Palestine (continuation)

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Nov 11 - 05:49 AM

"And now here comes Keith to save the day"
Complete with his hackneyed support for the inhuman targetting of non-combatants yet again by Israel - 'aid bringers are terrorists' -'goods not wanted by besieged Palestinians' - I'll bet the same arguments were being put forward at Troy
And the veto isn't needed because Israel will win the vote anyway...
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Nov 11 - 05:44 AM

Yiou are delivering Israel's message again -as you have been from the beginning

I know.
Sorry Jim.
You would prefer only one side of the story was presented.
Much less challenging and confusing to your simplistic, leftist paradigm.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Lox
Date: 10 Nov 11 - 04:56 AM

What a load of cobblers.

Teribus, you stated that if someone else isn't using their land and you need more, then you have a right to go and take a piece.

Your comments came in this context.

Mousethief said "Let's talk about the Israelis, too. Do they want peace? The Palestinians aren't encroaching on a new piece of Israeli land every 3 months."

referring to CURRENT settlement issues.

So in the context of CURRENT settlement issues, the following exchange took place:

"Mousethief you have not answered my questions at all:

Question 1: for all those chattering on about stealing land every three months: "Why not what are the Palestinians doing with it? Sweet FA as far as I can see."

Answer 1: If you're not using your back 40 acres, I can steal it from you? Sweet. That's just fucked up, dude.

Well no it is not actually Dude, if you live in a very small country with an increasing population, there is no land that can be allowed to go to waste."

In other words Teribus, you stated that the settlements are fine because Israel needs to expand.

And that, in German, is called Lebensraum.


Nice to see the tough guy plead "context" when he's banged to rights - but tough luck, guy, the context was very clear.

Unless perhaps your English comprehension needs work ... hmmmm?


And now here comes Keith to save the day - Richard Hammond to Teribus' Jeremy Clarkson ...

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Nov 11 - 04:23 AM

"Do you deny that Israel delivered "
Yiou are delivering Israel's message again -as you have been from the beginning
The aid workers who were killed by Israeli troops were armed with what you and your apologist friends have described as weapons of "self defence"
We have mett some of the Irish aid workers - ordinary Irish people whose only concern is a humanitarian one.
That there maybe terrorist nutters who will attempt to hijack these events ifs always the case - that there is a government of terrorist fanatics who will attempt to acquire land by military suppression is a far greater crime against humanity - and yes, starving the Palestinians into submission very much applies - and that's the way the civilised world views it.
"US will not need to use its veto"
The fact that they have stated that they are prepared to use it is an indication that they will need to - let's see shall we.
Giving the right to veto to a country like the US with its human rights record is a farce anyway, which puts into context your accusation that bodies like the UN and UNESCO are biased against Israel.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Nov 11 - 03:11 AM

If, as reported earlier, Canada, France, Germany and UK all oppose, US will not need to use its veto.
Jim, do you deny that many activists on the Marmara declared their intention to die killing Jews?
Do you deny that Israel delivered all the aid to Gaza anyway, but it turned out to be junk that the Gazans did not want or need.
So "another excuse for continuing to starve the Palestinians into submission" hardly applies.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Nov 11 - 02:50 AM

"UN has not recognised Palestine."
The UN would recognise Palestine if it was allowed but is prevented from doing so by the US who has declared it will veto any such decision - there's democracy for you.
I suppose it's a step up from napalming them into submission (or "bombing them back into the Stone Age, as General Westmorland once put it in reference for another 'fight for freedom and democracy'"
"UNESCO, where tin-pot dictatorships outnumber liberal democracies"
And yet another three cheers for peace and co-operation.
"Was that the one full of activists hoping to die killing Jews? "
And another excuse for continuing to starve the Palestinians into submission.
Suppose it's a waste of time asking for examples of any aid ships setting out to "die killing Jews" - so far it's been the Israelis killing the aid-bringers?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Nov 11 - 01:07 AM

It shouldn't take too long - thankfully we have "control+F" to help us find these things.

