BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 May 17 - 01:56 PM

The report is a blatant whitewash. There is no way you'll ever see it but there it is. The IDF killed hundreds of children in a very short time. That's just for starters, Keith. White phosphorus was used. No mention. Read the report that Jim quoted. Tell me those dozens of soldiers are all liars. Nothing they related is contained in your whitewash report. Not a hint. Nothing. It is utterly unbelievable. A put-up job from a biased organisation.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 May 17 - 12:53 PM

I do dispute the facts as presented.

On what grounds?

they conflict with other accounts from IDF soldiers on the ground.

Quote one then, and then explain why all those senior officers from the armies of all those democratic countries would lie about it.

The largest press agency in the world called it a pro-Israel lobby group.

So what. The Secretary General of the UN confirmed its anti-Israel bias, so defending Israel from it does not show bias.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 May 17 - 12:44 PM

"The UN Watch Team detailed by bobad would be proposed and approved by the directing board of UN Watch. A much larger team with greater experience and capability when it comes to assessing and analysing military operations than the team put forward by the UNHCR."

If the organisation that appoints the committee is biased in favour of Israel, which it is, then it doesn't matter how much military know-how and experience the members have. Hundreds of generals in Hitler's armed forces had plenty of experience and know-how. The committee members are institutionally biased towards producing the findings that the committee wants to hear. It really isn't hard, is it?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 May 17 - 12:36 PM

UN Watch has been widely criticised for pro-Israel bias and for suppressing any criticism of the behaviour of Israeli forces in Gaza. The largest press agency in the world called it a pro-Israel lobby group. No getting away from it. Reports concerning Israel from that source cannot be remotely considered to be free from bias.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Greg F.
Date: 15 May 17 - 12:23 PM

Is that the same UN Watch that has as a founding principle that the U.N is ipso facto anti-semitic, Mr.B?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 15 May 17 - 12:11 PM

Oh, and UN Watch's mandate isn't limited to Israel, they have reported on the UN's performance in Africa, Asia, Latin America, Europe, the Middle East and America also.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 15 May 17 - 11:38 AM

Is that the same UN watch that has as a founding principle that the U.N is ipso facto anti-semitic, Mr. T?

Seeing as how the outgoing UN secretary general made it a point to condemn the UN's anti-Israel bias I should think that UN Watch has a legitimate reason to monitor it. If you read their reports you would see that they don't make things up they simply report on what's on public record.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Greg F.
Date: 15 May 17 - 11:25 AM

Is that the same UN watch that has as a founding principle that the U.N is ipso facto anti-semitic, Mr. T?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 15 May 17 - 11:16 AM

Neither Shaw or Carroll are very good at joining up the dots. Both firmly believe that anyone making a statement, or comment, must fully substantiate what they say. The same rule however never seems to apply to them.

Now in the case of UN Watch, whose stated mission is "to monitor the performance of the United Nations by the yardstick of its own Charter". I would have thought it natural and logical for that NGO to monitor the work of any UN Committee. NOBODY has to commission any such monitoring operation, in fact it is important that it is not compelled by any outside organisation. The UNHCR is one commission UN Watch has monitored closely. UN Watch questions its impartiality and its bias, so when the UNHCR were asked by the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation to investigated the conduct of operations in Gaza UN Watch did the same.

The UNHCR settled on the following personnel to conduct this investigation:

Head of the mission - Justice Richard Goldstone, former judge of the Constitutional Court of South Africa and former Prosecutor of the International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda.

Christine Chinkin, Professor of International Law at the London School of Economics and Political Science.

Hina Jilani, Advocate of the Supreme Court of Pakistan and a member of the International Commission of Inquiry on Darfur in 2004.

Desmond Travers, a former colonel in the Irish Defence Forces and member of the Board of Directors of the Institute for International Criminal Investigations.

There was trouble over the mandate of this investigation from the outset as the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation only requested that the Commission only investigate the actions and operations of the IDF. To his credit Richard Goldstone refused to accept the appointment until the remit was widened to include the other combatants, this was done informally.

So you have a team undertaking an investigation on military operations that consists of three jurists and one professional soldier with no combat command experience.

The UN Watch Team detailed by bobad would be proposed and approved by the directing board of UN Watch. A much larger team with greater experience and capability when it comes to assessing and analysing military operations than the team put forward by the UNHCR.

"Critics of the Goldstone report claimed that it contained methodological failings, legal and factual errors, and falsehoods, and devoted insufficient attention to the allegations that Hamas was deliberately operating in heavily populated areas of Gaza.

