person is "willing" to be used to allow terrorists commit murder with impunity, they make terrorists of themselves."

I am afraid that is precisely the argument that has been used to justify attacks aimed at civilian targets in all kinds of conflicts, including most relevantly here, Israeli civilians in buses or cafés. "Since you do not oppose the actions of your government, you are legitimate targets".

In the final analyses this seeks to justify any and every action by parties in a conflict. It amounts to a licence for war criminals.

Subject: RE: BS: Small hope for Israel/Palestine
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 15 May 13 - 04:20 AM

"" -snip- the relationship between Israeli settlers and Palestinians is similar to that between the German army and, say, Poland, not similar to how Germans treated Jews. -snip- ""

When the German occupying forces killed one hundred Poles for any one German soldier killed?

Yes, that seems a fair description of the connection.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Small hope for Israel/Palestine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 May 13 - 02:45 AM

No. It is not.

If a person is "willing" to be used to allow terrorists commit murder with impunity, they make terrorists of themselves.
In reality of course, the terrorists care not if the human shields are "willing" or not, and in any case, who can give consent on behalf of a child?

In spite of all that, in the last Gaza operation, the IDF achieved less collateral harm than has ever been achieved in urban warfare before.

The six may say that it did not improve Israel's security, and we might believe them, but they were not accusing themselves of terrorism.
They were responding to Palestinian terrorism.

Subject: RE: BS: Small hope for Israel/Palestine
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 May 13 - 08:17 PM

Terrorism is violence causing death and injury to civilians with the aim of affecting the way they behave and the way they think. One of the motives for bombing a civilian district where an adversary is believed to be present is likely be to make people less willing to accept the presence among them of such people. Insofar as this motive is present it means that the bombing is an act of terrorism.

Subject: RE: BS: Small hope for Israel/Palestine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 May 13 - 03:22 PM

The dropping of a bomb on a crowded town in order to kill a terrorist suspected of living there IS AN ACT OF TERROR
No. It is not.
The six say that it is counter-productive for Israel.
You and I might think they are right, but it is not terrorism.
Terrorism is what the Palestinians do- killing civilians deliberately and for no other reason than to terrorise civilians.

The Boston bombs were planted by Americans.
It would be misleading to call that American terrorism.

Subject: RE: BS: Small hope for Israel/Palestine
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 May 13 - 03:00 PM

"The murder of Rabin was not terrorism and nothing to do with the government of Israel."
The murder of Rabin was carried out by an Israeli terrorist - an act of terrorism.
It was deliberately provoked by mass meetings called by Extremist Rabbis and supported by thousands - an open incitement to terrorism.
Not one of those who organised or spoke at those meetings have been arrested or called to answer the crime that they were actually filmed at - State collusion in terrorism.
"No, unless Obama is a terrorist too."
A moot point - the US at Falujah, Afghanistan and Viet-Nam (and name any state where the CIA has operated) regularly used terror tactics.
The imprisonment and torture of suspects, keeping them in cages for years on end and failing to charge them with any crime are all acts of terror and are recognised as such.
The dropping of a bomb on a crowded town in order to kill a terrorist suspected of living there IS AN ACT OF TERROR
The sanctioning of the murder of two kidnappers (one of them was kicked to death by soldiers) is an act of terror.
This is a bizarre defence of terrorist atrocities, even by your standards.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Small hope for Israel/Palestine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 May 13 - 02:38 PM

The deliberate dropping of a bomb in the middle of a town, knowing there were bound to be many casualties was to sanction deliberate 'collateral damage'.

No, unless Obama is a terrorist too.
The terrorists are legitimate targets and can be attacked if you make every effort to avoid or minimise collateral casualties.
Israel has always done that.

The murder of Rabin was not terrorism and nothing to do with the government of Israel.

