BS: Labour party discussion

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 17 Dec 16 - 11:13 AM

I assume it means that you don't regard Palestinians as actual human beings.

Of course you would "assume" something like that because that is what creeps like you do.

I suggest you do yourself a favour and look up the history of the usage of that term, it would make you look less stupid.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Dec 16 - 10:22 AM

I note your use of quotes. I assume it means that you don't regard Palestinians as actual human beings.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 17 Dec 16 - 10:10 AM

the Israelis have shrunk the Palestinian lands

Lie!

The Jewish homeland was shrunk by 77% to create the "Palestinian lands" - the remainder, except for Gaza which was given by Israel to the "Palestinians", is Israel under international law.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Dec 16 - 09:59 AM

"League of Nations."
Negotiating with a dying Empire to persuade the Arabs to leave the land they had occupied for many centuries
That's what I said.
Since then, the Israelis have shrunk the Palestinian lands to Ghetto size and are shrinking it even further, driven out millions of its occupants and refused them the right to return and have carried out regular murderous incursions into the patch that is now Gaza.
And people call the defence of those actions "terrorism!!
Israel is now indistinguishable from the regime that slaughtered six million Jews and the rest of the world looks on in silence
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Dec 16 - 08:30 AM

Got my dollars and euros mixed up there. It's my eyesight, doc.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Dec 16 - 08:28 AM

Ok. So tell us how we are going to stop military aid to the Palestinians from surrounding countries. Explain how Hezbollah will be persuaded to leave off. Advise us as to how €3 billion in US military aid to Israel will be withheld. Any idea how Russia will be kept out?

Yeah. Do all that then leave 'em to it. But do all that first, then it will be a mere regional war. Don't do all that and it's WWIII. Try to remember that Israel is a nuclear power. Get real, Teribus.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Dec 16 - 07:41 AM

Nothing at all was "imposed from the outside by a dying Empire".

The Mandate and the territory it covered were defined by the League of Nations. That Mandate expired in March 1948 in the run up to the expiry date the United Nations attempted and failed to reach a settlement based on a two-state solution.

Lead to World War Three Shaw - very much doubt it - everybody is so used to the shenanigans of the area that we are all now numb to it - Arab/Israeli conflict WGAF. Their spat is a cancer that has affected the world, let them sort it out themselves once and for all.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Dec 16 - 07:20 AM

The two-state solution has been rejected by Palestinians because the terms on offer were skewed against them. The two-state solution has been implicitly rejected by Israel by their actions in annexing land for settlements and by their intransigence over borders. Israel sees no need to compromise, so that's that. One day, there will have to be a single state whether Israel wants that or not and the demographics will eventually determine the outcome. Not in our lifetimes. Your suggestion that we leave them to tear each other to pieces is diabolical. The chaos in the Middle East is our doing and there are far too many countries on both sides of the argument with their fingers well and truly in the pie. Leaving them to it would end in World War Three.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Dec 16 - 05:57 AM

Thought you said "over the last sixty years" - maybe yo meant 60 years prior to 1947 - should have made that clear
The state solutions prior to independence involved vacating occupied land - no responsible leadership would accept that imposed from the outside by a dying Empire
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Dec 16 - 05:21 AM

"The one thing that hasn't changed is that Israel refuses to return Palestinian land or allow the refugees to return to their homes - that was a feature of every one of Bobads list of negotiations that the Palestinians turned down" - Jim Carroll

Certainly not a feature in 1937 Jim, or in 1947. I say that as there were no "refugees" in 1937 and 1947 - there wasn't even an Israel.

The Arabs decision to reject a two state solution and go to war in 1948 meant that there are no defined borders for a Jewish State and an Arab State within the confines of the internationally defined borders of 1923 Mandated Territory of Palestine.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Dec 16 - 04:51 AM

The one thing that hasn't changed is that Israel refuses to return Palestinian land or allow the refugees to return to their homes - that was a feature of every one of Bobads list of negotiations that the Palestinians turned down - unreasonable bastards that they ate!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Dec 16 - 04:37 AM

"Both sides have had every opportunity to sort this out over the past 68" years - nothing has changed
Exept a lot more people have been slaughtered, a lot more Palestinians have been driven out of their homes, an ethnic cleansing programme has been put into motion and the Israelis have put themselves above all criticism be declaring that all such is antisemitic.
Incidentals, I know
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Dec 16 - 02:57 AM

"You're way out of date. The notion is belly up. One day, Arabs and Jews are going to live together in one state. Far better for it to be negotiated, but that isn't on the cards." - Steve Shaw

Good, there we have an honest enough admission that the concept of "Two State" solution from the "Palestinian" perspective is the hogwash it always in reality has been.