On 1 April 2011, Goldstone retracted his claim that it was Israeli government policy to deliberately target citizens"

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 May 17 - 10:48 AM

You've been presented with another body of facts that conflicts with yours. You know where those come from, from actual IDF soldiers with first-hand knowledge of the fighting. I want to know where yours come from. I want to know whether they are neutral, unbiased and unconnected with the Israeli regime. Either you don't want to say because it will blow your argument out of the park or you don't know but want to advocate them anyway because they suit your agenda. If you really want people to trust your sources, you have to reveal, chapter and verse, precisely what the source is. I'm sure that it would have been possible to make up a committee from allies of the Nazi High Command to tell us how perfectly the German army behaved. So who commissioned the report? Who decided who was going to be on the committee? What were the links with Israel? This isn't hard, is it?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 15 May 17 - 10:12 AM

I do dispute the facts as presented.

Unfortunately for you the facts as presented were widely and extensively reported on by reporters on the scene and backed up with copious video footage so dispute away as expected.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 May 17 - 09:53 AM

I do dispute the facts as presented. They don't ring true, they reek of a whitewash and they conflict with other accounts from IDF soldiers on the ground. I will withdraw that criticism as soon as you can convince me that the commissioners of the report were neutral and independent of pressure from Israel, that you tell me who the commissioners are and that you tell me how the committee was selected and by whom. That way I can decide whether the report is likely to be balanced and neutral. The more you dance around this instead of providing straightforward, honest answers to my perfectly reasonable questions, the more suspicious the whole thing looks. And that includes your advocacy. You have form when it comes to providing information from extremely biased sources.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 15 May 17 - 09:06 AM

From Colonel Richard Kemp's SUBMISSION TO THE UNITED NATIONS INDEPENDENT COMMISSION OF INQUIRY ON THE 2014 GAZA CONFLICT:

    Before a target could be attacked at least two separate and independent intelligence sources had to verify that it was a legitimate military target. Intelligence includes human sources, aerial surveillance, ground surveillance and communications intercept.

    Each separate aerial attack mission had to be personally authorised by the Commander of the Israeli Air Force or one of his deputies, at least one of whom had to be present in the operations centre throughout the conflict. Authorisation was also subject to legal advice.

    To confirm whether or not civilians were in the target area surveillance had to be conducted by both manned combat aircraft and unmanned air vehicle (drone), the latter enabling greater visual recognition.

    If surveillance or other intelligence sources confirmed the presence of civilians, or the presence of civilians was suspected, one or more of a series of measures was taken to warn the civilians before the attack could go ahead. These measures were:

       Leaflet drop.

       Broadcast radio message.

       Phone call.

       Text message.

       Warning via UN.

       An additional measure was the use of a specially designed harmless air-dropped munition known as 'knock on the roof' which was dropped on buildings to make a loud percussion and to warn those inside of an impending attack.

    Further surveillance was then conducted to confirm the civilians had left the target area. If they had not the attack would not be carried out until they had.

    Once a pilot was authorised to attack he had authority – and it was his duty – to abort the attack if he had reason to believe civilians were present when he made his attack run.

    Pilots utilising lazer-guided munitions were required to identify a safe open area in advance so that if civilians were identified in the target zone even after the missile was launched, it could be diverted in flight to the safe area.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 15 May 17 - 09:03 AM

Breaking the Silence…has a clear political agenda, and can no longer be classed as a 'human rights organization.'

-Amos Harel in Haaretz

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 15 May 17 - 08:47 AM

RE. Breaking the Silence

To treat soldiers' testimonies of the exception as reality is misleading, and particularly problematic when outsiders use them to vilify Israel.

http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-1.662860

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 15 May 17 - 08:41 AM

Do you dispute the facts as presented or not......simple, or are you just scrambling to find some reason to discredit the report which is your and Carroll's usual tactic when presented with facts that demolish your entrenched prejudice.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 May 17 - 08:38 AM

Do you think they are all lying?
If not, why do your questions matter?
What difference would it make.

You asked who said it, and you were told.
Now you are just wriggling.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 May 17 - 08:33 AM

This was presented to us as an official report by a committee of senior army men. All I want to know is how they were selected, who they were selected by and by whom the report was commissioned. If you can't answer those simple questions the whole thing smacks of a concerted attempt to whitewash the IDF's behaviour in Gaza. Jim has provided an alternative, detailed account that completely conflicts with yours. We know who produced it, we know the motivation for its production and we know why it was produced. It's credentials are transparent, whether you accept its content or not. So far, you cannot produce equivalent credentials for yours. Must dash.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 May 17 - 07:54 AM

Steve,
who convened the committee, who selected its members and who commissioned the report.

I do not know, but there is no reason to believe they all lied anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 15 May 17 - 07:54 AM

Are the FACTS presented in the conclusions in dispute and are they in violation of the LOAC or not. Simple.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 May 17 - 07:53 AM

From your big paste job Jim,

"confusion in the midst of a military campaign led to lethal decisions being made "
That happens in any conflict.

