Palestine (continuation)

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Nov 11 - 06:58 AM

Jim, the cultural explanation for the offending came from others.
I merely reported it.
It was not my explanation.
I do not have the knowledge to produce such an explanation.
There was no mention of paedophilia at all.

You have had this explained to you many times.
You know you are lying, and the motive is malice.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: GUEST
Date: 01 Nov 11 - 06:52 AM

Yesterday the "land of the free and the home of the brave" (bank-roller to some of the worst dictators, terrorist states and organisations in history) has voted to withhold a $60m dollar paymrnt it was due to make next month to UNESCO following a democratically held vote (107 for 14 against, 54 abstentions) to admit Palestine as a member.
Funny old world!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: GUEST,livelylass
Date: 01 Nov 11 - 06:51 AM

I was pleased to see the results of the UNESCO vote yesterday, less pleased to see the US response. But surprised by neither. The question now in this unfolding game of chess, is where from here? As said previously there has already been talk of an Israeli annexation of the West Bank, though I haven't seen such talk repeated in news thus far. As for now, one wonders what the consequences of withdrawal of US aid shall mean for stability and peace in the area however?

A thoughtful, and I believe unusually sympathetic, opinion piece in the Jerusalem Times on the potentially damaging consequences of US/Israeli economic punishment of the Palestinian bid for UN recognition:

http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Article.aspx?id=243936

"Palestinian logic to go to the UN was based on their sound assessment that no negotiated agreement could be reached with the current Israeli government.
...
The US, with support of the Israeli government, is using a diplomatic "stick" against the Palestinian Authority. US Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, who chairs the House Committee on Foreign Relations, is using her prerogative to put a hold on more than $200 million already approved to be allocated to the Palestinians. Most of that money has already been authorized and contracted out through the auspices of the USAID mission in Tel Aviv responsible for supporting Palestinian state-building and economic development in the West Bank and Gaza.
...
The immediate impact of this is the firing of many young Palestinian academics working for various US contractors and for Palestinian nongovernmental institutions. The USAID mission is also in the process of immediately scaling down, and soon many of its staff are likely to receive notices that their employment is suspended or canceled.
...
The Palestinian economy is already in a fragile state. Losing over $200 million in one blow, with the extra burden of increased unemployment of young academics, could cause considerable social unrest.
...
This would be a disaster; it would make the Palestinian security services look entirely like an arm of the Israeli occupation, delegitimizing their very existence.
...
The US legislator holding back the funds to the Palestinian Authority is playing with fire that could easily erupt inside of Israel. There is no desire in the West Bank for a deterioration of the situation into another round of violence. President Abbas remains fully committed to a non-violent approach to achieving statehood. No, he does not do what Israel would like him to do, but he is acting as the Palestinian president in Palestine's best interests, as he and his colleagues understand it. US and Israeli punishment of Abbas for not "behaving" is dangerous and foolish."

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: GUEST
Date: 01 Nov 11 - 06:16 AM

"Malicious lie Jim."
Then help us out and cut'n paste who else said that "All male Pakistanis...cultural implant".
I can't find it
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Lox
Date: 01 Nov 11 - 06:02 AM

If anyone wishes to question the credibility of Finkelstein oor ask Finkelstein what his sources are they should write to him.

Beyond that, his proven track record of peer reviewed accurate and expert research at the highest and most rigorous level is enough of a guarantee for me.

He is Jewish, his parents were holocaust survivors and most of his family on his fathers side were murdered in concentration camps, so there is simply no question of any agenda other than a desire, (once again, proven by peer review at the very highest and most rigorous level) too report information accurately and truthfully.

There is nobody on this forum who has the academic or moral authority to question either his integrity or accuracy.

If you wish to pursue that line of thought, you should either contact him, or look up the source which he very explicitly gave - the Israeli foreign ministry's report on the ceasefire.


