BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II

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: 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 - 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: 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: 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 - 07:53 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: 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 - 07:54 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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 - 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 - 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: 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 - 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: Teribus
Date: 16 May 17 - 02:24 AM

"The committee members are institutionally biased towards producing the findings that the committee wants to hear."

So does that hold good for UN HRC and UNRWA Shaw? Both noted for their anti-Israeli bias? I know how much you believe in there being one sauce for the goose and another for the gander.

Another fly in the ointment as far as your statement goes of course is that those people mentioned who actually undertook the fact finding missions were not members of either UN HRC or UN Watch, so I would be delighted to hear from you exactly how they could possibly be described as being institutionally biased.

Now if you were called upon to put a team together to monitor, examine and analyse the conduct of a military operation who would you select? We know that your pal Jom in his wisdom would pick milkmen and paperboys, dying to hear who you would pick.

Desmond Travers (Colonel Irish Army retired) the UN HRC Team's one and only military expert made mistake after mistake and started out on the assumption that Israel was guilty. One independent military expert (Tim Collins Colonel Irish Rangers retired) who looked into a claim that a mosque had been used to store weapons (A claim that Travers dismissed out of hand) had nothing to do with UN Watch or their team of experts, read accounts of the strike that hit the mosque and the eye-witness accounts of those who observed it and then went to the site and examined it where he found obvious signs of sympathetic secondary explosions inside the building. Now then Shaw if the Israelis only struck the building once - you tell me what caused the secondary explosions? As I know you will not offer up any response to that question I will tell you. For there to have been secondary explosions there would have to be munitions or explosives stored inside the building when it as hit.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 May 17 - 04:50 AM

As he's a military man I suppose we are obliged to think that he's above all suspicion of bias. That seems to be your current theme, cap-doffer-in-chief. Well, as they say, the first casualty of war...

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 16 May 17 - 05:30 AM

So Shaw as you seem to think that anybody connected to the military are all biased born liars who is it that you would select to monitor, examine and analyse the execution and conduct of any given military operation? Possibly you'd side with Jom and opt for milkmen and paperboys.

Bias in military thinking is extremely dangerous. Those who believe in their own superiority and who underestimate their enemy usually live to bitterly regret their error - history, had you read it, is absolutely littered with examples.

My own experience and I daresay the experience of the members of this forum who have served in the armed forces will tend toward a marked objectivity in thinking that is applied to any problem given to the armed forces from straightforward military problems to humanitarian support in disaster areas - neither of which, judging by what you write, you have the foggiest notion about. Your world outside your immediate circle appears to be made up of left-wing, tooth-sucking, ideological stereotypes who bear no resemblance to reality.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 May 17 - 06:26 AM

I don't think that at all and I have given you no reason to make such a stupid assertion.

The soldiers in Jim's piece were in the thick of the conflict. Collins visited the war zone a year after the fighting. You dismiss first-hand accounts by five dozen IDF men on the ground in favour of a single establishment man, far removed from the conflict, a man avidly sought by both the Tories and the Ulster Unionists for their ranks, a man, let's face it, far more likely to side with the Israeli regime than with the Palestinians. He gave a lovely little-Englander speech to his men at the start of the disastrous Iraq invasion, full of purple prose, failing to see the wrongs of it, unlike millions of the rest of us, who couldn't believe what was happening. He has shown himself to be just as capable of misjudgement as anyone else, even working with a fraudulent reporter at the Beeb. I'm not saying this to blacken his name. I'm sure he's a very fine man and a damn good soldier. I'm saying this as a corrective to your rather sycophantic appeal to authority in presenting him to us as a man of flawless and inviolable integrity. He is not that man. It's very amusing to see how your exceptionally sharp critical faculties are always immediately blunted, positively disembowelled, by anyone coming from the establishment. You've clearly been taking lessons from Keith.

As for Judge Goldstone, he made mistakes that he has admitted to. But ask yourself why Israel, if their behaviour has been as saintly as described in the UN Watch report, absolutely refused to cooperate with him right from the outset. And, whatever you think of this alleged self-hating Jew, just consider how he's changed the game for Israel. Their military escapades are under scrutiny like never before, to the benefit of everyone in the region, as a consequence of his report, no matter how flawed.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 16 May 17 - 12:35 PM

Steve Shaw - 16 May 17 - 06:26 AM

OK bit by bit:

I don't think that at all and I have given you no reason to make such a stupid assertion.