" A large number of soldiers maintain that the way in which the war was conducted was reasonable, but have decided to speak out against particular decisions or practices."
Fair enough.

"Israel won plaudits from its allies in London and Washington for the war was conducted. General Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the US joint chiefs, the United States' most senior military officer said in November last year that, "Israel went to extraordinary lengths to limit collateral damage and civilian casualties".
Last week, in an interview with the Jewish Chronicle newspaper, David Cameron made one of his strongest defences of the Israeli position yet.
Using a phrase that was coined by Israeli premier Benjamin Netanyahu, the prime minister said that it was "important to speak out" about standing by Israel and said there was an "important difference" between Israel's use of weapons to defend itself and Hamas' use of them "to defend its weapons"."

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 May 17 - 07:47 AM

That is a complete and completely dishonest misrepresentation, so typical of you. You have removed all the conditionality from the comment I made:

"The suspicion, well-founded in my view in the absence of answers to these questions, is that the report is a put-up job. Answer the questions honestly and the suspicion will dissipate. All I want to know is that the report is balanced and unbiased. Simple."

I invite you to negate the suspicion by telling us who convened the committee, who selected its members and who commissioned the report. We now have three of you evading these simple questions. We want to know that the report is balanced and unbiased. No more, no less.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 May 17 - 07:40 AM

the report is a put-up job.

So your only reply is that they are all lying.
All those senior officers from the armies of several democratic nations.
It is much easier to believe that you two have been duped by all the propaganda from Israel's enemies.

Is this a lie? It has been reported by many others.

"Hamas not only flagrantly disregarded the
Law of Armed Conflict as a matter of course
as part of   its terrorist-army hybrid strategic
concept, but rather it abused the very protections
afforded   by   the   law   for   military   advantage,   
putting the civilian population of Gaza at great
risk.      Situating   its   operational   headquarters   
in   Gaza's   main   hospital,   the   entire   military
machinery of   Hamas was embedded in civilian
locations,   private   homes   and   a   plethora   of   
sensitive sites such as medical facilities, mosques
and schools. "

The report does not specify what actions IDF took, but we know they sent warning of attacks by text message, even though that reduced the effectiveness of the attack. Also, roofs were hit with dummy munitions before the live attack.

"It is further our view that in the overall conduct of
its campaign, the IDF not only met its obligations
under the Law of Armed Conflict, but often
exceeded them, both on the battlefield and in
the humanitarian relief efforts that accompanied
its operation.

In many cases where the fighting
was concerned, this came at significant tactical
cost to the IDF. It fought under restrictive Rules
of   Engagement and it is obvious that instances
existed throughout the conflict where the IDF did
not attack lawful military objectives on account
of a deliberate policy of restraint."

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 May 17 - 06:43 AM

Quite a lot to wade through HERE on Palestine and Israel from Human Rights Watch
I suppose it will be met enthusiastic response from the atrocity appeasers
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 May 17 - 05:08 AM

I didn't ask who it was "presented to." I asked who commissioned the report and I asked who the umbrella organisation was that selected the members of the reporting group. Unless they selected themselves, of course...The suspicion, well-founded in my view in the absence of answers to these questions, is that the report is a put-up job. Answer the questions honestly and the suspicion will dissipate. All I want to know is that the report is balanced and unbiased. Simple.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 May 17 - 04:16 AM

And you continue to ignore the fact that the committee declared their support for Israeli policy in their very first statement
Had this committee been asked to appear in a court of law it would have been forced to refuse because of their obvious bias in support of the accused.
Bizarrely, at no time have any of these people interviewed the victims of these event which indisputably took place; Richard Kent made that quite clear
It is utter nonsense not to interview all sides in an enquiry
"Jim Carroll - 14 May 17 - 01:35 PM"
You have not answered one single pint in this posting - all you are able to do is disparage it - no answers, just mindless insults - your stock-in-trade

"UN Watch"
Depends where you go for an opinion
You carefully selected the good bits from this Wiki descripion while ignoring the relevant information.
"Ian Williams, former president of the United Nations Correspondents Association[67] and author of The UN For Beginners,[68] wrote in an opinion piece in The Guardian in 2007 that the main objective of UN Watch "is to attack the United Nations in general, and its human rights council in particular, for alleged bias against Israel". Williams supported UN Watch's condemnation of the UN Human Rights Council as a hypocritical organization, but also accused UN Watch itself of hypocrisy for failing to denounce what he called "manifest Israeli transgressions against the human rights of Palestinians."