Whether or not the "Arabs and Jews are going to live together in one state" remains to be seen, but the likes of Hamas, Hezbollah, Fatah and Islamic Jihad and their clearly declared policies cast grave doubt on the issue, particularly Mr. Shaw, as you state so clearly, none of them are even remotely interested in any form of negotiation (The three NOs of the Khartoum Conference - "no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with it...")

Both sides have had every opportunity to sort this out over the past 68 years - nothing has changed and it increasingly looks as though nothing will every change - this "conflict" has plagued the world for far too long so next time it kicks off as it undoubtedly will, just let them fight it out to a finish once and for all.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Dec 16 - 08:33 PM

Well, bobad, your response to my post is puzzlingly unconnected with it. No-one is in the slightest bit interested in a two-state solution on the terms being offered. The twain will not meet. Do try to tap into the realpolitik just for once. Israel's intransigence and expansionist policies have permanently put paid to a two-state solution. That is the reality. As a matter of fact, and I may lose friends here by saying it, I don't think it was ever the right solution and I'm damn sure it will never happen. Nothing will change until the US stops giving Israel its unconditional support. Support, yes. Unconditional support, a recipe for conflict for ever more. Which seems to be what the US will settle for. Proxy conflict. Peace at home.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 Dec 16 - 08:03 PM

Onl half the story Bobad

"In 1937, the Palestinians were offered a state (Peel Commision), they said NO."
The Zionist leadership was bitterly divided over the plan.[4] In a resolution adopted at the 1937 Zionist Congress, the delegates rejected the specific partition plan. Yet the principle of partition is generally thought to have been "accepted" or "not rejected outright" by any major faction: the delegates empowered the leadership to pursue future negotiations.[4][7][8][9] The Jewish Agency Council later attached a request that a conference be convened to explore a peaceful settlement in terms of an undivided Palestine.[4] According to Benny Morris, Ben-Gurion and Weizmann saw it 'as a stepping stone to some further expansion and the eventual takeover of the whole of Palestine.'[10][4]

"In 1947, The Palestinians were offered a state (UN Partition), they said NO."
The Plan was accepted by the Jewish Agency for Palestine, despite its perceived limitations.[5][6] Arab leaders and governments rejected it[7] and indicated an unwillingness to accept any form of territorial division,[8] arguing that it violated the principles of national self-determination in the UN Charter which granted people the right to decide their own destiny.[6][9]

STOP BLAMING PALESTINE
Jim Carroll

"In 2000, the Palestinians were offered a state (Camp David), they said NO."
Public opinion towards the summit[edit]
The Palestinian public was supportive of Arafat's role in the negotiations. After the summit, Arafat's approval rating increased seven percentage points from 39 to 46%.[47] Overall, 68% of the Palestinian public thought Arafat's positions on a final agreement at Camp David were just right and 14% thought Arafat compromised too much while only 6% thought Arafat had not compromised enough.[47]
Barak did not fare as well in public opinion polls. Only 25% of the Israeli public thought his positions on Camp David were just right as opposed to 58% of the public that thought Barak compromised too much.[48] A majority of Israelis were opposed to Barak's position on every issue discussed at Camp David except for security.[49]
"In 2001, the Palestinians were offered a state (TABA), they said NO."
At the start of the Taba Summit, Israel held on three main points:[3]
no right of Palestinian refugees to return to inside the State of Israel
no Palestinian sovereignty over the Temple Mount/Haram al-Sharif
big settlement blocs (containing 80% of Jewish residents of the West Bank and Gaza) will be under Israeli sovereignty