Aside from this, I am still laughing at Keiths absurd idea that the Israeli foreign ministry report was written iin sarcastic language.

Sorry but what a twat!

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Lox
Date: 01 Nov 11 - 05:48 AM

Not My doctor Keith, Princeton University's doctor - his research is impeccable.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 01 Nov 11 - 04:53 AM

--That is nuts. mg ~~~
,.,
Wowie, mg, that's telling 'em. I can feel the Pentagon quiver as the State Department quake from here!

~M~

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Nov 11 - 04:51 AM

Malicious lie Jim.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Nov 11 - 04:40 AM

"Previously he defended the view that Pakistanis are perverse people with a propensity for pedophilia."
Sorry Lox - he didn't - He single-handedly put forward the view that ALL MALE Pakistanis are culturally implanted with a tendency towards paedophelia
Get it right
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Nov 11 - 02:46 AM

First 100!

Don, you posted,
""6,000 of them since Israel withdrew from Gaza in August 2005.""
So who are all those people still in disputed residence in 2011?


Do you deny that Israel used troops to force all its settlers out of Gaza (at gun point) in 2005?

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Nov 11 - 02:41 AM

Kevin, I can not accept your comparison of the incursion and the missiles.
The missiles came first and as indiscriminate attacks on civilians were war crimes and recognised as such by Amnesty and UN.

The incursion was launched to attack and destroy the missile facilities, which were cynically sited in densely populated areas, another war crime.

In accordance with the Law of Armed Conflict, the Israelis sacrificed the advantage of surprise by giving warnings to residents of the areas where attacks were going to be made.
There were no indiscriminate attacks on civilians at all.

The smoke is not supposed to be deployed in civilian areas, but Hamas was not supposed to fight from such areas.
IDF accepted the local commander was wrong to use it, and should have accepted additional deaths to his own people.
If I lost a son or daughter for want of screening from their enemies I might have stronger views.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 01 Nov 11 - 01:49 AM

WP not used as an incendiary only as smoke (If you are talking about the mnitions used in Gaza December 2008/January 2009)

Why was it fired again Don T? Oh yes because Hamas were using their own population as human shields, and deliberately sighting military units in sensitive civilian locations - a war crime, another one that you see fit to ignore.

No rockets = No attacks

No Israelis killed = No Palestinians killed

Hamas founding charter says what about the State of Israel and the Jews?

The Israeli constitution says what about the Arabs.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 31 Oct 11 - 09:40 PM

That is nuts. mg

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: artbrooks
Date: 31 Oct 11 - 08:50 PM

Returning to the original topic, after the UNESCO vote admitting Palestine, the US State Department said that US funds would be withheld:

"Today's vote by the member states of UNESCO to admit Palestine as member is regrettable, premature and undermines our shared goal of a comprehensive just and lasing peace in the Middle East," said State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 31 Oct 11 - 06:52 PM

""Ah but of course Don you are not in the firing line are you, so you can dismiss them as harmless fireworks.""

Much as you dismiss White Phosphorus aimed into civilian areas as "illuminations or smoke screens".

Ever had a phosphorus burn T?.........I have, albeit in a laboratory situation, but I can still feel that burning through my wrist to the bone.

""6,000 of them since Israel withdrew from Gaza in August 2005.""

So who are all those people still in disputed residence in 2011?

""Three of the dead were infants, and many of the hundreds of injured are children with life-changing injuries.
"Every little helps."""

And how many dead or maimed children are there in Gaza Keith, or are they not as important in your scheme of things, as whitewashing anything the IDF does, as justifiable defence?

Until people like you stop trying prove that all blame attaches to the Palestinians, and recognise the indefensible ruthlessness of the IDF, progress toward peace remains a pipe dream.

At bottom this is the David and Goliath story with Goliath armed with nuclear missiles.

As I said earlier, both sides have to want peace for this to end, and it won't happen without compromise on the part of Israel, as well as Palestine. And there is no evidence to support that the word "compromise" is in the Israeli vocabulary.