Well here is the exchange that caused me to believe that "stupid assertion:

Initially - "As he's a military man I suppose we are obliged to think that he's above all suspicion of bias. That seems to be your current theme, cap-doffer-in-chief. Well, as they say, the first casualty of war..." - Steve Shaw - Is truth - i.e. the man is automatically a liar - totally unfounded assumption on your part. What reason does he have Shaw to lie? According to what you infer his reason to lie is because he is part of the military.

Next we have this nugget from military expert and experience warrior Steve Shaw:

"The soldiers in Jim's piece were in the thick of the conflict."

Really? And you know this for sure how? Because they said so? They are military men like Tim Collins or Richard Kemp, who you think are born liars what verification do you have that those men were where they said they were - I mean apart from them telling a story that suits your argument.

Tell me Shaw, from your extensive experience of being in combat, what it is that you notice while under fire in a situation where others are trying their utmost to kill you and your friends, what is it that you know? Now I do know for certain that neither yourself, or your pal Carroll have ever, in your lives been under such circumstances - I on the other hand have. When it comes to the big picture stuff, those at the pointy end of things have got absolutely no idea of what is going on apart from the tiny postage stamp sized snap-shots you get every time you muster the guts to stick your head above the parapet to sneak a look.

Yes Collins visited the war zone a year after the fighting. and all the forensic evidence was still there, he had time to examine it at leisure, there was no-one shooting at him, he had time to look at it. The five dozen IDF men on the ground on ground at the time had none of these luxuries and besides at the time their major concern was focused on achieving the mission they had been set and saving their own hides. As you have no experience of this, please do not even attempt to have the arrogance to argue the point as you haven't got the foggiest notion of what you are talking about.

Tell me why Tim Collins, who had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with UN HRC or UN Watch, be biased in favour of the Israeli regime that he has no allegiance to and who he is not part of? Having no axe to grind whatsoever, he gave his honest opinion of what he saw - simple as that. Travers didn't even f**kin' well bother to LOOK. The prat didn't even bother to check who his Palestinian "witnesses" were, or what organisation they belonged to.

"just as capable of misjudgement as anyone else - Apart from you it seems.

"fraudulent reporter at the Beeb - None more fraudulent than Jeremy Bowen, or Barbara Plett, or Rageh Omaar.

"I'm not saying this to blacken his name. - Hell as like. You have absolutely no knowledge or experience to pass an opinion on anything to do with the military. Your approach to the subject is totally biased and coloured by your ideological belief in stereotypes that you clearly demonstrate in all your arguments.

"As for Judge Goldstone, he made mistakes that he has admitted to. But ask yourself why Israel, if their behaviour has been as saintly as described in the UN Watch report, absolutely refused to cooperate with him right from the outset."

Those mistakes would never have been admitted to had UN Watch not conducted their own investigation and openly challenged what Goldstone had reported. Had the Goldstone report been accepted blindly then it would have been the basis for any legal action taken in the International Court of Justice - as it was the Goldstone report was shown to be biased and seriously flawed. By the way the reason that the Israeli Government refused to co-operate with Goldstone was because under the terms of the mandate given they were only looking to critically investigate actions by the IDF.

Tell me Shaw how has Goldstone "changed the game for Israel"? Goldstone covered the 2009 Operation Cast Lead. What was different on the Israeli approach in 2012 and in 2014? How many rockets have been fired into Israel by Hamas since 2014? Since 2014 a total of 16 rockets have launched into Israel - none since August 2016. How many Israeli incursions into Gaza have been made since 2014? NONE See any connection Shaw?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 16 May 17 - 07:12 PM

Sheesh Teribus, don't be so hard with experience on little Stevie blunder there, it might give him a complex and cause him to question his bias...........no chance lol!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 May 17 - 05:00 AM

Steve,
The IDF killed hundreds of children in a very short time.

Really? More details of that "fact" please Steve, with an estimate of how many were victims of faulty missiles intended for Israeli civilians.

White phosphorus was used.