The American journalist and political commentator Phyllis Bennis described UN Watch as a "small Geneva-based right-wing organisation" that is "hardly known outside of UN headquarters". She stressed that "undermining and delegitimising" Richard Falk through "scurrilous accusations" has been an "obsession of UN Watch" when he became Special Rapporteur.

Agence France-Presse has described UN Watch both as "a lobby group with strong ties to Israel" and as a group which "champion[s] human rights worldwide".
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 15 May 17 - 03:02 AM

UN Watch - a Geneva-based non-governmental organization whose stated mission is "to monitor the performance of the United Nations by the yardstick of its own Charter". It is an accredited NGO in Special Consultative Status to the UN Economic and Social Council and an Associate NGO to the UN Department of Public Information.

Their report was presented to the UNHCR.

Not just the Jerusalem Post Shaw. Commentary from the group has appeared in BBC (Human rights and wrongs at the UN), Al Jazeera (Debate rages over UN rights council), Reuters (UN urges China to protect human rights), Washington Post (Speaking Truth to the UN Human Rights Council), Agence France-Presse (UN Rights Council divided over Sri Lanka), Voice of America (UN Human Rights Council Candidates raise concerns), The Jerusalem Post (Gold v Goldstone), Fox News (US taxpayers pay millions to keep despots safe at the UN), JTA (UN Watchdog slams religious defamation resolution), and others.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 May 17 - 02:42 AM

"Jom - The Daily Record - AKA - Scotland's National Comic"
The report appears is available from MANY SOURCES
Must be humiliating to find that "Scotland's National Comic" knows more than you do
"You have all the information required to find everything available pertaining to the report."
Yup, the fact that they are biased employees of the Israeli regime being the most significant
I can't blue clickie this statement from Israeli soldiers on the ground who have now formed themselves into an opposition to the regime (Breaking the Silence) so I may as well put it up in full.
I'm sure each and every one of them must be "self-hating Jews".
Jim Carroll