Don T.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 31 Oct 11 - 06:28 PM

Breaking News UNESCO recognises Palestine as a full member

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 31 Oct 11 - 06:17 PM

The Israelis claimed that their incursion was in response to the rain of missiles.

I can't see how that claim if the Israeli government to have been acting in self defence in response to attacks differs in any significant way from the reasons that would be given by those within Gaza who have fired those missiles.

The difference lies in the scale of the violence and the number of civilians who died as a consequence. It's also relevant that the violence from Israel is carried out by government forces, whereas the responsibility for the missiles during the ceasefire is less clear, and the Hamas administration claim to have been trying to stop this happening. (I too would like a source for that quote "Hamas enforced the ceasefire on the rogue terrorist organizations with a great deal although not complete success")

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 Oct 11 - 05:52 PM

From BBC .
"Since 2001, when the rockets were first fired, more than 8,600 have hit southern Israel, nearly 6,000 of them since Israel withdrew from Gaza in August 2005. The rockets have killed 28 people and injured hundreds more. In the Israeli town of Sderot near Gaza, 90% of residents have had a missile exploding in their street or an adjacent one.

The range of the missiles is increasing. The Qassam rocket (named after a Palestinian leader in the 1930s) has a range of about 10km (6 miles) but more advanced missiles, including versions of the old Soviet Grad or Katyusha, possibly smuggled in, have recently hit the Israeli city of Beersheba, 40km (25 miles) from Gaza and brought 800,000 Israelis into range."

Three of the dead were infants, and many of the hundreds of injured are children with life-changing injuries.
"Every little helps."

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 31 Oct 11 - 05:35 PM

Don T I am impressed with the equanimity and total disregard to safety, of not only yourself but your family and loved ones, you would undoubtedly display in the face of such a barrage. Ah but of course Don you are not in the firing line are you, so you can dismiss them as harmless fireworks.

The UN don't though do they Don, they decry the firing of these weapons into Israel indiscriminately as a war crime. Tha fact that the death toll is so light as I stated was not for the want of trying on the part of the Arabs of Palestine.

The suicide bombers and snipers have been kept from killing Israelis and out of Israel by the Wall and the check points which is why they exist Don.

If someone fired even one rocket into the UK (let alone 8,000) I would expect the UK to respond forcibly in such a manner as to deter those responsible from any further firing.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 Oct 11 - 05:19 PM

The missiles were accurate enough to aim at towns, and they all were.
They have killed and maimed people of all ages.
No country on earth would allow that to happen without taking action.

The number of Jews killed (not "Zionists" just Jews) is not large compared to the number of missiles fired, but as Jim put it, "every little helps."

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 31 Oct 11 - 04:32 PM

""The fact that the 8,000+ Hamas missiles fired into Israel resulted in so few casualties was pure good fortune, the death toll was low but not for the want of Hamas and their fellow travellers trying to kill as many innocent civilians as possible.""

Not only disingenuous, but factually inaccurate.

1. The missiles, having no guidance beyond being pointed in the direction of Israel, cannot be said to be targetted at anything or anybody in particular.

They were, in point of fact, so inaccurate that 8000+ managed to cause, I believe, 11 fatalities in about eight years.

2. Unguided missiles would seem to be a very inefficient way of attempting to kill "as many innocent civilians as possible", given the number of willing suicide bombers available.

Those missiles for the most part landed in open fields and at best scared a few goats.

All in all, hardly sufficient justification for the bloody and violent responses. If you want to bring up the slaughter of large numbers of innocent civilians, take another look at those responses.

I would be less disgusted if Israel were just once to express regret for that collateral damage, but all I hear is excuses and rationalisations for the (so called) "necessity".

Don T.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 31 Oct 11 - 04:08 PM

Good news. Soccer team..played Thailand ..first game in 50 years in some regard.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DxN8v6-a2cc

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 31 Oct 11 - 04:07 PM

""Most people, like me, believe it had their tacit approval, if not active participation.""