In 2001, the Palestinians were offered a state (TABA), they said NO.
The breakdown is often attributed to the political circumstances posed by Israeli elections and changeover in leadership in the United States:[10] They had run out of political time. They couldn't conclude an agreement with Clinton now out of office and Barak standing for reelection in two weeks. "We made progress, substantial progress. We are closer than ever to the possibility of striking a final deal," said Shlomo Ben-Ami, Israel's negotiator. Saeb Erekat, Palestinian chief negotiator, said, "My heart aches because I know we were so close. We need six more weeks to conclude the drafting of the agreement."
Sharon Government's negation of the talks[edit]
The following month the Likud party candidate Ariel Sharon defeated Ehud Barak in the Israeli elections and was elected as Israeli prime minister on 6 February 2001. Sharon's new government chose not to resume the high-level talks.[11] Immediately after the elections and before the change of government, an 8 February 2001 statement published by the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs stated that:
Prime Minister and Defense Minister Ehud Barak clarified this evening that the ideas which were brought up in the course of the recent negotiations conducted with the Chairman of the Palestinian Authority, including those raised at the Camp David Summit and by President Clinton towards the end of his term in office, are not binding on the new government to be formed in Israel.

"In 2008, the Palestinians were offered a state (Olmert offer), they said NO."
Olmert's 2008 peace offer was a further improvement over previous proposals, yet Olmert refused to give Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas a copy of the Israeli map, which outlined the future borders of both states, unless Abbas first initialed it. Furthermore, Abbas was told by Ehud Barak and Tzipi Livni not to accept the Olmert offer. The Palestinians planned on continuing negotiations after Olmert left office but were stuck with Benjamin Netanyahu, who, as Ross well knows, has been relentless in sabotaging negotiations, putting up roadblock after roadblock, or should I say settlement after settlement.

"In 2015, the Palestinians were offered a state (French sponsored UN offer), they said NO."
The initial Israeli reaction was that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu would not discuss the eventuality of a peace conference unless France withdraws its ultimatum of recognizing Palestine as a state (in case the initiative is rejected). Furthermore, officials in the prime minister's office made it clear to the French that negotiations would have to be bilateral and unconditional. An international gathering without setting pre-conditions for negotiation could launch direct negotiations, as did the Madrid Conference of 1991 in which Netanyahu participated as deputy foreign minister.
The Palestinian position, as expressed to the French, is that the conference has to be based on the Arab Peace Initiative of 2002, referring to the 1967 lines as future borders and to East Jerusalem as the Palestinian capital. Establishing the Arab initiative as the basis for a peace conference would also bring about the support of most of the Arab League member states for a Palestinian diplomatic move.
AMERICAN INVOLVEMENT _ U.S. VETO
STOP BLAMING PALESTINE
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 16 Dec 16 - 07:18 PM

So, you admit to lieing about Israel not trying to work toward a two state solution and about the 1967 "borders"......nice to see some honesty from you for a change.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Dec 16 - 06:36 PM

Pray tell how occupying big lumps of what could become Palestine, to such an extent that it would be impossible to make a single tract of land, is working towards a two-state solution. You're way out of date. The notion is belly up. One day, Arabs and Jews are going to live together in one state. Far better for it to be negotiated, but that isn't on the cards. The demographics are working against the Jewish state (would you like to condemn Arab shagging as antisemitic? Didn't see it in your " definition!" 😂) and Israeli actions are making a single stat e the only viable outcome. That's reality, bobad. You and I will not live to see it and there mucho blood to be shed until both sides realise that they're all actually human beings and that their religions are shite.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 16 Dec 16 - 06:11 PM

Israel will not agree to the 1967 borders.

Erm, no such thing as 1967 borders, just more Made Up Shit®

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 16 Dec 16 - 06:09 PM

Well do you see Israel trying to work towards one?

Erm, yes

In 1937, the Palestinians were offered a state (Peel Commision), they said NO.
In 1947, The Palestinians were offered a state (UN Partition), they said NO.
In 1967, The Palestinians were offered a state (Khartoum), they said NO.
In 2000, the Palestinians were offered a state (Camp David), they said NO.
In 2001, the Palestinians were offered a state (TABA), they said NO.
In 2008, the Palestinians were offered a state (Olmert offer), they said NO.
In 2015, the Palestinians were offered a state (French sponsored UN offer), they said NO.
Each time it was offered and they refused, they resorted to violence against Israel. What do you think the Palestinians really want?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Greg F.
Date: 16 Dec 16 - 12:45 PM

Naw, T-Bird. Thanks for the invitation to dance, but I've got your routine down pat. Pounding salt down a rat hole would be more productive.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 16 Dec 16 - 12:21 PM

No GregF just answer the question you have been asked, that will do nicely.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Dec 16 - 12:21 PM

So you're assuming that a two-state solution is the answer, huh? Well do you see Israel trying to work towards one? Israel will not agree to the 1967 borders. Israel's ever-expanding settlements make the concept of a contiguous Palestinian state next to impossible. In fact, because of unconditional US support both militarily and in the UN, Israel never has to give an inch. You will not see a two-state solution in your lifetime. In fact, it will never happen.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Greg F.
Date: 16 Dec 16 - 11:59 AM

Trump is "my boy" as much as Duke is yours.

