Palestine (continuation)

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Nov 11 - 02:47 PM

I didn't do it guv - 'onest!!!
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.
The independant enquiry said exactly what I claimed they said.
The press and news reported at the time that it happened as I said it happened.
Historical records describe it as happening the way I described it happening.
But the Israelis say they didn't do it - so they couldn't have done it.
Henry Kissenger!!!! Tricky Dicky Nixon;'s poodle - we are scraping the bottom of the barrel for our witnesses.
Having previously claimed that you did not reduce Israels part in the massacres to 'failing to stop them' you are now claiming that Israel's part in the massacres was 'failing to stop them'.
You haven't even referred to the other massacres you claim didn't happen.
This becomes farcical.
I'll leave you to your lies and distortions in defence of war criminals (not mentioned the Israeli minister who can't enter Britian becaues she has been found to be guilty of presiding over war crimes).
You are a real piece of work Keith; do you think you might have a cultural; impalnt?.
Jim Carroll
BTW the final estimated body count was around 3,500

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Nov 11 - 02:32 PM

This is a another of your silly backward leaps Jim.
We are repeating exactly our previous exchange, and the events you have brought up yet again are from 30 years ago anyway.

What do you think of Israel's objections to the UN membership.
Do you even know what they are yet.
Of course, a prejudiced person does not need to know any facts.
Israel is just always wrong.
Right Jim?

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Nov 11 - 01:46 PM

Israeli version

The Lebanese Christian Phalangist militia was responsible for the massacres that occurred at the two Beirut-area refugee camps on September 16-17, 1982. Israeli troops allowed the Phalangists to enter Sabra and Shatila to root out terrorist cells believed located there. It had been estimated that there may have been up to 200 armed men in the camps working out of the countless bunkers built by the PLO over the years, and stocked with generous reserves of ammunition.

When Israeli soldiers ordered the Phalangists out, they found hundreds dead (estimates range from 460 according to the Lebanese police, to 700-800 calculated by Israeli intelligence). The dead, according to the Lebanese account, included 35 women and children. The rest were men: Palestinians, Lebanese, Pakistanis, Iranians, Syrians and Algerians. The killings came on top of an estimated 95,000 deaths that had occurred during the civil war in Lebanon from 1975-1982.

The killings were perpetrated to avenge the murders of Lebanese President Bashir Gemayel and 25 of his followers, killed in a bomb attack earlier that week.

Israel had allowed the Phalange to enter the camps as part of a plan to transfer authority to the Lebanese, and accepted responsibility for that decision. The Kahan Commission of Inquiry, formed by the Israeli government in response to public outrage and grief, found that Israel was indirectly responsible for not anticipating the possibility of Phalangist violence. Israel instituted the panel's recommendations, including the dismissal of Gen. Raful Eitan, the Army Chief of Staff. Defense Minister Ariel Sharon resigned.

The Kahan Commission, declared former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, was "a great tribute to Israeli democracy....There are very few governments in the world that one can imagine making such a public investigation of such a difficult and shameful episode."

Ironically, while 300,000 Israelis demonstrated in Israel to protest the killings, little or no reaction occurred in the Arab world. Outside the Middle East, a major international outcry against Israel erupted over the massacres. The Phalangists, who perpetrated the crime, were spared the brunt of the condemnations for it.

By contrast, few voices were raised in May 1985, when Muslim militiamen attacked the Shatila and Burj-el Barajneh Palestinian refugee camps. According to UN officials, 635 were killed and 2,500 wounded. During a two-year battle between the Syrian-backed Shiite Amal militia and the PLO, more than 2,000, including many civilians, were reportedly killed. No outcry was directed at the PLO or the Syrians and their allies over the slaughter. International reaction was also muted in October 1990 when Syrian forces overran Christian-controlled areas of Lebanon. In the eight-hour clash, 700 Christians were killed-the worst single battle of Lebanon's Civil War.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Nov 11 - 01:38 PM

How can you state that something is "a matter of historical record"
If it is why has Wiki been waiting so long for someone to provide citations for the claim?
Can you put up anything that justifies your assertion and refutes Israel's version of events.