An assertion which you soundly castigated when it was made concerning certain massacres which the Israelis chose not to prevent.

Don T.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 31 Oct 11 - 03:59 PM

It seems they ahve a very nice unofficial perhaps anthem..most words are not at all offensive..some are a little militaristic perhaps...this is from the one on you tube with lyrics. There are other songs that are also said to be an anthem that are way more militaristic...hopefully those will nto be used as an anthem.

They also need a P.O. (oops...) box somewhere and some flagships registered in other countries. Do they have a soccor team? That always helps. mg

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 31 Oct 11 - 03:23 PM

Do the Palestinians have an anthem? That is first order of business if not..something proud but peaceful of course. Singable, beautiful anthems are very important (ours is unfortunately neither).

Next..a logo..with olive trees or branches and oranges perhaps.

Next..some letterhead.

Next an official website, which I presume they must have.

Ready for business. mg

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 Oct 11 - 03:01 PM

Previously he defended the view that Pakistanis are perverse people with a propensity for pedophilia.

That is a malicious lie Lox.


Your doctor had an agenda, and he may have taken something out of context.
I make no claim but would like to see the quotes in context.
That is all I said.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 31 Oct 11 - 01:53 PM

""Jewish and Israeli are too very different things.""

I agree with that, but I am responding to those who have insisted that Israel is a "Jewish State", indicting their belief that Jews are a racial rather than a religious grouping.

Don T.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Lox
Date: 31 Oct 11 - 12:50 PM

You know what Keith,

I'll trust the accuracy of a Jewish Doctor of Political science with a list of credentials and peer reviewed research papers as long as as my arm,, whose special expertise is the Israel Palestine conflict over Keith A from Hertford any day of the week.

One is a serious, proven and recognized academic, and the other is prone to making mistakes and generalizing about people of various races in a disparaging way.

In this case Keith has taken to supporting the view expressed by teribus that Palestinians are untrustworthy people who break agreements.

Previously he defended the view that Pakistanis are perverse people with a propensity for pedophilia.


I recommend a good watch of the video I posted folks - it is a lot more informative than anythng said by teribus or keith.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 31 Oct 11 - 12:03 PM

... and who, pray, is going to tell Hamas that indiscriminately firing missiles into populated areas is neither Educational, Scientific, nor Cultural?

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 31 Oct 11 - 11:58 AM

Mrrzy ~ out of interest ~

who "we"?

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Mrrzy
Date: 31 Oct 11 - 11:54 AM

Hey, we're in! Anybody see the news?

And you ad hominem folks, use the other thread, please.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 Oct 11 - 10:31 AM

Not the same logic at all.
The Israelis claimed that their incursion was in response to the rain of missiles, and did succeed in reducing the number of launches.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 31 Oct 11 - 09:36 AM

Surely by the same peculiar logic by which the assault on Gaza which led to the death of so many non-combatants was presented as "self defence" by Israel.

The two sides seem to have a remarkably similar way of justifying what they do. It's just that one side has far more weaponry and kills far more people.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 Oct 11 - 08:54 AM

Put up the quote in context Lox and we will see.

Jim, how can firing missiles loaded with ball bearings at civilians possibly be construed as "self defence" ??!

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Lox
Date: 31 Oct 11 - 08:50 AM

The context of the first quote was a foreign office report.

I don't know of foreign office reports from any nation that are written in a sarcastic way.

If you are suggesting that the Israeli foreign office writes reports in a sarcastic way, then you are either accusing the Israeli foreign office of being irresponsible and childish or you are ...

... ta daaaa ....

... making shit up to cover your ass.


So keith - are you accusing the Israeli foreign ofice of telling lies?

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 31 Oct 11 - 08:22 AM

A ceasefire in one conflict at any rate...