Oh yes? Considering Ambassador Friedman's & Trump's pronouncements they both sound just like you, Bubo! What's not for you to like??

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Greg F.
Date: 16 Dec 16 - 11:54 AM

Greg can you give the name of anyone in the Palestine Authority or indeed in Hamas...

Sure, with a little research I can. In the meantime, I can give ya the names of thousands of Jews, citizens of Israel, and members of the Knesset. Will that suffice for now?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 16 Dec 16 - 11:32 AM

Greg can you give the name of anyone in the Palestine Authority or indeed in Hamas that believes in, or have any interest in a "Two State Solution"?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 16 Dec 16 - 11:27 AM

Trump is "my boy" as much as Duke is yours.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Greg F.
Date: 16 Dec 16 - 11:16 AM

Duke my hero, Bubo? rather like Eichmann being yours, methinks.

But Duke IS a buddy of your boy Trump.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 16 Dec 16 - 10:49 AM

Hey Smeg, your hero David Duke strikes again:

"There is a problem in America with a very strong, powerful tribal group that dominates our media and dominates our international banking," Duke said Wednesday at a debate at the historically black Dillard University in New Orleans, according to CNN. "I'm not opposed to all Jews. I think there's a lot of great Jews."

The Republican candidate, a former Ku Klux Klan grand wizard, was responding to a question by the moderator about why he had referred to journalists reporting on a tape on which Donald Trump admitted to sexual assault as "CNN Jews."

http://www.timesofisrael.com/david-duke-jews-dominate-media-international-banking/

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 16 Dec 16 - 10:43 AM

You put up a quote that was totally out of context.

It's there for all to see and make their own judgement on who's being honest.

So, she says that these Islamist terrorist groups are "social movements that are progressive, that are on the Left" but questions, with weasel words, whether they might use options other than violence - pretty hypocritical of her don't you think. I suppose that by her and your rationalization ISIS is also a progressive social movement of the "Left". She severely discredits the "progressive Left" but fits perfectly the definition of "regressive Left", a term coined to describe those just like her. I note she also supports the anti-Semitic BDS movement - that fits right in there.

No comment on the Labour party's adoption of the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism? Will you accept it too or will you stand on your principles and break with them and maybe join a party that is more aligned with your position, like say the Bee Enn Pee perhaps?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Greg F.
Date: 16 Dec 16 - 10:14 AM

Hey, Bubo & CowFart! Your hero Trump strikes again.

Hard-Liner as Ambassador to Israel

By MATTHEW ROSENBERG

WASHINGTON — President-elect Donald J. Trump on Thursday named David M. Friedman, a bankruptcy lawyer aligned with the Israeli far right, as his nominee for ambassador to Israel, elevating a campaign adviser who has questioned the need for a two-state solution and has likened left-leaning Jews in America to the Jews who aided the Nazis in the Holocaust.

Mr. Friedman has made clear his disdain for those American Jews — especially those connected to J Street — who support a two-state solution for the Israelis and the Palestinians. Writing in June on the website of Arutz Sheva, an Israeli media organization, Mr. Friedman compared J Street supporters to "kapos," the Jews who cooperated with the Nazis during the Holocaust.

Jeffrey Goldberg, the editor in chief of the Atlantic, raised the kapos comparison and asked if he stood by it. Mr. Friedman did not back away. "They're not Jewish, and they're not pro-Israel," he said, according to the people in the room.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/15/us/politics/donald-trump-david-friedman-israel-ambassador.html

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Dec 16 - 09:37 AM

You put up a quote that was totally out of context. The person in question is dedicated to non-violence. The facets of Hamas and Hezbollah which she finds hard to reconcile with their militancy developed UNDER OCCUPATION, AS A DIRECT CONSEQUENCE OF OCCUPATION. . Your intent was clear. Go and make an honest man of yourself for once.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 16 Dec 16 - 09:14 AM

Nice attempt at distorting again Shaw. Butler was speaking of the present not the past like you are trying to infer. Here's her entire quote in context, we'll just put it here and let everyone draw their own conclusion as to whether she believes that those two terrorist groups are progressive social movements of the Left.