I read Fiske's pieces on this and they do not provide it.

This is what you have given your support to.
I have not.

Fiske's "eye witnesses" were produced years after the event and were to enable a prosecution in Belgium.
Why did that never happen?

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Nov 11 - 01:03 PM

"You posted the Wiki piece about them, but deleted the warnings that there was no evidence for some of the accusations."
All the accounts of Shatila and Sabra have been verified as having be facilitated by the Israelis driving the killers to the site, opening the gates to let then in, standing by and letting them get on with the slaughter, and providing illumination so they could see who they were killing that is a matter of historical record
What was (but is no longer) in doubt is whether the Israelis actually took part in the slaughter; Robert Fisk's evidence indicates that there was a strong possibilty that they did; and he produced eye-witness accounts that they were actually inside both of the camps while the slaughter was going on; they watched the refugees being taken away to be murdered and saw the women being raped - that is what you have described as "failing to prevent".
Begin was in line to be tried for the Israeli part in the massacres, but was made Prime Minister instead.
This is what you have given your support to.
All the other massacres that you have had pointed out to you, also a matter of historical record you have supported by your "no massacres" claim.
I deleted nothing deliberately (that was your practice when you tried to prove Pakistanis to be cultural perverts still no cut-'n- paste - this has always been a matter of historical record, accepted by all - except you.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Nov 11 - 12:26 PM

Please be specific how it relates to me Kevin, so that I have something to reply to.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Nov 11 - 12:20 PM

Here's a clue...

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Nov 11 - 12:09 PM

The massacres are well documented.
You posted the Wiki piece about them, but deleted the warnings that there was no evidence for some of the accusations.
I pointed out your deception, and posted the Israeli version of events.
An unprejudiced person would be happy for both sides of the story to be told.
You were not happy though.
Oh my goodness you were unhappy.
You are steeped in prejudice.
You are a very prejudiced person.

Kevin, I do not understand your comment about digging.
Please explain.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Nov 11 - 08:35 AM

When stuck in a hole, stop digging...

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Nov 11 - 08:19 AM

"No I have not."
Oh for ****'* sake - YES YOU HAVE
You've even gone as far as to say that there were "no massacres"
Want me to dig that one out?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Nov 11 - 07:20 AM

The survey appears to indicate that in opposing recognition of Palestine as a member state of the UN and UNESCO the Israeli government (and the USA etc) are not acting in accordance with majority Israeli opinion.

I do not agree that the survey about future statehood can be extrapolated to prior membership.

The Israeli government is answerable to its people, and will have to seek re-election by them, unlike certain other governments.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Nov 11 - 07:16 AM

Kevin, I can assure you I have no opinion on the membership.

Jim,
You have conistently argued Israels case,
I have tried to put the Israeli case to provide a measure of balance.
you have defended massacres facilitated by Israeli "a failure to prevent",
No I have not.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Nov 11 - 07:05 AM

"Jim, on all those issues I simply put the Israeli side of the story.
"
You now appear to be moving into "Itwasn't me that said it but some eminent expert" mode
You have conistently argued Israels case, you have defended massacres facilitated by Israeli "a failure to prevent", have openly denied that documented massacres even happened, you have downgraded and ignored the effects of chemical weapons used on civilians as smokescreens, you have ignored the fact that an Israeli minister has been found a war criminal and us unable to enter Britain, you have ignored the attempts to starve the Palestinians into submission, you have defended the US veto at the Untited Nations
Don't you dare claim that I don't want to know the Israeli case - I know it and I believe them to be a terrorist state committing atrocities against civilians for over sixty years - and unlike you, I find that fact unaccebtable.
I don't give a toss for either Israeli or Palestinian extremeism - unlike you, I have never supported either, though I have at one time or another, tried to understand both.
My main concern is ending this bloodshed, and that will not be achieved by backing one side against the other
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Nov 11 - 05:17 AM

The survey appears to indicate that in opposing recognition of Palestine as a member state of the UN and UNESCO the Israeli government (and the USA etc) are not acting in accordance with majority Israeli opinion.
...........................