Subject: RE: BS: Small hope for Israel/Palestine
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 May 13 - 10:42 AM

Whoops - wrong one, should have been this
http://www.maannews.net/eng/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=593863
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Small hope for Israel/Palestine
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 May 13 - 10:37 AM

"The six do not describe Israel as "terrorist.""
Yes they do Keith - the link you were given first does exactly that - your link to the Telegraph review says that the comparison to the Nazis in Europe "should have been left of the cutting room floor" - whatever way you paint it, these concern acknowledged accusations of terrorism.
The murder of Rabin was an act of terror, the incitement to murder by extremist Rabbis at rallies attended by thousands of people was an act of terror, the failure on the part of the Government to take action against those who incited that murder, both before and after the fact, was collusion in an act of terror, the sanctioning of the dropping of a bomb on an occupied area in order to kill a terrorist was and act of terror..... there are other such examples in the film (which you have not seen and have only offered 2 reviews from the "many" you have claimed to have read).
"Are you claiming that the film accuses Israel of that?"
The deliberate dropping of a bomb in the middle of a town, knowing there were bound to be many casualties was to sanction deliberate 'collateral damage'. Acts such as this have been repeated over and over again in Gaza right up to the last incursion - the killing of non combatants is now par for the course for the Israelis - you should know; you have defended it often enough.
http://edition.cnn.com/2013/04/17/world/meast/israel-gaza-strike-report
http://news.yahoo.com/israel-says-november-gaza-strike-killed-12-civilians-171146644.html
http://edition.cnn.com/2013/04/17/world/meast/israel-gaza-strike-report
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Small hope for Israel/Palestine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 May 13 - 08:43 AM

it talks about deliberate collateral damage

"deliberate" ?
Are you claiming that the film accuses Israel of that?

"Collateral damage is damage to things that are incidental to the intended target. It is frequently used as a military term where it can refer to the incidental destruction of civilian property and non-combatant casualties"

If deliberate rather than incidental, that would be a crime.
No reviewer I have seen mentions that, and I have read lots.

Subject: RE: BS: Small hope for Israel/Palestine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 May 13 - 08:35 AM

The six do not describe Israel as "terrorist."
Right?
That is your biased interpretation.
The reviewers obviously saw and studied the film.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/alanjohnson/100213410/the-gatekeepers-is-an-important-film-friends-of-israel-must-not-dismiss-
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jordan-mainzer/is-occupation-sustainable_b_2945811.html

Subject: RE: BS: Small hope for Israel/Palestine
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 May 13 - 08:24 AM

I meant to write "giving no links to your claims", of course.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Small hope for Israel/Palestine
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 May 13 - 08:15 AM

You are now telling me what a film that you haven't seen says and doesn't say.
Nobody has mentioned Jews and nobody has compared like-with-like as far as numbers are concerned - I have taken pains throughout all these discussions to say that in this respect there are no comparisons to be made.
Throughout, it talks about deliberate collateral damage, the incitement of the murder of a prime minister and then the refusal to charge those who incited that murder, the bombing of built up areas to kill one 'terrorist.... a whole host of deliberate acts of terrorism.
In essence, the whole film concludes with the accusation that Israel has become a terrorist state and the politicians have ruled out a peaceful solution =- and all this from six heads of the security service.
Produce your reviews, with links or stand exposed as a moronic liar.
Once more you have reverted to giving links to your claims - can't find any decent Zionist extremist quotes, no doubt!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Small hope for Israel/Palestine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 May 13 - 07:49 AM

This, by Jordan Mainzer, Huffington Post.

According to Avraham Shalom, head of the Shin Bet from 1981-1986, the Israeli occupation of Palestine is "a brutal force, similar to the Germans in World War II." While pundits have grossly taken this statement out of context to the point where it sounds like Shalom is calling Israelis Nazis, what he really means, as he distinguishes in the film, is that the relationship between Israeli settlers and Palestinians is similar to that between the German army and, say, Poland, not similar to how Germans treated Jews.