Similarly, I think: Yes, understanding Hamas, Hezbollah as social movements that are progressive, that are on the Left, that are part of a global Left, is extremely important. That does not stop us from being critical of certain dimensions of both movements. It doesn't stop those of us who are interested in non-violent politics from raising the question of whether there are other options besides violence. So again, a critical, important engagement. I mean, I certainly think it should be entered into the conversation on the Left. I similarly think boycotts and divestment procedures are, again, an essential component of any resistance movement."

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Dec 16 - 08:35 AM

Why don't you learn to read, bobad? Hezbollah arose as a direct consequence of the occupation of southern Lebanon by Israel. Hezbollah had been in existence for eighteen years before Israel withdrew from southern Lebanon. Hamas arose as a direct consequence of the occupation of the Gaza Strip by Israel. Hamas had been in existence for nearly twenty years before Israel withdrew its troops and settlers from Gaza. Even Ariel Sharon, the instigator of that withdrawal, used the word "occupation" in relation to Gaza. One might have thought that you of all people would hang on every word that the thuggish Sharon uttered. Check your facts before you accusing others of lies and distortion. It's you doing that here, not us, and I'll indulge you by assuming that you are doing it out of ignorance.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 Dec 16 - 07:57 AM

Both have been constantly uber attack and have had atrocities committed against them
Gaza has been reduced to little more than a ghetto by Israel, with many of the historical comparisons that implies.
"Typical lies and distortion of the truth "
Is really all you have to offer, the rest is vitriolic, antisemitic abuse.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 16 Dec 16 - 07:50 AM

In a recent interview she explained that Hamas and Hezbollah are "progressive" insofar as they do address infrastructural needs that are quite acute under occupation.

So Gaza and Lebanon are under occupation eh? Typical lies and distortion of the truth such as are the tools of the likes of Shaw and Carroll. The only occupiers of these two places are the terrorist groups that operate out of them.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Dec 16 - 06:09 AM

Too many turn the world upside down until support for Israel's enemies—whatever these enemies stand for, however they behave—is a left-wing duty. For example, Judith Butler, a leading US academic, said Hamas and Hezbollah, two of the most murderous anti-Semitic organizations in the world, must be understood as "social movements that are progressive, that are on the left, that are part of a global left, is extremely important."

Well, "leading US academic," classic weasel words, enshrines both an appeal to authority and a straw man argument. The extract quoted is wilfully out of context and misrepresents her views on Hamas and Hezbollah. Not only that, the unqualified description of Hamas and Hezbollah in that sentence is nakedly Islamophobic. We may not like what Hamas and Hezbollah do but we bloody well know how they started and why they're there, and what we know doesn't exactly cast successive Israeli regimes in a good light. Their supporters calling Hamas and Hezbollah "murderous" are applying a double standard that, in terms of outrage, trumps anything in that confounded "definition."

To put the record straight for bobad and others who like to be highly selective in what they quote and who clearly can't read anything that is more that the length of a Daily Mail headline, here's the real lowdown on Judith Butler, who is actually an outstanding campaigner for non-violent resistance. Shame on you, bobad. From wiki.

Butler was criticized for statements she had made about Hamas and Hezbollah. She had described them as "social movements that are progressive, that are on the Left, that are part of a global Left".She was accused of defending "Hezbollah and Hamas as progressive organizations" and supporting their tactics.

Butler responded to these criticisms by stating that her remarks on Hamas and Hezbollah were taken completely out of context and badly, if not wittingly, distort her established views on non-violence. She has repeatedly condemned the violence and non-democratic actions of these groups while clearly advocating for a politics committed to non-violence. In a recent interview she explained that Hamas and Hezbollah are "progressive" insofar as they do address infrastructural needs that are quite acute under occupation. Precisely because such groups are supplying important social services, it becomes harder—yet more urgent—to find ways of persuading people not to support their violent tactics.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 Dec 16 - 04:41 AM