I have no opinion about it. I somehow think you deceive yourself there, Keith.

It would still be interesting to have some suggestion of any grounds for the Israeli government's opposition which hold water. "We want to be able to use the issue to negotiate with" is not a very good argument, especially in the context of extensions of settlements, which appears to be a way of blocking negotiations.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Nov 11 - 04:28 AM

Jim, on all those issues I simply put the Israeli side of the story.
The side you do not want to know, hear or think about.

Sabra and Shatila for instance.
I asked you what evidence you had for your assertions, and I posted the Israeli version of events.
Where is the prejudice?
I also reminded you of another massacre at the camps carried out by a Muslim militia, but you expressed no opinion about that one.

White phos. for instance.
I merely provided factual information, and the only opinion I expressed was to deplore its use in Gaza.
Where is the prejudice?


Kevin, that survey was absolutely nothing to do with the issue of membership, but you dropped it in as if it was.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Nov 11 - 03:44 AM

"because I am not driven by blind, irrational prejudice"
Sabra and Shatila and other massacres, white phosphorus, murderous incursions into Gaza, maintaining a cowardly blockade, expulsion of the bedouins....... (not to mention cultural implants)
Hmmm
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Nov 11 - 02:09 AM

You must have some reason for opposing Palestinian statehood over and above the fact that the present Israeli government is opposed to it, Keith.

Or rather, if that is your only reason, it would seem to indicate a measure of blind, irrational prejudice.

I have no opinion about it.
I would need to know more, because I am not driven by blind, irrational prejudice

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 Nov 11 - 04:51 PM

actions taken to prevent atrocities being committed against your people, are self defence

But not when the effect is to make such atrocities more likely to happen.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Nov 11 - 04:14 PM

Just seen that Israel has arrested 2 aid ships (1 Irish) attempting to break the blockade - probably the crudest and earliest form of repression is trying to blackmail the population as a whole (men, women and children) into submission by cutting off everyday essentials for living. At least they haven't killed anybody, like they did last time, but it's early days yet.
No what were people saying about Palestinian aggression!!!
"It is reasonable to claim that actions taken to prevent atrocities being committed against your people, are self defence."
Yeah - right!!!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Mrrzy
Date: 05 Nov 11 - 02:48 PM

You said it, Jim Carroll!

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Nov 11 - 01:52 PM

"Statehood is the long term goal of everyone isn't it?"
Statehood should be left to the UN - not 2 self-interested nations Israel (aggressively expansionist) and the US (financially and politically predatory) especially as the human rights records of both leave much to be desired.
United Nations responsibilty should never be allowed to be hi-jacked by financial, political and military bullying
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 Nov 11 - 01:51 PM

You must have some reason for opposing Palestinian statehood over and above the fact that the present Israeli government is opposed to it, Keith.

Or rather, if that is your only reason, it would seem to indicate a measure of blind, irrational prejudice.
............................

As for "Statehood is the long term goal of everyone isn't it?" The continued\extension of the illegal settlements in the West Bank would appear to throw doubt on that. It would appear the the Israeli government may be hoping to achieve something on the lines of pseudo-states comparable to the Bantustans, or the Native American reservation, in patches of the West Bank divided by expanded settlements.

This would have the advantage over straight annexation of the West Bank that it would keep the Palestinian population out of the electorate.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Nov 11 - 11:30 AM

However a recent public opinion poll indicated that as much as 70 per cent of Israelis would be willing to accept such statehood.

Please clarify if the poll was about this issue of UN membership.
Statehood is the long term goal of everyone isn't it?

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Nov 11 - 11:27 AM

I imagine those Israelis have looked at both sides and come to a rational decision based on the evidence as they see it.
Unlike those here.
Hague has not given his reasoning yet.
Wednesday in Parliament.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 Nov 11 - 11:23 AM

So far as I can see the only reason presented by Hague or anyoner else for opposing Palestrinian membership of the UN is that the Israeli government are against it.   

However a recent public opinion poll indicated that as much as 70 per cent of Israelis would be willing to accept such statehood.

