Palestine (continuation)

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: 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 - 12:20 PM

Here's a clue...

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: 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 - 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: 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 - 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: 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 - 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?

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Nov 11 - 04:43 AM

BTW, I have never, ever mentioned Dershowitz!

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: 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: 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 - 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 - 04:51 PM

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

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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: Lox
Date: 09 Nov 11 - 05:35 PM

PS ... 300