All I have to do is load a thread and search for 'lebensraum' and I'll find it ...

Are you still searching for "lebensraum"??
How long now Lox?

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Nov 11 - 01:00 AM

Troubled with English Comprehension Lox??

"if you live IN a very small country with an increasing population, there is no land that can be allowed to go to waste."

You talk about annexation and throw in the German term "lebensraum" both require that a country increases in size. You cannot annex something that is already located within your borders (famous example from modern History Germany's annexation of Austria or the Sudatenland - did Germany become greater in size or remain the same size Lox?)

Taken in context of the period of time being referred to in the post you are currently gloating over and patting yourself on the back about (1948 to 1952) Israel did not in fact increase in size, Palestine on the other hand did shrink but that land was stolen from Palestinian Arabs by Egypt (Gaza) and by Jordan (East Jerusalem & the West bank) and on that stolen land the Egyptians and the Jordanians shut the Palestinian Arabs up in refugee camps.

Hit you Control+F again Lox and do a search and come up with the German terms for robbing people of their property, their businesses, their goods and forcibly removing them by deportation. In the wake of their losing the 1948 war with the fledgling state of Israel 820,000 Jews suffered exactly that fate at the hands of Arabs. The Israelis did not shut them up in refugee camps and whine about the loses suffered, they welcomed them in (largest influx of Jews into Israel/Palestine ever - all caused by the actions of the Arabs of Palestine and their neighbouring Arab allies) and the country prospered.

Also look at the maps of Palestine around 1947 and look at the areas that belonged to no-one it is described as being "Government Land".

Prior to 1918 any land in what became known as Palestine was held on sufferance from the Ottoman rulers who could take it over as and when they wished.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Lox
Date: 09 Nov 11 - 05:42 PM

5 minutes




Subject: RE: BS: Hamas rockets fired into Israel.
From: Teribus - PM
Date: 11 Aug 10 - 12:19 AM

Mousethief you have not answered my questions at all:

Question 1: for all those chattering on about stealing land every three months: "Why not what are the Palestinians doing with it? Sweet FA as far as I can see."

Answer 1: If you're not using your back 40 acres, I can steal it from you? Sweet. That's just fucked up, dude.

Well no it is not actually Dude, if you live in a very small country with an increasing population, there is no land that can be allowed to go to waste.




In other words, Teribus, in your view Israel are justified in annexing more land on the basis that they need more room, more living space ... the german word for which is lebensraum.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Lox
Date: 09 Nov 11 - 05:35 PM

PS ... 300

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Lox
Date: 09 Nov 11 - 05:34 PM

no worries teribus - it was a previous thread and I called you out on it at the time, but you slunk off and ignored it.

It shouldn't take too long - thankfully we have "control+F" to help us find these things.

All I have to do is load a thread and search for 'lebensraum' and I'll find it ...

... lets see how long it takes me.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 09 Nov 11 - 04:51 PM

"Well Teribus,

Coming from you, who stated that settlements were a legitimate way of dealing with the expanding population problem of Israel, which you described as living room, (the german for which is Lebensraum)such comments are meaningless." - Lox

Care to provide the quote from any of my posts where I have stated that Lox.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Nov 11 - 03:35 PM

UN has not recognised Palestine.
UNESCO, where tin-pot dictatorships outnumber liberal democracies, has.
Peace flotilla?
Was that the one full of activists hoping to die killing Jews?

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Stringsinger
Date: 09 Nov 11 - 01:56 PM

So the UN in its wisdom has recognized Palestine and the US is having a tantrum over UNESCO. This isn't new.

Israel has hardened it's arteries and it's interception of a peace flotilla is just another example of Netanyahu dictatorship.

As Chomsky says, it's the US playbook. Support a dictator until they go over the top and then decide to go against them. How long will it take for Netanyahu to go over the top?

Will he start WWIII by nuking Iran?