So that counts as "blind, irrational prejudice against Israel"...

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Nov 11 - 10:19 AM

"Having dismissed the massacres and human rights atrocities carried out by Israel as lies, turning chemical weapons into fireworks, ignoring Israel's proposal to drive the Bedouins out of their homeland..... Keith appears to e going through a straw-grasping stage."

I have no reply!

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Nov 11 - 10:16 AM

If David Cameron and William Hague say something, it must clearly be correct...

How glibly you dismiss this information.
It is fair to say, Kevin, that you, Lox and Jim have given unequivocal support for the membership application.

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?

I am sure that the governments and diplomatic corps. of Britain, Canada, France and Germany have looked at both sides, and guess what?
They agree with Israel.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Nov 11 - 10:06 AM

Without taking this too far off thread - the presence of 2 snipers (one of them possibly Martin McGuinness) - it has been a long-running issue in defence of the Bloody SUNday massacre; - would have been a bit daft to suggest, particularly in the light of past arguments.
It's all in one sentence, which Keith chose to cut in half - nowt ambiguous about it.
Having dismissed the massacres and human rights atrocities carried out by Israel as lies, turning chemical weapons into fireworks, ignoring Israel's proposal to drive the Bedouins out of their homeland..... Keith appears to e going through a straw-grasping stage.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 05 Nov 11 - 09:44 AM

"demonstrators were armed and that there were IRA snipers in the vicinity - now admitted to be a lie."
It was a lie that the presence of snipers was the reason for the massacre - that's what I said and that's what I meant - and that's what the Saville report said."""""
.,,.
Without getting too much involved in this particular aspect of the controversy, which is one of my 'can see both sides' comment-inhibitory situations; I think in interest of justice that it was, to say the least, a bit ambiguous as to what part of it you were denouncing as a lie, Jim.

~M~

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Nov 11 - 07:58 AM

"there were IRA snipers in the vicinity - now admitted to be a lie."
Stop editing out what I said.
"For decades the excuse given for the slaughter of 13 unarmed civil rights demonstrators, (plus 14 wounded), by British troops was that some of the demonstrators were armed and that there were IRA snipers in the vicinity - now admitted to be a lie."
It was a lie that the presence of snipers was the reason for the massacre - that's what I said and that's what I meant - and that's what the Saville report said.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Lox
Date: 05 Nov 11 - 07:40 AM

Well Keith,

Once again, you have neglected to read before responding.

I didn't say Rockets were a legitimate form of protest - I recognized that it may be the only action available to Palestinians.

As I said, "Do I feel its right to fire rockets at civilians? No I don't. I think it is unacceptable."

But I am at a loss to suggest an alternative given that negotiation and peaceful protest, not to mention sticking to the terms of the ceasefire and according to Israel doing their very best to uphold it, seem to be doing nthing to either win sympathy or to release the stranglehold that Israel is inflicting.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Nov 11 - 07:37 AM

We agree that claims of self defence are sometimes spurious.

It is spurious claim it is self defence when you commit atrocities against ordinary families.

It is reasonable to claim that actions taken to prevent atrocities being committed against your people, are self defence.
(IMO)

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 Nov 11 - 07:02 AM

If David Cameron and William Hague say something, it must clearly be correct...
.....................
"No, I have never claimed it was self defence.
Who here ever has?"

It is completely irrelevant what you or anybody there might have said or failed to say. What is relevant is that the British Government did repeatedly back the claim that the soldiers on Bloody Sunday were defending themselves.

The point I was making is that "self defence" is always used to justify violence. It may well be that this is a perfectly sincere claim - but that does not mean it is an accurate expression. "Self defence" which results in continuing and escalating violence in response is no defence. And that is the situation in the Holy Land.

It is true that, as Lox wrote their, non-violent resistance by Palestinians (often with the backing of Israeli sympathisers) is met by violent repression, and goes unreported. But that does not mean that violence is a better alternative. The rockets fired at random merely provide a useful diversion which takes attention away from more relevant forms of resistance, and provides an opportunity for Israel's revanchists to strike once more, and so guarantee that the conflict continues to be carried out in their language

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Nov 11 - 06:31 AM

From BBc site yesterday, why Britain France and Germany will not support application.