Subject: RE: BS: Small hope for Israel/Palestine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 May 13 - 07:39 AM

I know from reading many reviews that the six do not accuse Israel of terrorism, only criticising Israel's response to Plaestinian terrorism.
I read this for instance, by Alan Johnson.
I am not uncritical of the film. Moreh should certainly have left one exchange with Avraham Shalom, head of the Shin Bet from 1980 to 1986 on the cutting room floor. Shalom clumsily compares Israel's occupation of the West Bank to the Nazis' treatment of the Poles during World War Two. In fact, some 1.8 to 1.9 million ethnic Polish civilians were victims during the German occupation and a comparison of that genocide to the West Bank after 1967 is worse than ridiculous.

Subject: RE: BS: Small hope for Israel/Palestine
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 May 13 - 07:26 AM

"Do any of the 6 accuse Israel of terrorism?"
Yes they ******* do - in the film they equate the behaviour of present-day Israel with that of the Nazis in the countries the conquered in Europe - Czechoslovakia and Poland springs immediately to mind ARE YOU REALLY SUGGESTING THAT LIDICE AND WARSAW WEREN'T ACTS OF TERRORISM
I ask again:
have you seen the film?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Small hope for Israel/Palestine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 May 13 - 06:44 AM

Do any of the 6 accuse Israel of terrorism?
No.
They do say that in response to Palestinian terrorism, Israel should not use military methods.
A political solution would be preferable.

Iran was mentioned first, not by me, in relation to its nuclear aspirations.
Egypt was only mentioned in the OP.I just quoted it.

Subject: RE: BS: Small hope for Israel/Palestine
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 May 13 - 06:32 AM

"I say it does not accuse Israel of terrorism."
If the Nazis were not carrying out terrorist acts in the countries mentioned by the Sin Beth head - how the **** would you describe it
I ask again HAVE YOU SEEN THE FILM?
No? - I thought not! It's not on general release in the UK
What has Iran and Egypt to do with this thread BTW?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Small hope for Israel/Palestine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 May 13 - 05:09 AM

This gives Iran at 9 and Egypt at 10.
Israel is not in the ten.
http://www.therichest.org/location/top-10-countries-with-the-biggest-armies-in-the-world/

Subject: RE: BS: Small hope for Israel/Palestine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 May 13 - 04:43 AM

I say it does not accuse Israel of terrorism.
Do you challenge that?
One of the Gatekeepers made a comparison to the Nazis in Poland, where millions were killed.

Steve,
Israel has the fourth biggest army in the world
I Google "biggest armies" and this was first hit.
http://www.mapsofworld.com/world-top-ten/world-top-ten-countries-with-largest-armies-map.html

Iran comes in at 6 but Israel is not in top ten.

Subject: RE: BS: Small hope for Israel/Palestine
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 May 13 - 04:37 AM

By interviewing six former heads of the Shin Bet, Moreh strives to take this debate to a new level. Not only has he wheeled out some big guns, but he is prepared to use some loaded language as well: Avraham Shalom (career Shin Bet man, head of the agency from 1980 to 1986, pardoned by his political masters for ordering the extra-judicial execution of two Palestinian bus hijackers in 1983) tells Moreh that Israel's military has become "a brutal occupation force" and that Israel is treating the Palestinians in a manner similar to how the Germans treated the Dutch, Poles and others they occupied in World War II.
For many viewers the comparison will shock, and that is the point. It has to be said that throwing the 'Nazi' label around is not an uncommon tactic of Israeli political rhetoric, albeit an extreme one. Still, I suspect few who see the film will be shocked by the comparison to German occupation than one might expect, simply because The Gatekeepers prepares us almost too well for this conclusion. Using the interviews, extensive archival and drone footage, re-enactments, and still-photo diorama techniques, Moreh portrays a Shin Bet intelligence system so comprehensive, so intrusive and so long-lasting that by the time we reached the Shalom comparison to German occupation I was already reminded of a more recent Germany, an authoritarian one founded on Stasi secret service control (constant surveillance, pervasive use of informants, hundreds of thousands of arrests, targeted killing, etc).
http://www.opendemocracy.net/mark-taylor/israel-in-trouble-review-of-gatekeepers-by-dror-moreh