'FIRE AT EVERY PERSON': ISRAELI SOLDIERS REVEAL THEY WERE ORDERED TO SHOOT TO KILL IN GAZA COMBAT ZONES – EVEN IF TARGETS MAY HAVE BEEN CIVILIANS
Israeli campaign group Breaking the Silence interviews more than 60 members of the Israeli army, air force and navy, including soldiers and officers
The Israeli military deliberately pounded civilian areas in the Gaza Strip with incessant fire of inaccurate ordinance during last year's war against Hamas and was at best indifferent about casualties among the Palestinian population.
Those are the conclusions of a report complied by Breaking the Silence, an Israeli group that has spent the eight months since the end of the war, known as Operation Protective Edge, interviewing more than 60 members of the Israeli army, air force and navy, including soldiers and officers up to the rank of major.
The service personnel paint a picture that runs counter to official Israeli military claims that the surgical operation – which became a full-blown conflict after three Israeli teenagers were kidnapped and murdered in the occupied West Bank - took great care to avoid civilian casualties and that Gaza's already fragile infrastructure was not unnecessarily targetted.
International critics of Israeli tactics during the seven-week conflict have argued that the army, the IDF, and the country's other forces, responded disproportionately to rocket attacks from groups such as Hamas. This, they say, led to 2,220 Palestinians being killed, according to UN figures, the vast majority of them civilians.
There were seven civilian deaths on the Israeli side of the border as a result of rockets fired from inside the Gaza Strip by militant groups. A total of 66 Israeli military personnel were killed. Those Palestinian militants firing rockets across the border could not possibly have known where they were going to land.
This latest report by Breaking the Silence comes not only from within Israel itself, but includes more than 100 testimonies from soldiers who took part in the campaign.
The testimonies include examples of the acts of individual soldiers, including the shooting dead of civilians where those providing evidence say a more measured approach could have been taken. Others talk of incidents where confusion in the midst of a military campaign led to lethal decisions being made when there were other courses of action. A large number of soldiers maintain that the way in which the war was conducted was reasonable, but have decided to speak out against particular decisions or practices.
More worryingly, the report which runs to 240 pages, also details policies and norms – some of which came directly from IDF high command, which Breaking the Silence claims are systematic and led explicitly to greater loss of life and more damage.
"While the testimonies include pointed descriptions of inappropriate behavior by soldiers in the field, the more disturbing picture that arises from these testimonies reflects systematic policies that were dictated to IDF forces of all ranks and in all zones," the report says.
"The guiding military principle of 'minimum risk to our forces, even at the cost of harming innocent civilians,' alongside efforts to deter and intimidate the Palestinians, led to massive and unprecedented harm to the population and the civilian infrastructure in the Gaza Strip. Policymakers could have predicted these results prior to the operation and were surely aware of them throughout."
Chief among Breaking the Silence's findings is that the IDF watered down the rules of engagement such that any person in a combat zone was considered an enemy threat.
"Many of the soldiers testified that the rules of engagement they were provided with before the ground incursion into Gaza were unclear and lenient. The soldiers were briefed by their commanders to fire at every person they identified in a combat zone, since the working assumption was that every person in the field was an enemy," Breaking the Silence claims.
One solider, a First Sergeant in the IDF's engineering unit who was sent to Gaza City, said: "The briefing on rules of engagement was [to open fire at], 'Anything you think you should [open fire at]… Anyone you spot that you can be positive is not the IDF.' The only emphasis regarding rules of engagement was to make sure you weren't firing at IDF forces, but other than that, 'Any person you see.' From the very start they told us, 'Shoot to kill.' As far as the IDF was concerned, there wasn't supposed to be any civilian population there."
The Israeli air force dropped thousands of leaflets on areas it was preparing to attack, but according to the testimonies, it was assumed that once these leaflets had been distributed, anyone left would be from Hamas, or one of the other militant groups that took part in the war.
Another first sergeant, from an infantry division operating northern Gaza, said that he was told that, "if it looks like a man, shoot. It was simple: You're in a motherf***ing combat zone. A few hours before you went in the whole area was bombed, if there's anyone there who doesn't clearly look innocent, you apparently need to shoot that person."
A captain, who didn't want his unit to be publicised, said: "During the briefing with the battalion commander on the night of the incursion, he was asked what the rules of engagement were, how we conduct ourselves, whom we shoot and whom we don't. What he said was – and this was the general gist of things – 'We are entering a war zone.' Meaning, what we prepared for during training – combat in urban areas. The IDF distributed flyers informing the residents of the areas we were entering, and that anyone remaining in the area was in effect sentencing themselves to death. That's what was said."
Gaza, measuring about 40km by 10km, is one of the most densely populated areas on Earth with about 1.8 million residents. It is inconceivable that, even at a time of war, entire civilian populations could move to different areas of the strip. Moreover, the crossings between Gaza and Israel, and Gaza and Egypt, were for the most part closed to civilians during the war, meaning that civilians were unable to leave the enclave.
Another central claim by the Israelis was that buildings targetted by its bombers received a "knock at the door," before they were destroyed. In practice, this was a small missile that caused only marginal damage to a building. The suggestion was that places being used by Palestinian fighters as command centres would receive a warning before they were destroyed, allowing civilians to leave.
During this war, this policy was lauded by the Israelis as a sign that civilian casualties were being kept to a minimum.
"I do remember there was this one house of five or six stories in Khirbet Khuza'a. I remember there was 'hot' intel [sic] data on a meeting between militants there," said one of the soldiers quoted in the report.
"The head of the cell was there for sure, and a decision was made to 'knock on the building's roof,' … and then immediately after that drop a bomb on it."
Asked by Breaking the Silence what he means by "immediately," the soldier replied: "Not enough time for everyone to leave. Somewhere between 30 seconds and one minute."
The bombing began on 8 July last year, nine days before Israeli forces entered the Palestinian enclave. Whole areas of Gaza, particularly Shuja'iyya and Beit Hanoun, were flattened during the campaign. Other military personnel interviewed by Breaking the Silence admit that this was part of a deliberate effort by the IDF, and say that inaccurate weapons were used to bombard neighbourhoods before ground troops arrived. "… shells, shells, shells. A suspicious structure, an open area, a field, a place where a tunnel shaft could be – fire, fire, fire. There was a period of about five days from the moment when we were first called in for duty until there was a ground incursion. Throughout that entire time, fire."
Breaking the Silence has specifically condemned the IDF for the use of what it describes "statistical weapons" – mortars and other artillery that are almost impossible to aim accurately. In such a densely populated area, and where homes are built on top of each other, collateral damage was inevitable, the group argues.
In pictures: Israel-Gaza conflict - summer 2014
"In practice, during the preliminary shelling, the army pounded populated areas throughout the Strip with artillery shells in order to scare off enemy combatants who were in the area, and at times also to urge the civilian population to flee," Breaking the Silence say.
Israel won plaudits from its allies in London and Washington for the war was conducted. General Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the US joint chiefs, the United States' most senior military officer said in November last year that, "Israel went to extraordinary lengths to limit collateral damage and civilian casualties".
Last week, in an interview with the Jewish Chronicle newspaper, David Cameron made one of his strongest defences of the Israeli position yet.
Using a phrase that was coined by Israeli premier Benjamin Netanyahu, the prime minister said that it was "important to speak out" about standing by Israel and said there was an "important difference" between Israel's use of weapons to defend itself and Hamas' use of them "to defend its weapons".