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 09 Nov 11 - 08:47 AM

Life is full of disappointments great & small, Jim ~ of course. But to rubricate something, as I have done here, as the greatest one of my life ~~ well, what more could I add to that?

~M~

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Nov 11 - 07:48 AM

Not for me to tell you how to debate Mike - I was "disappointed" not to win the pub quiz last night.
And don't think for one moment that you are the only one to see some of your lifelong dreams and beliefs disappear round the U-bend
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 09 Nov 11 - 05:16 AM

What would you prefer to "disappointments", Jim?

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Nov 11 - 05:08 AM

Apology accepted Mike - but I really dont think "great disappointments fits the bill here.

Apropos of nothing really:

From the Irish Times this morning.
Jim Carroll
SWASTIKAS SPRAYED ON HOME OF ISRAELI PEACE CAMPAIGNER
HARRIET SHERWOOD
in Jerusalem
The home of a prominent Israeli peace campaigner has been vandal¬ised. Death threats and swastikas were spray-painted on walls and a nearby vehicle, amid alarm among human rights groups about increasingly hostile and violent actions against them.
Police confirmed they were investigating the attack on the Jerusalem home of Hagit Ofran, who works for Peace Now, an Israeli organisation which moni¬tors settlement activity in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.
The graffiti included the words "Hagit Ofran RIP"; "Rabin is waiting for you", a reference to the fate of assassinated Israeli prime minister Yitzhak Rabin; and "price tag", the signature of extremist set-tlers who carry out operations in revenge for moves to demolish unauthorised West Bank outposts. The names of two recently disman¬tled outposts were also sprayed on walls.
It is the second such attack on Ms Ofran's home in two months. On Sunday, Peace Now's offices were evacuated after a telephone call warned of an imminent bomb attack.
"The building will explode in five minutes," the caller said. Staff found the words "price tag" had been sprayed on the building.
"We are looking at who could be behind this action," police spokesman Micky Rosenfeld said yesterday. Extremist settlers were among the suspects, he added.
Ms Ofran said the perpetrators were trying to intimidate activists. "The discourse in Israel has become truly dangerous," she told Haaretz newspaper.
In a statement, Peace Now said: "The responsibility for price tag attacks is [prime minister Binyamin] Netanyahu's. The incite¬ment and the harsh words of the coalition members in favour of illegal outposts and against the jus¬tice system and left-wing organisa¬tions is seeping into the ground and giving support to the price tag vandals."
The attack came as Mr Netan¬yahu announced he was sup¬porting two parliamentary Bills to curtail the foreign funding of Israeli human rights organisa¬tions. Groups targeted by the Bills have said the legislative move is an attempt to silence them and restrict their work.
A human rights worker who asked not to be named said: "There is a public atmosphere of trying to stop human rights activity. You see it in the Knesset [Israeli parliament] in these Bills and statements from politicians who claim these organisations are actually helping terror." - (Guardian service)

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Lox
Date: 09 Nov 11 - 04:39 AM

Well Teribus,

Coming from you, who stated that settlements were a legitimate way of dealing with the expanding population problem of Israel, which you described as living room, (the german for which is Lebensraum)such comments are meaningless.

So Israel defends itself by annexing land and by massacring civilians.

What a perfect candidate for your peaceful UN.

Only that UNESCO don't agree with you - they see the palestinian state as being a legitimate participant in the UN ... but that of course is because the whole world hates Jews right? They don't have brains and hearts, they just spend all their time thinking about how to annihilate Jews.

What other reason could there possibly be right?

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 09 Nov 11 - 04:36 AM

Not that I accept, mind you,Jim, that my criticisms have been 'lip-service' or merely 'faint damns'. I repeat that Israel is one of the greatest, if not THE greatest, disappointment[s] of my life, and I hold no brief for it since ~ the straw that broke my back some years ago ~ the uprooting of those olive-groves: a symbol to me of the way that the state I had devoted so much of my youth working to bring into being and to support in its infant struggles was no longer worthy of ANY support or approval on my part whatever. Not 'faint damns', not 'lip-service': just that.