It was not.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 May 17 - 05:18 AM

Wiki,
"According to data provided by the Palestinian International Middle East Media Center, 79.7% of the Palestinians killed in Gaza were male, with the majority between 16 and 35 (fighting-age)."

"Israel has pointed to the relatively small numbers of fatalities among women, children and men over 60, and to instances of Hamas fighters being counted as civilians (perhaps due to the broad definition of "civilian" used by the Gaza Health Ministry), to support its view that the number of the dead who were militants is 40–50%"

" ITIC reported instances in which children and teenagers served as militants, as well as cases where the ages of casualties reported by GHM were allegedly falsified, with child militants listed as adults and adults listed as children."

"Abbas said that "more than 120 youths were killed for violating the curfew and house arrest orders issued against them" by Hamas, referring to reports that Hamas targeted Fatah activists in Gaza during the conflict. Abbas said that Hamas also executed more than 30 suspected collaborators without trial"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Israel%E2%80%93Gaza_conflict#Impact

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 May 17 - 05:09 AM

Labour MP Louise Ellman last week.
"Ellman also believes that, despite foot-dragging by the leadership, there is now "more of an understanding that there is an issue of anti-Semitism in the Labour party."
She points, too, to the fact that senior figures in the party, such as deputy leader Tom Watson, "continue to speak out very strongly against what's happening."

There has been, Ellman argues, a "real change in how people understand modern anti-Semitism."
She recognizes that while members of the Labour party have always recoiled from the problem in its "traditional form" — she cites opposition to Britain's pre-war fascist leader, Oswald Mosley, and his modern-day adherents in the far-right British National party — some have greater difficulty recognizing left-wing anti-Semitism.
The phenomenon is not a new one, she argues, but has become "more prominent and often shows in discussions about Israel and the way it is treated in a way no other country is."
It is not, though, simply how Israel is discussed which is problematic, but the manner in which parts of the left focus on it to the exclusion of many other issues and conflicts which Ellman finds disturbing.
"It is deeply problematic because Israel is singled out of all the disputes around the world," she says, "and it is then discussed in ways that don't recognize the existential problem that Israel faces, and it then emerges that Israel is uniquely evil — and that is a completely distorted reality."

http://www.timesofisrael.com/this-tough-as-nails-uk-politician-wont-be-cowed-by-the-anti-semitism-of-her-own-party/

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 18 May 17 - 07:59 AM

Labour MP Louise Ellman is talking about our resident Labour Party members right there. If the party brass read their posts they would undeniably face suspension.

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

Ellman is rabidly anti-Hamas and rabidly pro-Israel. Anyone reading the two posts above should be aware of that.

Extracted from wiki.
She voted "very strongly for" the Iraq War, "very strongly against" an investigation into that war, and "very strongly for" renewal of Trident, Britain's nuclear weapons programme.

Ellman is also the Chair of the Jewish Labour Movement and Vice Chair of Labour Friends of Israel and has been an active spokeswoman in Parliament on issues relating to the Middle East. Ellman is a member of Labour Friends of Israel. [On the] assassination of Sheikh Yasin, the 66-year-old spiritual leader of Hamas, [she] told Parliament that "Israel's action in killing Sheikh Yasin was a legitimate response to an extraordinary situation". In January 2011, during a debate on Antisemitism she asked: "Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern that the anti-Semitism that he describes is rarely opposed by those who declare themselves anti-racist?"

In the 2010 Election campaign leaflets had been distributed in her constituency of Liverpool Riverside targeting Mrs Ellman and Luciana Berger for their membership of Labour Friends of Israel and was headed "Don't vote for Friends of Israel". A leaflet headed "Remember Gaza" and subheaded "Don't vote for Labour Friends of Israel" was written and widely distributed by Liverpool Friends of Palestine and appears on the website LabourNet. An article appeared in The Jewish Chronicle entitled "Racist leaflets against Jewish candidates in Liverpool."

Not a great "authority" then, Keith.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 18 May 17 - 10:25 AM

Ellman is rabidly anti-Hamas and rabidly pro-Israel

As are all decent, fair minded people who don't have a problem with Jews.

There has been, Ellman argues, a "real change in how people understand modern anti-Semitism."