The UK Adopts Modern Definition of Anti-Semitism
HOLDING JEWS COLLECTIVELY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE STATE OF ISRAEL
So there you go
Every individual who describes criticism of Israel as "Antisemitic" is an antisemite.
While Israel continues to ADOPT THIS POLICY , no definition in the world will have a shred of meaning
Keith
Quite honestly, I couldn't give two shits what you are now claiming you said -it's all on record
The fact that you are still claiming Israel was not responsible for what she says they are makes you diametrically opposed to what she has dedicated her life to telling the world about - you are contradicting what she said even to the point of saying she didn't see it or was told abot it by those she was treating.
Typically you reduce my link to "harrowing pictures", totally ignoring the information implicating Israel that comes with it - rather makes my point.
I really think you should get together with David Irving - he might give you some tips.
Your crude denials in defence of the indefensible are just that - crude denials.
Pl;ease go away and live with your conscience in silence - you really have no more to say on this matter
You really have disgraced yourself for long enough
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Dec 16 - 03:53 AM

Jim, your link has harrowing pictures of massacre victims.
No-one denies a massacre occurred.
It also contains Fisk's account which entirely supports Israel's version of events.
It does not show Fisk's video of Palestinian fighters engaged in a fire fight inside the camp.

The link is to an Israel hating propaganda site.
If you want to convince anybody, use respected and reputable sites.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Dec 16 - 03:47 AM

Jim,
Over the course of these arguments you have disputed everything she has said

Not true Jim.
I have NEVER disputed ANYTHING said by Siegel.

Dave, we are not talking about human rights abuses or we would have no relations with the whole Arab world.
We are talking about massacres of civilians.

Jim again,
So Ellen Siegel, Robert Fisk, the McBride Commission all the survivors who gave evidence - were all part of a Lebanese plot?

Nothing there that contradicts Israel's version of events.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 15 Dec 16 - 09:03 PM

The UK Adopts Modern Definition of Anti-Semitism

the IHRA makes clear that modern anti-Semitism may involve a certain excessive demonising and hate-filled discourse about the Jewish state "conceived as a Jewish collectivity." Some so-called "criticism of Israel" is anything but, having strayed into a dark place, where anti-Semitism is updated for our times. Some of that discourse, such as the Holocaust Inversion—in which Israel is depicted as The Third Reich, the IDF as the SS, Netanyahu as Hitler, and the Star of David twisted into the Swastika—positively luxuriates in those dark places.

The UK government is calling time on all that. Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust, or of being more loyal to Israel than their own nations is now defined as anti-Semitism. The denial of the Jewish peoples right to self-determination, requiring of Israel a behaviour not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation, the application to Israel of the symbols and images associated with classic anti-Semitism, such as the blood libel, all this too, is now defined as anti-Semitism. The "[Ken]Livingstone Formulation"—i.e. the claim that no attack on Israel or Zionism is ever anti-Semitic, while every objection to an attack on Israel is always a bad faith dirty 'Zionist' affair—has had its day.

The Left is comfortable fighting classic anti-Semitism, especially if it comes wearing a skinhead haircut and Dr Martens boots. But when it comes to the anti-Semitism aimed at Israel, the anti-Semitic anti-Zionism highlighted by the IHRA, parts of the Left have lost their way. Too many turn the world upside down until support for Israel's enemies—whatever these enemies stand for, however they behave—is a left-wing duty. For example, Judith Butler, a leading US academic, said Hamas and Hezbollah, two of the most murderous anti-Semitic organizations in the world, must be understood as "social movements that are progressive, that are on the left, that are part of a global left, is extremely important."

Good news then, that the Labour Party has announced that it too will accept the government's new definition. If Jeremy Corbyn's staff have also read the IHRA guidance notes, then that really would be a breakthrough.

World Affairs


Reporting Anti-Semitic Incidents

Incidents can take several forms, including physical attacks on people or property, verbal or written abuse and threats, or antisemitic graffiti, leaflets or posters.
Incidents can also include social media postings if they involve a UK-based offender or victim.

Online:
Report the incident here.