Which is in no way contradicted, that I can see, by my deploring of the reaction of the surrounding Arab world in 1948; or my doubts as to the putative outcomes of the present Arab population's achieving the 'statehood' it seeks. These attitudes are not incompatible, so far as I perceive the matter.

~M~

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 09 Nov 11 - 04:26 AM

Indeed, Jim; I think I have misrepresented you and I apologise.

To explain: I have been right back over both threads (!); and find I was disputing with you and Richard simultaneously last September on the previous one; and I have a feeling that my memory might have confused some of his posts at that time with yours; and that he, and not you, was the one who was disputing Israel's very right to exist; which I have managed to find no example of your having done, much as we might have disagreed as to proportions of blameworthiness &c.

I repeat ~~ sorry. Most inefficient of my memory, which has been severely reprimanded and told to do better in future!

~Michael~

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Nov 11 - 03:18 AM

"And that Jim, whom you cite as an ally, really does appear to me to object to the very existence of Israel absolutely"
Please do not resort to Keith's tricks of misrepresenting what people say and believe Mike - that really would be beneath you - you've done enough damage to your 'reasonable' image by underwriting his racist vomitings.
I have never at any time opposed the existence of the State of Israel - my objection has always been the viciously aggressive and expansionist nature of that state, its proven war crimes and its treatment of the Arab population as a whole - all of which you have chosen to praise with faint damns, despite your lip-service criticism.
I have always been a supporter of an Israeli State and am appalled to see it degenerate into a terrorist one in order to push out its borders.
If that is not been my argument from the outset, please point out where it has been otherwise.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 08 Nov 11 - 08:06 PM

Why should the members of the United Nations reject the application of Palestine for full membership? Simple.

What other members of the United Nations have joined the organisation with the clearly stated political mandate and aim that dictates the total destruction of another member state? I can think of none.

The United Nations exists as an organisation to promote peace, understanding and reconciliation amongst its members. Israel and the Arabs of Palestine must bi-laterally reach an accommodation that guarantees peace, understanding and reconciliation BEFORE Palestine can become a full member. If not, then all you guarantee is a war. The two sides for some 63 years have squandered every single opportunity given them. By all means grant Palestine full membership, then as a state responsible for the actions of its citizens, when attacks against Israel occur launched from Gaza, or the West Bank (as undoubtedly they will) then Israel will retaliate as it has done in the past, except that now it will launch its attack, justifiably, against an enemy STATE - and this time no-one should intervene until it is settled once and for all. Your Palestinians will lose as they have done in the past, except that this time there will be no turning back the clock to resume the game at the beginning as has happened for the last 63 years.

I am heartily sick of it, chose war and violence as the Arabs of Palestine have done since 1921 - Then accept the consequences. As an independent sovereign state chose aggression and you are totally unprotected and open, quite rightly, to censure from the rest of the world.

Choose any nation, or race, in the world and threaten it with annihilation, or extinction and they will laugh and think that you are joking, not so Israel because that nation was born out of just such an attempt.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Lox
Date: 08 Nov 11 - 06:12 AM

Talking of Liars ...

... here's a turn up for the books ...


Sarkozy and Obama bitch about Netanyahu ...



"I can't stand him anymore, he's a liar," Mr Sarkozy said in French.

"You may be sick of him, but me, I have to deal with him every day," Mr Obama replied.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 08 Nov 11 - 04:54 AM

DonT ~~ Why "even" Mike? I have been emphatic throughtout that, despite my genetic ancestry and my youthful activities, I hold no brief for present-day Israel: the greatest disappointment of my life, probably; a betrayal of all those youthful hopes.