Some people excepted, of course.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 May 17 - 10:35 AM

Well she certainly doesn't understand it, unfortunately. Most of her ranting about it is about Israel, not about Jews at all.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 May 17 - 01:24 PM

Ellman is rabidly anti-Hamas and rabidly pro-Israel.

Why would anyone not be "rabidly anti" a brutal terrorist organisation.
Are you not Steve?

What is wrong with being pro-Israel, the only democracy in the region?

Why does that make her views on Labour anti-Semitism suspect when there are so many others in labour who say the same?

She is a British Labour Co-operative politician who has been the MP for Liverpool Riverside since 1997. In Parliament, she is Chair of the Transport Select Committee and a member of the Liaison Committee.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 May 17 - 01:25 PM

.....That makes her a better "authority" than you Steve!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 May 17 - 06:55 PM

Does it really. The trouble with your "authorities," Keith, which are myriad (you employ them routinely instead of presenting honest argument), is that you select the ones that reinforce your personal prejudices. This particular lady fits your bill perfectly. I'm glad you admit that she's rabidly anti-Hamas. Personally, I prefer a more measured approach. Be more honest, Keith.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 18 May 17 - 07:43 PM

Being rabidly anti-Hamas is the correct approach to take with rabidly genocidal, anti-Semitic terrorists. A measured approach is what Neville Chamberlain tried with that other rabidly genocidal anti-Semite - how did that work out for him?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 May 17 - 08:18 PM

Dear me. Do you think that Neville really knew what was going to happen to six million Jews, idiot?! Perhaps you should look up "rabidly." It more than implies brainless advocacy, unthinking passion and mindless fervour. Not my approach. Show us that it isn't yours. You may struggle.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 18 May 17 - 08:50 PM

Perhaps you should look up "rabidly."

Perhaps you should - you're the one playing silly word games to divert when cornered.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 May 17 - 09:04 PM

Have a nice cup of cocoa and toddle off to bed. Don't forget your teddy.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 19 May 17 - 02:56 AM

Ducked the question didn't you Shaw (Par for the course for you - that is what you normally do - others, according to your diktats have to explain and substantiate everything but you for some reason best known to yourself are excused this essential process and requirement)

Keith A's very reasonable question - "Why would anyone not be "rabidly anti" a brutal terrorist organisation.
Are you not Steve?

No direct answer from Shaw because both Shaw and Carroll are apologists for Hamas, the internationally recognised terrorist organisation. The organisation that Corbyn and his hard-left pals in the Labour Party refers to as being "friends" (No bloody wonder Jewish members of the Labour Party feel "uncomfortable").

Shaw now mithers about use of the word "rabid", yet he was the one to introduce it with reference to someone who quite rightly forcefully condemns Hamas as a terrorist organisation. Hamas has no interest at all in peace, or in any peace process, because they are making too much money from the current situation - money for nothing. The so-called "leaders" of the Arabs of Palestine have betrayed and let their people down at every turn since 1948. They have robbed them of hope and deliberately kept them in poverty and despair, because poverty and despair is good for attracting billions in international aid and assistance that is paid directly to the "leaders" for them to disburse as they see fit, the "people" never get a sniff of it.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 May 17 - 04:17 AM

The man who never "directly answers" anything gives us a perfect example of a rabid post. 😂

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 May 17 - 05:22 AM

Steve,
. The trouble with your "authorities," Keith, which are myriad (you employ them routinely instead of presenting honest argument), is that you select the ones that reinforce your personal prejudices

Unfair Steve. You folks just deny that the Labour Left has had serious problems with anti-Semitism.
You would rightly dismiss my own view on the subject because, like you, I have no inside knowledge.
Instead I have quoted senior, long established and prominent Labour people who you can try to dismiss but only make yourself foolish by doing so.
They know rather better than you what is going on in the party.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 May 17 - 05:30 AM

Steve, you criticise and dismiss Ellman for being anti Hamas so presumably you are pro Hamas, a recognised terrorist group responsible for indiscriminate atrocities such as bombing buses and the kidnap and murder of school kids.

On the Blasphemy thread you express your abhorrence for capital punishment. Israel is the only state in the region that does not practise it. Hamas actually lynches opponents in the street without even a pretence of a trial!

What is the real, underlying reason for your hatred of Israel and support for its enemies?