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/fire-at-every-person-you-see-israeli-soldiers-reveal-they-were-ordered-to-shoot-to-kill-in-gaza-even-10223427.html

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 May 17 - 09:05 PM

Why can't you tell this forum who commissioned the report and why it was released to the Jerusalem Post? Where else was it published, if anywhere? Why have you provided no link to this report? Who were these military experts working for? How were they selected, and by whom? You went to some lengths to provide the biographies of the soldiers in question, so why can't you answer these really simple questions?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 14 May 17 - 08:08 PM

Nope, not evasive at all. You have all the information required to find everything available pertaining to the report. It's not my fault if you are too lazy or incompetent to do so.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 May 17 - 05:42 PM

Who commissioned the report, what organisation were they working for and which of them wrote what? Why was it published in the Jerusalem Post? Was it published anywhere else? Why are you being evasive?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 14 May 17 - 03:50 PM

Jom - The Daily Record - AKA - Scotland's National Comic

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 14 May 17 - 03:32 PM

He has become completely crazed by his hatred, Teribus.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 14 May 17 - 03:03 PM

Ehmmm Jom I do wish that you would read the newspaper articles you provide links for.

On the 14th May, 1948 five Arab nations declared war on Israel - Israel DID NOT declare war on them. Could that possibly have had any bearing on those attacks you mentioned?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 May 17 - 02:54 PM

"Had there been no rocket attacks there would have been no Israeli response"
Just the continuation of land stealing - except of course, attacks on Palestinians started the day Britain steamed out
You have been given Einstein's comments on the massacres of civilians - fated 1949 - no rockets then - just people crouching in their homes as hand grenades were thrown through the windows.
Poor, defenceless Israel eh?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 May 17 - 02:27 PM

One of the things I love about you pair is you don't seem to mind humiliating yourselves in public
It saves the rest of us a hell of a lot of effort
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 May 17 - 02:20 PM

"We know that white phosphorus munitions were used during Operation Cast Lead 2008/2009 "
AND AGAIN
one more time
wWe know that no white phosphorus munitions were used during Operation Pillar of Defence in 2012."
PILAR OF DEFENCE
"The Truth is: Between 2004 and 2009 chemicals required in the manufacture of toothpaste and cosmetics"


BRITAIN SELLS SARIN TO ASSAD

Don't know much, do you?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 14 May 17 - 01:46 PM

Hey Raggy - Example of Jim Carroll spitting out his bile and venom.

Jim Carroll - 14 May 17 - 01:35 PM

Bet you don't comment on it.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 May 17 - 01:35 PM

We've been over this over and over again
None of this has been subtantiated as "lies"
Typical is this
"Your claim: Britain (i.e. The British Government) sold weapons to Assad."
No I did not Keith said "a few sniper rifles" when I had specified ammunition
Made up bullying shit
Your links were supplied to claims that had not been made
Nobody ever specified what type of ammunition was sent just that it had been licences
You baseed your entire argument on unstated size - then you went on to invent five more seasons
"We know that no white phosphorus munitions were used during Operation Pillar of Defence in 2012."
We "now nothing of the sort - just tat Israel makes a HABIT of using the stuff
You are setting up arguments that have not been made
Britain ws internationally condemned fro selling Chemicals to Assad
The fact you coundn't find a reference to the hospital incident is your obvious unfamilarity to finging links as you don't do it often
I produced the report of it at the time complete with links
I'm fucked it I'm going to succumb to you playing Keith's card an denying already given evidence
Go fuck yourself
Is there really any point in continuing this load of makie ups?
NoThere is not one single lie here as thee wasn't lat time you rehashed old arguments you had been shot down in flames on
"You have been given an impressive list of senior military experts from many countries."
And you have been given the facts that they produced a totally biased report in favour of Israel by stating their bias in the first sentence
You may find that "impressive"
"Challenging their credibility just makes you look ridiculous."
They challenge themselves by letting the cat out of the bag in the first line
That's what I call "ridiculous"
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 14 May 17 - 01:06 PM

I see that the findings of the members of the High Level Military Group are not being challenged which is as it should be as the facts of the conflict as presented are mostly a matter of public record. As to which side was or was not operating within the parameters of the Law of Armed Conflict, familiarizing yourself with said Law would be more germane to the discussion than trying to dig for something with which to discredit the report.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 14 May 17 - 12:40 PM

Jim Carroll - 14 May 17 - 07:21 AM

Complete and utter bullshit Jom - your stock in trade.

Your claim: Britain (i.e. The British Government) sold weapons to Assad.

The Truth is: They did no such thing.

Your claim: You refuse to link to anything.