But I feel bound nevertheless to point out yet again that it was the Arab world that rejected, with violent aggression most hardly repelled by valiant and dedicated resistance, the 1948 settlement that the provisional and then actual government of Israel had accepted; & that I fear there are influential elements among the Palestinians that would not honour any settlement reached by their 'leaders', but would persist with their openly declared aim of 'driving Israel into the sea'. And that Jim, whom you cite as an ally, really does appear to me to object to the very existence of Israel absolutely ab initio and has never AFAICS denied this, & is ∴ full as biased in the anti-Israel direction as you are all joining together in chorus to accuse Keith of being in the pro.

~Michael~

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Nov 11 - 01:18 AM

I had forgotten about the Muammar brothers.
FWIW here is what Wiki says.

An Israeli spokesman confirmed the detentions, said that both men were members of the militant group Hamas intending to carry out imminent attacks on Israel and stated "These Palestinians were transferred to Israel where they will be questioned".[3][2] A spokesman for Hamas confirmed that the brothers were sons of a member but denied that the men detained were involved in Hamas.[2][3]

This event was followed by capture of Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit on June 25, 2006 and further incidents in the 2006 Israel-Gaza conflict.

This is claimed by Noam Chomsky[4] and Jonathan Cook for the Media Lens website[5] to be the first incident in the 2006 Israel-Gaza conflict and the following 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Nov 11 - 12:58 AM

....and what makes pipes a liar?

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Nov 11 - 12:56 AM

I have provided the Israeli perspective which no-one else has provided for some time.
Why do you object to me doing that?

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 07 Nov 11 - 06:02 PM

""Don, it is true I have only given the Israeli side of the argument.
I think that there are more than enough of you giving the other side.
What is wrong with considering both sides of any debate?""

Another example of your inability to read what others say, choosing instead to reply to what you would have preferred them to say.

Check back on my posts in this thread (which you obviously could not be arsed to read fully), and you will find that in almost all of them I have been saying that both sides in this conflict will need to change their attitudes if peace is to be achieved. Jim and Lox have both posted in similar terms, and even Mike has expressed misgivings about Israeli actions, while deploring also Palestinian excess.

This is what you call anti Israel bias?

Yet your input is predominately anti Palestine, and you don't recognise even the possibility that Israel might be partly responsible for the Palestinians' attitude.

I truly do not believe that you have the capacity to understand balanced argument, let alone present one.

As to your other comment, I know that YOU didn't bring Dershowitz into the conversation, but thus far he is the only one who seems willing to take on Finkelstein, and between Finkelstein and Noam Chomsky he is taking a thorough shellacking.

Your ten a penny opposing "experts" seem to consist of just one noted liar, against two PRO Israel genuine experts, who believe that Israel is taking the wrong path.

You do seem to be rather outnumbered. Could it be that you need to re-think.

Don T.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 07 Nov 11 - 05:31 PM

""Furthermore, as Gideon Levy accurately wrote in Ha'aretz – as Dershowitz surely discovered in his Google search -- the IDF kidnapping of civilians the day before the capture of Cpl. Shalit strips away any "legitimate basis for the IDF's operation" -- and, we may add, any legitimate basis for support for these operations.""

Example above of Israeli "self defence".

The kidnapping of two civilians (identified by non Hamas neighbours as a doctor and his brother named Muamar) and subsequent claims that they were terrorists, apparently in retaliation for the "kidnapping" of Corporal Shalit, an Israeli soldier captured by the Palestinians twenty four hours LATER!!

Don T.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Nov 11 - 05:00 PM

Yosi Klein Alevi, BBC site.



Twice in the last decade Israeli leaders - Ehud Barak in 2000 and Ehud Olmert in 2008 - have accepted Palestinian statehood.

Dozens of settlements would have been uprooted and others concentrated in blocs along the border, in exchange for which Palestine would have receive compensatory territory from within Israel proper.

The result would have been a contiguous Palestinian state in the equivalent of the territory taken by Israel in the 1967 Six Day War, with Jerusalem as a shared capital.

Palestinian leaders effectively said no.

That's because the deal would have required one significant reciprocal concession: confining the return of the descendants of Palestinian refugees from the 1948 war to a Palestinian state.