Let's hope it's less fragile than too many other ceasefires.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 Oct 11 - 08:21 AM

Lox,
"Hamas was careful to maintain the ceasefire" and "Hamas enforced the ceasefire on the rogue terrorist organizations with a great deal although not complete success"

I listened well past that bit Lox.
I would like to know the context of the first quote.
Sarcasm?
And also the second quote. How can hundreds of missile launches be described as "a great deal" of "success" in maintaining a ceasefire.

It is certainly not "pretty well established" as you claim Lox.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 31 Oct 11 - 06:51 AM

-I very much value and respect your input on this forum- ~~

Thank you: & likewise as you know.

~Michael~

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 31 Oct 11 - 06:36 AM

"Jim: And let us now try to recover this halcyon time"
Would very much apprciate it - as much as we disgree on some issues, I very much value and respect your input on this forum.
Really not able to become too invoved in this Traveller talk to write (plus temprmntal keyboard)
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Lox
Date: 31 Oct 11 - 06:32 AM

"Most people, like me, believe it had their tacit approval, if not active participation."

Funny, because the Israeli ministry of foreign affairs stated that:

"Hamas was careful to maintain the ceasefire" and "Hamas enforced the ceasefire on the rogue terrorist organizations with a great deal although not complete success"

You will find this at 7.50 in the Finkelstein lecture that you have ignored.

So who is making shit up ...

1. The Israeli foreign ministry?

2. A Jewish doctor of political science with special expertise in the Israel/Palestine conflict who earned his doctorate at princeton, whose parents were both Jewish concentration camp survivors (his father was in Auschwitz)?

3. Or Keith?


Who do catters know to have the worst track record of making shit up ...

Hmmm .....

... I'm getting a nagging sense of Deja Vu ... this reminds me of a thread about Pakistanis cultural tendency to paedophilia where someone was making shit up ...

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 31 Oct 11 - 06:15 AM

Jim: And let us now try to recover this halcyon time ~~

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Backwoodsman - PM
Date: 27 Feb 11 - 01:41 AM

The recent posts by Jim and Michael are a perfect example of how two people with diametrically opposed viewpoints, a firm grasp of the English language and decent writing skills can carry on an intelligent, civilised discussion which, whilst probably never leading to agreement between them, at least stands a chance of coming to a successful accomodation. A pleasure to read.

Certain other contributors should also read them.........and learn

No reason we cannot recapture that sort of relationship, with a bit of goodwill both ways. Apologies, so far as called for, for my excesses. Shall hope for, and assume, the same from your side.

Best

~Michael~

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 31 Oct 11 - 05:17 AM

X-posted

"Do we have to continue this "Carroll-the-Prejudice" "Mike the racist apologist, hypocrite" childishness - it gives these discussions a decidedly schoolyard flavour?"
.,,.
No we don't, Jim; happy to drop it if you are.

But, even tho this is no longer 1948, the Sharia-abuses I rubricate above are ongoing in too much of the present Arab world, are they not ~ so-called "Spring" notwithstanding? And do you not even consider the danger of their adoption in any state with a Hamas Hezbollah influence elected by the will of the populace that might be established?

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 31 Oct 11 - 05:10 AM

---religious fanatics with nuclear capability.---

& he seems to mean Israel here; and there is some truth in the charge ~ hence some of our disappointment: the religious parties are far too influential and sufficiently popular (in a democratic process, do not forget however) to have to be included in any coalition; which is a great shame.

BUT they have none of the official standing of the Mullahs in those countries - you know which they are -where Sharia is established by government decree or popular acclaim. When was the last adultress stoned in Israel? Under King David IIRC ~ or perhaps under Pilate; I don't expect the one Jesus rescued was the only one.

But that was then: the daily RIGHT NOW stonings and beheadings and amputations and floggings in Riyadh and Dahran and Jeddah have not their counterparts in Tel-Aviv or Haifa.