The Truth is: Links were supplied related to the following:

1: Details of types of weapons used by the Syrian Armed forces and Syrian Police units (They are Russian, former Warsaw Pact and Chinese)

2: Details of 7.62mm ammunition used by NATO (L1A1 SLR, AG3, LMG, GMPG) and details of 7.62 ammunition used in the AK-47 and its derivatives (The NATO round is 12mm too long for the AK-47 magazine and chamber)

3: News paper articles referring to an export licence being issued in 2009 but nothing related to any shipment ever having been made subsequent to the licence being issued.

Your Claim: That the "weapons" supplied by the British Government were being used to kill civilians in Homs in 2012.

The Truth is: No weapons sold, ALL export licences related to trade with Syria were revoked in the Autumn of 2010.

Your Claim: Britain (i.e. The British Government) sold chemical weapons materials to Assad.

The Truth is: Between 2004 and 2009 chemicals required in the manufacture of toothpaste and cosmetics were sold to two companies in Syria. Investigation by BIS into those export orders showed that the manufacturing records of the products made by those companies tallied with the quantities of chemical supplied - which means that none of the chemicals supplied could have been syphoned off and used to make chemical weapons.

Your Claim: Britain (i.e. The British Government) sold electrical equipment to Assad that was used to torture opponents of the regime. You also claimed that this had been stated in a report by NGO.

The Truth is No such equipment was supplied and there was no mention of British supplied equipment being used to torture prisoners of the Assad regime. Copies of the specific report referred to by Carroll were linked to and the relevant extracts cut'n'pasted into the text of the post refuting his claims.
   
"We know from Medecins Sans Frontieres reportsthat Israli oficers instructed hospital patients to remain where the were then opened fire of the hospital"

We know nothing of the sort. I have searched for this incident and found nothing even remotely like it. I did find a report of an incident where a MSF spokesperson detailed a fictitious account of IDF soldiers firing on civilians waving white flags - a report that MSF had to publicly retract. MSF operates inside Gaza and it says exactly what Hamas tells it to say same as UNRWA.

We know that no white phosphorus munitions were used during Operation Protective Edge in 2014.

We know that no white phosphorus munitions were used during Operation Pillar of Defence in 2012.

We know that white phosphorus munitions were used during Operation Cast Lead 2008/2009 and that "Israel's use of white phosphorus in Gaza was technically legal under existing international humanitarian laws" (Mark Cantora examining the legal implications of the use of white phosphorus munitions by the IDF, published in 2010 in the Gonzaga Journal of International Law). The IDF have not used it since.

Flechettes have been used since the First World War. They are a recognised and "legal" anti-personnel weapon:

"During the invasion in the 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict, numerous human rights groups documented the IDF'S use of flechette munitions and declared this use to be against international humanitarian law, due to the imprecise nature of flechettes. According to the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights, IDF tanks fired six anti-personnel munitions at the town of Khuz'a on July 17, resulting in the injury of one Palestinian woman"

"You ignore the comparisons of deaths and of military capability and continue to argue that Israel is the victim in all this"

Damn right, as previously stated war is not an exercise in equivalence. Had there been no rocket attacks there would have been no Israeli response - It really is as simple as that

"You ignore the fact that even the Imperial maps that were foisted on Palestine bear no resemblance to today's borders after expansion"

And you ignore the fact that by rejecting the 1947 UN Two State Plan there are no recognised borders.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 May 17 - 12:04 PM

you got to hide

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 May 17 - 12:03 PM

I'm not challenging anything. I'm asking who commissioned the report, what their umbrella organisation was and which of them wrote what. The report has no credibility until those questions are properly answered. The fact that the report was published in the Jerusalem Post requires those questions to be answered so that we can be sure there is no bias. Are you arguing with that? If you are, what have got to hide?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 May 17 - 11:45 AM

Steve and Jim,
"To this I might add that the IDF, recognized as being the most moral army in the world..."

By whom?

You have been given an impressive list of senior military experts from many countries.
Challenging their credibility just makes you look ridiculous.
Can you produce any credible sources who challenge their view, or is it just you two?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 May 17 - 11:44 AM

"Ah yes, the bold red screaming of cultivated indignation makes it's appearance once again as his lies and deceit are laid bare."
I assume we cross posted
Answer the points?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 May 17 - 11:37 AM

So what organisation were these experts working for? Who commissioned the report? Which of the people in your list contributed what? Why are you being so evasive about it?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 14 May 17 - 11:29 AM

Ah yes, the bold red screaming of cultivated indignation makes it's appearance once again as his lies and deceit are laid bare.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 May 17 - 11:12 AM