Internal collapse

The main obstacle to an agreement, then, is not territory or settlements but the Palestinian insistence on the "right" to demographically destroy the Jewish state. Absurdly, the Palestinian leadership is demanding that Palestinians immigrate not only to a Palestinian state but also to a neighbouring state, Israel.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Nov 11 - 04:51 PM

Kevin, I was discussing the application for UN membership.
I thought we all were.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 07 Nov 11 - 03:39 PM

What kind of "facts" are you talking about Keith? The government of Israel (along with Hamas)is opposed to recognition of Palestine as a state. That is a fact.

Meanwhile its actions in continuing to extend illegal settlements on occupied territory would appear to indicate that it wishes to avoid any genuine negotiations. Those illegal settlements are what is called "facts on the ground".

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Nov 11 - 03:21 PM

What else can an unprejudiced person do but keep an open mind until the facts are known.
Whereas, you and Jim have made your minds up already.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 07 Nov 11 - 02:04 PM

I have only given the Israeli side of the argument.

But you haven't, Keith, so far as UN/UNESCO membership is concerned. You say you are "keeping an open mind".

To quote GK Chesterton "Merely having an open mind is nothing. The object of opening the mind, as of opening the mouth, is to shut it again on something solid."

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 07 Nov 11 - 01:42 PM

Paying for justice? http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/ap-exclusive-palestinians-face-steep-court-fees-14897794

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Nov 11 - 04:43 AM

BTW, I have never, ever mentioned Dershowitz!

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Nov 11 - 01:26 AM

Kevin,
I've looked for reasons why Israel should see Palestinian membership as a threat, and I haven't found any. If you have found some, Keith state them. In their absence their seems no are to disagree with the wishes of most Palestinians, and of most countries. And it would appear, most Israelis.

You may not have found any, but USA, Britain, Canada, Germany and France have, and find them compelling.
Not being prejudiced myself, I am keeping an open mind until the reasons are known.(Wednesday for UK)

On what grounds do you state that most Israelis disagree with their elected government on this?

Don, it is true I have only given the Israeli side of the argument.
I think that there are more than enough of you giving the other side.
What is wrong with considering both sides of any debate?

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 06 Nov 11 - 07:30 PM

""A couple of days ago, you admitted that you had no idea what reasons Israel was putting forward against it, and not one of your team was able to enlighten you either.

You did not need to know.
If Israel is against it, you are for it, and vice versa.

How can we not see this as blind, irrational prejudice against Israel?""

A couple of days ago you were insisting that Israel had accepted the "Two State Solution". Now that Palestine wants that status, all of a sudden Israel doesn't.

Israel doesn't want two states, and never has wanted it.

The reason is simple. As long as Palestine has no voice in the UN, Israel can do pretty much what it likes and Palestine cannot stop it.

No wonder the Palestinians have been driven to violence.

At least if Palestine were a member, both would be bound to interact on a diplomatic level, and that is the last thing the Israeli government wants. Wilful, deliberate Israeli prejudice against Palestine?

Yes. I think so.

Don T.

Don T.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 06 Nov 11 - 07:02 PM

""There really are two sides to this dispute and there are informed, intelligent people, including "experts" on both sides.""

Well, the only one you have found to counter the Israeli Foreign Office report quoted by Finkelstein is Dershowitz, who is ""....not only a remarkable liar and slanderer, but also an extreme opponent of elementary civil rights......his standard style when he is exposed, reaching truly grotesque levels in his efforts to discredit Norman Finkelstein (and even his mother, probably a new low in depravity) after Finkelstein's meticulous documentation of Dershowitz's astonishing lies in his vulgar apologetics for Israeli crimes.""

If that's the best example of a voice in opposition that you can manage, you really are up to your hocks in the poo.

Don T.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 06 Nov 11 - 06:43 PM

""Don, a Palestinian who supported Israel might find it more healthy to keep his views to himself.

Don, why Israel is so unpopular, from my last link.
Worth a read, this just an extract.""