By phone:
For a non-emergency, call the Police on 101
and CST London 0208 457 9999
Manchester & northern regions 0161 792 6666

Report by email:
[e-mail]

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Dec 16 - 01:06 PM

Another piece of gullible, lying propaganda
"'NOW CAME THE ISRAELI ARMY BULLDOZERS. "PLOW EVERYTHING UNDER THE GROUND. DON'T LET ANY WITNESSES STAY ALIVE." BUT DESPITE OUR EFFORTS THE AREA WAS STILL TEEMING WITH PEOPLE. THEY RAN ABOUT AND CAUSED AWFUL CONFUSION. THE ORDER TO "PLOW THEM UNDER" DEMANDED TOO MUCH.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Dec 16 - 11:06 AM

"No-one can substantiate the 3,500 supposed victims."
Nobody can deny them either - the Israeli bulldozers made sure of that
So Ellen Siegel, Robert Fisk, the McBride Commission all the survivors who gave evidence - were all part of a Lebanese plot?
That took longer than it should to emerge.   
"Jim Carroll produces reams of paperwork"
And you have produced not a single scrap - all personal, agenda-driven opinion.
"he presents them as "eye-witness" testimony."
Yet another lie to add to the list
Please produce one scrap of evidence I have produced and claimed as "an eye witness account" that wasn't - waste of time asking for this, of course.
In fact I have avoided most eye witness accounts as they are not as readily available as the researched reports that were based on interviews.
While you are at it, you might produce an alternative account of the massacre that is not personal opinion or the official line put out by the perpetrators
Jim Carroll

SOME EYE-WITNESS ACCOUNTS HERE - all lies of course!!
"On Thursday, there was shelling when the Israelis came, then it got worse so we went down into the shelter. (…) We learned on Friday that there had been a massacre. I went to my neighbours' house. I saw our neighbour Mustapha Al Habarat; he was injured and lying in a bath of his own blood. His wife and children were dead. We took him to the Gaza hospital and then we fled. When things had calmed down, I came back and searched for my daughter and my husband for four days. I spent four days looking for them through all the dead bodies. I found Zeinab dead, her face burnt. Her husband had been cut in two and had no head. I took them and buried them. Samiha Abbas Hijazi (3)

".. they had put the men on one side and the women on the other… The armed men ordered us to walk in front, and the men behind. We walked like this until we got to the communal grave. There, the bulldozer started digging. Among us was a man who was wearing a white nurse's shirt; they called him and filled him with bullets in front of everyone. The women started screaming. The Israelis posted in front of the Kuwaiti embassy and in front of the Rihab station requested through loudspeakers that we be handed over to them. That's how we found ourselves in their hands. They took us to the Sports Centre, and the men were supposed to walk behind us. But they took the men's shirts off and started blindfolding them. At the Sports Centre, the Israelis submitted the young people to an interrogation, and the Phalangists delivered 200 people to them. And that's how neither my husband nor my sister's husband ever came back." Sana Mahmoud Sersawi (3)

… some Israelis and some Phalangists… placed us against the wall and … shot at the men. I was hit and I pretended to be dead. Three or four others fell on top of me. They were dead…. They then resumed their task, 5 or 6 times. They fired more shots to make sure that everyone was dead. At about five in the morning… I heard an Israeli on a microphone saying, "Give up your weapons, you will have your lives spared and those of your family." I tried to climb up the slope in order to give myself up like they said… I looked and I saw them placing the men on one side and the women on the other. Then I saw them shooting them. That's why I went back to hide… I stayed there until the evening. They were sitting around a table drinking alcohol, there was only a wall separating me from them. The wall was cracked; I could see what was happening. They were saying to each other, "don't leave anything that moves." Hamad Mohammed Shamas (3)

"The Israeli Army surrounded the camps, providing the murderers with all the support, aid and facilities necessary for them to carry out their appalling crime. They supplied them with bulldozers and with the necessary pictures and maps. In addition, they set off incandescent bombs in the air in order to turn night into day so that none of the Palestinians would be able to escape death's grip. And those who did flee – women, children and the elderly – were brought back inside the camps by Israeli soldiers to face their destiny."

"What will always stick in my memory is of a little boy that had come from the camps & his little body had no limbs. I can remember just holding him, holding his little body close. He was covered with blood and the life was running out of him. He was crying for his mother..They had also bulldozed buildings with people still inside, families still watching television, or having dinner. They bulldozed these people. They massacred these people. I saw bodies, piles of bodies, heaped up, mutilated & believe me they hadn't been shot. It was like a scene from what I would have imagined happened in WWII to the Jews. They had been executed. Children, women, animals, anything that moved-they had massacred…It was horror in there, it was horror. The stench, the massacre. They are war crimes. But I shall certainly never forget. Of all the horrors & atrocities & of the many things that have happened to me when I was in Beirut, nothing can come close to what I witnessed in these camps. Nothing." Deborah Thornton-Jackson (4)

"At noon on Friday, the second day of the terrorist massacre, and with the approval of the Israeli Army, the kata'ib forces began receiving more ammunition, while the forces which had been in the camps were replaced by other, "fresh" forces."