Subject: RE: BS: Small hope for Israel/Palestine
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 May 13 - 04:30 AM

"The Gatekeepers do not accuse Israel of terrorism,"
The film - still fresh in my memory - says exactly what I said it did - that Israel has become little better than Nazi Germany.
Perhaps you might like to tell us what you think it did say - you have seen it haven't you?
And as I said - you have less right than anybody else here to cry "thread drift" when you get into trouble - it is a constant practice of yours.
STOP ATTEMPTING TO MANIPULATE DISCUSSIONS.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Small hope for Israel/Palestine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 May 13 - 02:54 AM

Jim, you say, in big coloured capitals, " YOU ARE NOT AN OVERSEER ON THIS SITE - DO NOT TRY TO STOP WHAT YOU CAN'T HANDLE - IT IS NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS."
But Jim, you accused me of changing the subject.
You were wrong because it was a direct lift from the OP so not thread drift by any definition.
You made a big font, multicoloured twat of yourself again.

And the film.
The Gatekeepers do not accuse Israel of terrorism, they question the worth of a hard military response to Palestinian terrorism.

Steve,
It's amazing how you can be nuke-crazed yet have no nukes, innit!
Yes. Iran is the strongest military power in the region and threatened by no-one, but it destroys its economy and pauperises its people to acquire nukes.
That would be crazy if they had no purpose for those nukes when they get them.

Why have they got them then? Decoration?
No. Like us for deterrence.
You could question their nuclear intentions 50 years ago, but they have proved themselves responsible.
They have not used them in the face of attack, or even invasion, even when losing.

Subject: RE: BS: Small hope for Israel/Palestine
From: Greg F.
Date: 13 May 13 - 09:26 PM

Its just fun to collect 'em, Steve. Like stamps or baseball cards.
Especially if the USA is buying 'em for you.

Subject: RE: BS: Small hope for Israel/Palestine
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 May 13 - 07:15 PM

Why have they got them then? Decoration?

Subject: RE: BS: Small hope for Israel/Palestine
From: bobad
Date: 13 May 13 - 07:08 PM

"...if your next door neighbour were sitting on a couple of hundred NUCLEAR WARHEADS and the means to deliver them to your front garden at a minute's notice."

And why would they want to do that, pray tell?

Subject: RE: BS: Small hope for Israel/Palestine
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 May 13 - 06:52 PM

It's amazing how you can be nuke-crazed yet have no nukes, innit!

Subject: RE: BS: Small hope for Israel/Palestine
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 13 May 13 - 06:46 PM

""You can't see Iran, but the nuke-crazed mullahs aren't far away.""

Not far away maybe, and not particularly ""Nuke Crazed"" either, but I suapect that YOU might want some defensive nuclear capability, if your next door neighbour were sitting on a couple of hundred NUCLEAR WARHEADS and the means to deliver them to your front garden at a minute's notice.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Small hope for Israel/Palestine
From: Greg F.
Date: 13 May 13 - 06:01 PM

Or the Faschoillamalists. Or mybe the Ramalamadingdongalists. Oe even the Zionistapologists.

Subject: RE: BS: Small hope for Israel/Palestine
From: bobad
Date: 13 May 13 - 04:55 PM

Would that one could have such hope for those suffering the governance of the Islamofascists.

Subject: RE: BS: Small hope for Israel/Palestine
From: Stringsinger
Date: 13 May 13 - 04:38 PM

Keith, try Mubarak for one. Also, G.W. Bush and Cheney for others. Iraq was an exercise in killing innocents by basically American dictators.

I think Stephen Hawking has the right idea. Don't support the war-mongers in the Likud or the Israeli government.

There are some enlightened people in Israel who are unhappy with the government unlike those outside in America or the U.K.   This is why I have hope for Israel and condemn the Christian Zionazis who would destroy it.