The UN diplomat said Britain, France and Colombia stated their positions in a private meeting of the Security Council committee dealing with the Palestinian application.

The diplomat said Germany also declared it could not support the Palestinian bid, without clarifying whether it would abstain or vote against.


In real terms this does not matter, because the Americans have already made it clear they would veto the Palestinian request.

But in political and moral terms it does: the Palestinians were hoping to show they could isolate the Americans by getting majority support on the Security Council. That looks unlikely now.

A source in Britain's Foreign Office says William Hague will explain the decision to parliament on Wednesday.

Britain and France support Palestinian statehood in principle.

But they have expressed concern that a Palestinian bid to become a UN member state right now could harm chances of reviving the peace process.

There is also general concern here that a Palestinian confrontation with the Americans on this issue could ignite violence in the Middle East.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Nov 11 - 06:20 AM

I would have posted this reply here, but the thread had been closed.

04 Nov 11 - 04:57 PM

there were IRA snipers in the vicinity - now admitted to be a lie.

Now known to be true.

I believe you've even put forward similar excuses for the massacre yourself (another lie, no doubt).

No, I have never claimed it was self defence.
Who here ever has?

The deliberate targeting of civilians by Israeli troops has bacome commonplace

I am not aware of this, please substantiate.

The deliberate targeting of civilians by Palestinian fighters has been a commonplace for years.
Do you need that substantiated?

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Nov 11 - 05:49 AM

We will have to disagree on that.
I do not accept that indiscriminately firing rockets specifically constructed to cause damage to people, in their homes and schools, is a legitimate form of protest.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Lox
Date: 04 Nov 11 - 06:59 PM

You don't have to imagine it McGrath - there is a mountain of evidence all over the net showing that people in Gaza view the rockets as the only alternative they have.

I am not commenting on whether this is right or wrong, I am just saying that it is what people living in Gaza say - they are defending themselves.

Do I feel its right to fire rockets at civilians? No I don't. I think it is unacceptable.

But from an academic point of view, I tend to be inclined to see it the way finkelstein does - that it is a form of protest where there are no alternatives that work, and the only other apparent option is to bend over and take it.

Peaceful protest happens every day in Gaza and is met with violence every time, yet both the large scale peaceful proesting and the disproportionate and often lethal response generally goes unreported.

Violence is inflicted against palestinians by settlers every day in East Jerusalem and on the west bank against farmers and their property and crops, and the IDF stands by and watches and allows it, and it goes unreported.

If you are slowly being strangled and nobody is helping, you will eventually start kicking.

The rockets have succeeded in keeping the issue in the news and the world is paying attention to the debate.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 04 Nov 11 - 06:28 PM

I imagine that Hamas would say that they were defending the people of Palestine against the Europeans invaders who have displacd them and who continue to subjugate them, or something like that.

It's always "self defence". Settlers in America were engaged in self defence against the Native Americans. And the Native Americans were engaged on self-defence when they attacked the settlers.

In the cobntext of America the imbalance of power and numbers was so great that the "self-defence" of the settlers pushing west was able to be "successful." But in the context of Palestine/Israel and the Middle East that is not the case. "Self defence" can pretty certainly be recognsed to be self-defeating in the long run - for both sides.

Peole who support the violence carried out by either side are no true friends to that side. People who oppose it are no enemies.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Nov 11 - 03:50 AM

"Kevin, I am not aware of anyone claiming Bloody Sunday was self defence."
For decades the excuse given for the slaughter of 13 unarmed civil rights demonstrators, (plus 14 wounded), by British troops was that some of the demonstrators were armed and that there were IRA snipers in the vicinity - now admitted to be a lie.
I believe you've even put forward similar excuses for the massacre yourself (another lie, no doubt).
Not surprised you don't want to open that particular "can of worms".
It is common for belligerant and agressive forces to make such claims and treat civilian casualities as 'expendable' - the Americans have even invented a phrase for it - "collateral damage".
You have also attempted to excuse this in the past by describing the Gazans as 'Hamas hostages' who 'got in the way of Israeli fire'.
The deliberate targeting of civilians by Israeli troops has bacome commonplace - one Israeli ex-minister has been declared a war criminal and is unable to enter Britain because of such actions.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Nov 11 - 05:37 PM

I'm trying to think of a war that wasn't claimed to be "self-defence" by whoever started it...