No thanks to Carroll, mind. They would soon be back if he & his antisemitic mates had their way.

~M~

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 31 Oct 11 - 04:58 AM

"They were not poorly armed nor untrained in 1948. "
No they weren't, but it is no longer 1948 and unless we want our children's children to be struggling with the bloodbaths, it's about time this is recognised.
Nobody comes out of this mess with a clean track record and nit-picking about who did what to whom when solves nothing.
Do we have to continue this "Carroll-the-Prejudice" "Mike the racist apologist, hypocrite" childishness - it gives these discussions a decidedly schoolyard flavour?   
But maybe you are more comfortable in your colostomy/flatulent mode!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 31 Oct 11 - 04:47 AM

... which is not, I say again, to say that Israel in its present form is other than a grievous disappointment to those of us who rejoiced then. We are not rejoicing now at the state, in both senses, that Netanyahu & his like have reduced it to. But they have been driven to it regrettably. As even Carroll-the-Prejudice has admitted {not ignoring his doctrinaire & tendentious qualifications, however}

"everyone has the right to defend themselves".

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 31 Oct 11 - 04:41 AM

They were not poorly armed nor untrained in 1948. They were the embodied regular armies of 6 [count them ~ SIX] hostile Arab states who all simultaneously invaded the newly declared, UN-authorised, sovereign state of Israel from different directions ~ including the British-trained [by Brigadier Glubb "Pasha"] Arab Legion of Transjordan: & got their backsides well & truly kicked right back out again from Dan to Beersheba by what was indeed a not that highly trained or well armed, but dedicated, defending army all the way from Dan to Beersheba. And they and their pathetic antisemitic sympathisers like Carroll, who wished they had succeeded in rendering the area Jüdenrein, have been squealing like stuck pigs ever since.

~M~

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 31 Oct 11 - 04:23 AM

"right Jim?"
Do you really want to add my voice to this Keithy - I'd have thought.... never mind.
Bit busy at present, but compared to the massacres (that didn't happen) the well-armed and trained forces with their tanks, and heavy artillery (not forgetting the chemical weapons) against a poorly armed and untrained third world people.....
Unlike you and your pro-Zionist apologists, I have sided with nobody and believe (along with the U.N (apart from the US and UNESCO) that a peaceful solution will only be arrived at when the Palestinians are dealt with at the conference table as equals rather than waving bits of paper and hiding behind an ancient pseudo-historical myth to dislodge an entire people from their homeland (starting with the Bedouins - or maybe that was made up as well).
In the meantime, as Turpitude has pointed out, everyone has the right to defend themselves, especially against religious fanatics with nuclear capability.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 Oct 11 - 02:36 AM

There is no doubt that Palestinians launched anti personnel missile attacks on the ordinary people and children of Israel, from Gaza, in breach of the cease fire, and of international law.

You may assert that it was done without Hamas connivance, but not that it is "pretty well established."

Most people, like me, believe it had their tacit approval, if not active participation.

We know they exert tight control over tunnel imports, because they impose taxes on them.
We also know that they have never criticised or condemned a single one of the thousands of launches since signing the cease fire.
(And neither has Jim.
"Every little helps." Right Jim?)

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Lox
Date: 30 Oct 11 - 08:44 PM

Keith,

Pay attention.

The assertion was made that Palestinians break their agreements and can't be trusted.

This assertion was false.

You may twist and turn and filibuster as much as you like as to whatever excuse you think is best, but Hamas stuck to their side of the Bargain.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: pdq
Date: 30 Oct 11 - 02:06 PM

"... the Arab world erred in rejecting the United Nations' 1947 plan to partition Palestine into a Palestinian and a Jewish state."

More correctly stated: "...into an Arab and a Jewish state".

There are already 20 states in the Arab World recognized by the United Nations.

What was called "Palestine" in the 1920 Mandate is now divided into at least three Arab countries plus Israel.