One of the journalists who went into the camps after the massacre reports what he saw, saying, "The corpses of the Palestinians had been thrown among the rubble that remained of the Shatila camp. It was impossible to know exactly how many victims there were, but there had to be more than 1,000 dead. Some of the men who had been executed had been lined up in front of a wall, and bulldozers had been used in an attempt to bury the bodies and cover up the aftermath of the massacre.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 15 Dec 16 - 09:56 AM

"The details of Jenin, the part Israel played in it, the transport, weapons, illumination, bulldozers used for mass burials.... are all a matter of FICTION Deliberately presented, promulgated and broadcast by Palestinians to further their agenda.

10 years prior to Jenin they pulled exactly the same stunt in Beirut, and Jim Carroll and many others swallowed it "hook-line-and-sinker".

No-one can substantiate the 3,500 supposed victims.

Jim Carroll talks of "secret mass graves" hidden beneath the Camille Chamoun Stadium - the largest sports stadium in Lebanon - A stadium that was completely rebuilt and redeveloped after 1982 - Guess what? - No mass graves found, they found no human remains whatsoever.

Jim Carroll produces reams of paperwork and he presents them as "eye-witness" testimony. On examination what was produced was nothing of the sort.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Dec 16 - 06:47 AM

"Jim, I have not dismissed her testimony, I have put it in front of you."
Over the course of these arguments you have disputed everything she has said and everything she has now dedicated her life to.
You have done this by dismissing or ignoring facts and you have accused those who disagree with you by criticising the israeli regime of anti semitism.
The details of Sabra Shatila, the part Israel played in it, the transport, weapons, illumination, bulldozers used for mass burials.... are all a matter of history, disputed only by Israel and those who would defend such atrocities.
This is all repetition - nothing new and no point in prolonging, unless some miracle provides fresh insight.
There is no point continuing - everything has been said and you have provided nothing or proved nothing.
Perhaps you are referring to the decent democratic governments who stood by and watched the people of Homs being massacred, doing nothing, and are now standing watching the same thing happening to the people of Aleppo
Piss on your decent and democratic governments if that's how they behave - you have the facts and the fact that you have to fall back on this dishonest excuse once again is proof that you are unable to challenge them
Stop haunting this forum with your dishonest extremism
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 15 Dec 16 - 06:44 AM

By the same token Saudi Arabia must be a paragon of virtue because we are on good terms with it. They cannot be involved in any of the human rights abuses there are accused of or we would have said something. Right?

:-S

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Raggytash
Date: 15 Dec 16 - 06:19 AM

Are people really this naïve?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Dec 16 - 05:49 AM

Jim, I have not dismissed her testimony, I have put it in front of you.
She saw and reported nothing that contradicts Israel's version of events.

You have been shown repeatedly that your anti-Israel sites tell lies.
Will you not explore the possibility that Israel is telling the truth?

It is not just me. Decent democratic governments are all on friendly terms with Israel and would not be if they believed all that stuff.
They know it to be just lying propaganda.
Open your eyes.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Dec 16 - 06:55 PM

No, bobad, you've actually been evasive. As you sounded rather racist when this first cropped up, I ask you again for clarification. Do you agree that Arab-Palestinians in Israel should enjoy full equality with Jews? In every regard: jobs, wages, housing, education, transport, freedom of movement, freedom of where to live, treatment by the authorities? Not just equality according to what the law says (which doesn't happen), but in reality? Simple question, a simple "yes" without caveats would nail it. Are you up for it?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Dec 16 - 03:00 PM

I hought you just said "I have not dismissed her testimony." - damn, must have been someone else
You have never learned to put a sensible gap between making a statement and claiming you never made it, have you
Finished here Keith - you've had the facts and your denials prove nothing
You contribute nothing other than a bad taste in the mouth.
G'night
Sleep as well as your conscience will let you - probably pretty well
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Greg F.
Date: 14 Dec 16 - 02:47 PM

Yes I have, reread for comprehension.

What you choose to believe, Bubo, and what actually is are two different things.