Do Hamas claim that their operations against the people living in Israel are "self defence" Kevin?
I think they claim it is to further their stated aim of destroying the state of Israel.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Nov 11 - 05:14 PM

Kevin, I am not aware of anyone claiming Bloody Sunday was self defence.
I am surprised you thought it helpful to open that can of worms.

When Israel removed its troops and settlers from Gaza, the rain of missiles began.
Would you deny them the right to take action to reduce the attacks on their citizens?
How is it not self defence, provided it is not indiscriminate or disproportionate?
How is launching a missile loaded with ball bearings indiscriminately at a town self defence?

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Lox
Date: 03 Nov 11 - 04:46 PM

The Guardian today reported on the possibility of a war in Iran.

Lets not be under any illusions as to the reason why though.

Here's US Spokesman John Bolton Admitting All Of These Wars Are For Oil

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Lox
Date: 03 Nov 11 - 04:40 PM

Funny - Keith supports those notions as well to the absolute bitter end ...

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 03 Nov 11 - 04:17 PM

Bloody Sunday was "self defence" too. So was the Iraq War.

I'm trying to think of a war that wasn't claimed to be "self-defence" by whoever started it...

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Lox
Date: 03 Nov 11 - 03:33 PM

As for the notion that the Gaza Massacre of 2008-2009 was self defence, Finkelsteins collection of Israeli Soldiers eyewitness testimonies pretty clearly demonstrates what an utter nonsense that idea is.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Lox
Date: 03 Nov 11 - 03:30 PM

Indded it is hard to see how evicting residents of East Jerusalem and housing settlers there, or indeed evicting farmers on the west bank and building settlements there constitutes self defence.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 03 Nov 11 - 03:22 PM

I accidentally deleted a bit if my last post. Here goes again:

Talk of self-defence in this context is misleading. The violence is self-defeating to ordinary people on both sides. It serves to ensure that the violence by the other side continues. I suppose it is possible that that is not the intended outcome, but the longer this process continues the less likely that seems likely to be true.

That is particularly true when it comes to acts which appear deliberately intended to ensure that a ceasefire breach is escalated.

Non-violent resistance by Palestinians can be a real threat to the status quo, which is why those who attempt to act in this way, including Israeli supporters, meet a brutal response.

It does not seem like a matter of disproportion, but of calculation.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 03 Nov 11 - 03:09 PM

I don't have all the facts, but putting those settlers in as human shields is wrong wrong wrong. Some are from other countries, if I understand correctly, and their hyperenthusiasm is being exploited. If you need a DMZ, use it for grazing or national parks or green space or water storage or something but not for something designed to get people, especially children, killed.   mg

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

Talk of self-defence in this context is misleading. The violence is self-defeating to ordinary people on both sides. It serves to ensure that the violence by the other side continues. I suppose it is possible that that is not the intended outcome, but the longer this process continues the less likely that seems likely to be true.

That is particularly true when it comes to acts which appear deliberately intended to ensure that a ceasefire breach is escalated.

Non-violent resistance by Palestinians can be a real threat to the status quo, which is why those who attempt to act in this way,including Israeli supporters.

It does not seem like a matter of disproportion, but of calculation.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Nov 11 - 12:10 PM

The crucial difference here should be between those who think that violence in this conflict is justified,

Some would say that violence is never justified.
I believe it is not justified by hate or revenge.
I think that the rocketing of towns, and suicide bombing of buses full of people going to school and work, are motivated by hate and revenge.

I believe that violence can be justified in self defence.
I believe a degree of violence is acceptable to prevent or reduce such attacks ,though not indiscriminate violence.
You can argue that Israel's action have been disproportionate, and we could debate that.