Firstly, there are many Palestinians who live outside the reach of Hamas, so that comment is nonsense.

Secondly, why is it that you only read the output of pro Israel sources, and remain wilfully unaware that there are others of equal, or even superior credibility, with very different experiences to recount?

Your bias is so patently obvious that it robs you of any vestige of objectivity.

While the rest of us are saying that both Palestine and Israel need to change their stance, you are fanatically supporting every instance of Israeli aggression and decrying any Palestinian action, right or wrong. In fact, I'm having difficulty in finding any acknowledgement on your part of Palestine's right to exist.

Don T.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Mrrzy
Date: 06 Nov 11 - 06:36 PM

WW III is already happening, or haven't you heard of terrorism ?

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Stringsinger
Date: 06 Nov 11 - 05:54 PM

Israel wants to bomb Iran. World War III could come out of this.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Nov 11 - 05:43 PM

've looked for reasons why Israel should see Palestinian membership as a threat, and I haven't found any. If you have found some, Keith state them. In their absence there seems no reason to disagree with the wishes of most Palestinians, and of most countries. And it would appear, most Israelis.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Nov 11 - 05:40 PM

I've looked for reasons why Israel should see Palestinian membership as a threat, and I haven't found any. If you have found some, Keith state them. In their absence their seems no are to disagree with the wishes of most Palestinians, and of most countries. And it would appear, most Israelis.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Nov 11 - 04:04 PM

Lox, I did include you as having "given unequivocal support for the membership application."

I am sorry if I got that wrong.
For the record then, Lox does not unequivocally support the application.
Like me, he is keeping an open mind.

Kevin, will you keep an open mind until you know, or will you continue to give unequivocal support for the membership application anyway?

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Lox
Date: 06 Nov 11 - 03:48 PM

For keith the saying would be better described as follows:

When in a hole, deny the existence of the hole.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Lox
Date: 06 Nov 11 - 03:43 PM

"Lox [has] given unequivocal support for the membership application."

Keith,

You're on drugs or something mate - Total fabrication.

I expressed an issue with US contempt for the United Nations.

You clearly share that contempt, as you have stated that the world (with the exception of the 7 or so US puppets who have fallen dutifully in line) is biased against Israel.

Clearly none of those countries can be trusted any more then palestinians. Only Americans, Israelis and their band of terrified aid recipients are unbiased and can be trusted and this is the only rational explanation for everyone elses horror at the massacre of the inmates of the Gazan Ghetto, and their outrageous biased sympathy for the 350 children who were killed and the hundreds of children who were maimed.

Yes Keith - those are the views you sell.

Snake oil is useless on a thread cos people can go and see for themselves.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Nov 11 - 03:34 PM

What do you think of Israel's objections to the UN membership.
Do you even know what they are yet.

No reasons that I can understand. The USA appears to object because they see it as getting in the way of negotiations because it's opposed by the Israeli government. But why the Israel government sees it as blocking negotiations, that's a bit of a mystery. But I've repeatedly asked if someone could come up with some reasons. Maybe they actually exist.

The only other objection I've heard is the Hamas one, that it involves accepting the partition of Palestine, and recognising the existence of Israel. And I somehow don't think that is an objection shared by the Israeli government.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Nov 11 - 03:30 PM

Fisks witnsses said exactly what I claim they said - Fisk even pointed out (from eyewitness statements) that the bodies were buried under the stadium which was dekliberately built.

Not the ones he reported at the time.
The ones that turned up 10 years later maybe.

The independant enquiry said exactly what I claimed they said.

What "independent enquiry?!!
I have asked you many times now.
You have never once replied.

The press and news reported at the time that it happened as I said it happened.

Show us Jim.
Fiske was the only journalist who was there in the immediate aftermath.

Historical records describe it as happening the way I described it happening.

Produce one then please Jim

I am not saying you are wrong Jim.
I am saying that it is disputed and you have no actual evidence at all.
And yet you are certain!
Prejudice?