There is not a shred of evidence in this "report" as to who was asked and how the investigation was carried out
The "independence" of the enquiry is firmly established by the inclusion of Richard Kemp - who, by his own admission, has submitted a similar whitewash while interviewing only members of the Israeli armed forces and Israeli politicians, and who has, again by his own admission, has had a long term relationship with Mossad.
There is no indiaction that they have been selected on their knowledge of the conflict, only on their connection with Israel
The statement opens by making clear that the committee are intentt on exonerating Israel
"No country would accept the threat against its Civilian population that these rockets and tunnels present to Israeli population centers.ا"
The enquiry was supposed to be how the incursion was conducted and whether       the Israelis were guilty of committing war crimes NOT THE RIGHTS AND WRONGS OF THE PALESTINIAN CONFLICT yet they state qqite clearly that they are not independent (as claimed), on this issue, but have taken Israel's side from day one.
The enquire had no business to expand its brief to include the ongoing conflict, but it made it the first statement of the report.
About as "Independent" as Richard Kent, I would say
The local milkman might have done a better job in covering his tracks
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 14 May 17 - 10:41 AM

Hi there bobad. That surely is the most impressive list of "local milkmen and newspaper delivery boys" that I've ever clapped eyes on. Quite a few seem to have had "hands on" combat command experience - their delivery rounds must have been in some rough neighbourhoods. In any event they would all certainly have been able to recognise what they were there to observe - more so than our resident clowns Shaw & Carroll.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 14 May 17 - 09:18 AM

What military experts?

General Klaus Dieter Naumann (Germany) is the
former Chief of Staff of the Bundeswehr, the German
armed forces and served as Chairman of the NATO Military
Committee from 1996 to 1999.

General Vincenzo Camporini (Italy) is the former
Chief of Defence Staff of Italy. He served as Deputy Chief
of Defence General Staff and President of the Italian Centre
for High Defence Studies before being appointed Chief of
Staff of the Italian Air Force and subsequently Chief of
Defence General Staff.

Lieutenant General David A. Deptula (United States)
was the principal attack planner for the Desert Storm coalition
air campaign in 1991, served as Director of the Combined
Air Operations Center in Afghanistan and served as the first
Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence, Surveillance and
Reconnaissance (ISR), Headquarters Air Force.

Admiral José María Terán (Spain) serves in the Office
of Strategic Assessment of the Minister of Defence of
Spain. A former Chief of the Joint Staff and Chief of the
Strategic Analysis Group, he has also served as Director for
Reorganisation of the Spanish Intelligence Service.

Major General Andrew James Molan (Australia)
served as the Chief of Operations for the Headquarters
Multinational Force in Iraq. He is a former Commander
of the Australian Defence College and has served as Adviser
to the Vice Chief of the Australian Defence Force on Joint
Warfighting Lessons and Concepts.

Lieutenant General Kamal Davar (India) served as
the first Director General of the Defence Intelligence Agency
of India. A former Director-General, Mechanised Forces
at Army Headquarters, he has held a large number of high
ranking command posts in the Indian Army and served on
the Indian Military Training Team in Iraq.

Brigadier General Alain Lamballe (France) served
in the General Secretariat for National Defence as head of
the Southeast Asia and Europe sections as well as heading
the Central Liaison Mission for Assistance to Foreign
Forces. He is the former Director of the Department of
Security Cooperation of the OSCE Mission in Bosnia
and Herzegovina.

Colonel Richard Kemp (United Kingdom) was
Commander of British Forces in Afghanistan and has
served in Iraq, the Balkans, South Asia and Northern
Ireland. He has led the international terrorism team at
the UK's Joint Intelligence Committee and served as
chairman of the strategic intelligence group for COBRA,
the UK national crisis management committee.

Colonel Vincent Alcazar (United States) served as a
fighter pilot in Operations Desert Storm and Southern Watch
as well as various other post 9/11 theatres. He subsequently
served in strategic roles at the Pentagon, the U.S. Defense
Intelligence Agency and at the U.S. embassy, Baghdad, Iraq.

Colonel Eduardo Ramirez (Colombia) is an
Advisor to the Congress of Colombia who served with the
Colombian National Police from 1987 until 2013. He was
formerly the Chief of Security Staff for President Uribe
of Colombia, as well as Chief of Section at the Judicial
and Criminal Directory of the National Police.

Ambassador Pierre-Richard Prosper (United States)
was Ambassador-at-large in charge of the US Secretary of
State's Office of War Crimes Issues. A former Presidential
envoy and adviser to the National Security Council he was
previously a war crimes prosecutor for the United Nations
International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda.

Rafael L. Bardají is the Executive Director of the
Friends of Israel Initiative and National Security Advisor to
Former President, José María Aznar. He formerly served in
the Government of Spain as the National Security Adviser
and in leadership positions in the Ministry of Defence.

Davis Lewin is the Rapporteur of the High Level Military
Group. He is the Deputy Director and Head of Policy and
Research at The Henry Jackson Society, a London based
Foreign and Defence Policy think tank.