Subject: RE: BS: Small hope for Israel/Palestine
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 May 13 - 03:26 PM

It's a little country surrounded by neighbours some of whom are hostile to Israel with good reason. However, it's a little country with a big ally that asks no questions, ensures that Israel has the fourth biggest army in the world and which is itself the worlds most militarily-powerful nation.

As for this snippet from your link:

You can't see Iran, but the nuke-crazed mullahs aren't far away.

...well that's about the most blatant, evidence-innocent bit of scaremongering I've seen for a long time.

Subject: RE: BS: Small hope for Israel/Palestine
From: GUEST,Wente
Date: 13 May 13 - 03:11 PM

Israel is a small country in a big, bad neighbourhood.

Subject: RE: BS: Small hope for Israel/Palestine
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 May 13 - 02:23 PM

Read it Keith - nothing to do with main subject, or if it is, so is Israeli terrorism
The OP's first post was about Israeli behavior to its neighbours
You have been warned before about trying to censor what others write - YOU ARE NOT AN OVERSEER ON THIS SITE - DO NOT TRY TO STOP WHAT YOU CAN'T HANDLE - IT IS NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS.
If you are not going to respond to the undeniable evidence of Israeli terrorism by some of the people who were partly responsible for it, piss of or you'll be late for your goose-stepping lessons.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Small hope for Israel/Palestine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 May 13 - 08:20 AM

Jim, you clearly did not bother yourself to even read the OP.
My first post quoted passages from the OP, including the "Egyptian behaviour."
That is why it was in quotes Jim.

Here is my first post again.



He is entitled to his opinions, and no-one can stop Stringsinger filling our screens with them.

"You should know that in Sinai there are concentration camps that would not shame the Nazis. The refugees are held there for weeks, sometimes months, and subjected to hellish torture in order to extort money from their families in Sudan or Eritrea. We find people with burn marks and other signs of abuse; people who have been starved to the extreme; women who were raped and became pregnant and then need an abortion.

It is horrific. The Egyptian authorities have no access to them and also have no motivation [to deal with the problem]. The Bedouin do as they please"

Israel's neighbours, not Israelis.

"When Hamas seized control in the Gaza Strip, they started to harass Fatah people in one of the most barbaric ways imaginable: by kneecapping them. We received requests from Gaza to treat wounded people who were in danger of losing their legs."

Israel's neighbours, not Israelis.
And, they hate Jews more even than they hated those Palestinians.

"Happily, there have been no exploding buses and terrorist attacks lately, but that casts a veil over the fact that we are still sitting on a powder keg. In regard to the Palestinians, all our fondest dreams of a decade ago have come true: for there to be rational, serious people in their leadership, for the terrorism to stop."

Maybe the bus bombs stopped because they wanted peace, but they only stopped when the wall was built.
That seems the more likely reason.

Stringsinger, your paste job reminds us that Israel is surrounded by cruel and merciless killers, and has every reason to fear being at their mercy.

Subject: RE: BS: Small hope for Israel/Palestine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 May 13 - 06:16 AM

The "Egyptian behaviour" was in the OP, as was Hamas behaviour.
So called "Israel terrorism" was not, and was not in any subsequent post until you restarted the thread.

Your attempted thread shift to hijack yet another thread is not going to get any support any more.

Subject: RE: BS: Small hope for Israel/Palestine
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 May 13 - 05:35 AM

The title of this thread is "Small hope for Israeli/Palestine" - the "thread drift" that you scurry behind once again points out that there is no hope while Israel continues its present policy of expansionism by terror.
Your 13 year old link has nothing to do with the subject.
Your bringing up Egyptian behaviour has nothing to do with the subject.
You drift these threads whenever it suits you yet accuses others of doing the same when you are cornered.
The fact that you refuse to respond to "horses mouth" evidence of Israeli fascism is proof enough of what you are and what you stand for, as if you hadn't made that obvious from the beginning.
You are a sick apologist for state terrorism and mass murder - end of.
Jim Carroll