Palestine (continuation)

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

5 minutes




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

Mousethief you have not answered my questions at all:

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

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

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




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

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

Troubled with English Comprehension Lox??

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What a load of cobblers.

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

Your comments came in this context.

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

referring to CURRENT settlement issues.

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

"Mousethief you have not answered my questions at all:

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

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

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

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

And that, in German, is called Lebensraum.


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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Nov 11 - 05:53 AM

support for the inhuman targetting of non-combatants yet again by Israel
Not true.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Nov 11 - 06:16 AM

"Not true. "
What's not true - Israeli atrocities or your supporting them (as is your wont)
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Nov 11 - 06:50 AM

I do not accept that civilians are targeted, and I certainly would not support such a crime.
(You do not object to rocket attacks on civilians though.)

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Nov 11 - 07:38 AM

I do not accept that civilians are targeted

I presume by that you mean that though the weapons have indeed aimed at targets who were civilians(including many many children) , you believe the claims of the people who fired them that they were intending to kill people who were not civilians.   I somehow doubt that you would accept similar claims by people directing weapons at Israelis...
.....................
A suggestion for a more constructive discussion. Jim writes a post fairly summarising the case for Israel as he understand it, and Keith writes a post fairly summarising the case for Palestine. "Fairly" being the operative word.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Nov 11 - 09:03 AM

"I do not accept that civilians are targeted, and I certainly would not support such a crime."
The filmed and press releases of the Gaza incursions have made it quite clear that civilians have been targeted; this includes attacks on hospitals and schools. You in fact defended this on previous threads by claiming that Hamas had taken refuge in civilian areas and were using civilians as "hostages", as if the killing of hostage was in any way acceptable at any time - which it was by you (and the Israelis of course).
You have not only defended lethal attacks on civilians and relief workers, but you have now trivialised the blockade by claiming that the aid being brought at the risk to the lives of the volunteers, was unwanted and useless - which makes the Israelis' efforts to oppose the aid a rather stupid waste of time, effort, a risk to the lives of Israeli troops - and incredibly bad press to the whole of Israel - all a bit of a mess really, don't you think?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Nov 11 - 09:37 AM

It was not a hostage situation, but was a military action under the Law of Armed Conflict.
Under that law, it is a crime to make defensive positions in civilian areas.
The attacker must give prior warning of the attack, which Israel did, and must seek to minimise civilian casualties.

The particular aid brought by the flotilla was delivered to a border crossing where the Gazans left it for months.

The Gazans were desperate for cancer and heart drugs, but were brought only out of date tamiflu which, long after the winter epidemic, could not be given away.

Deny any of that Jim?

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Nov 11 - 09:58 AM

"It was not a hostage situation, but was a military action under the Law of Armed Conflict."
It was a miliary incursion aimed at driving Palestinians out of their homes and then buldozing entire streets to the ground - as was shown by the BBC documentary earlier this year - Hamas offered resistance to this as was their duty as an elected leadership). If the Israelis can take measures in self-defence, so can the Palestinians.
Even if it had been "armed conflict", the deliberate killing and putting at risk of civilians in the prevailing circumstances was inexcuseable - as was the use of white phosphorus (non- chemical of course!!) in the confines of a hospital (and backed up by photographed evidence of horrific burns - including to the faces of children)
So at last, we have it right, from the ass's mouth - hostages are expendable?
"The particular aid brought by the flotilla was delivered to a border crossing where the Gazans left it for months."
Then the Istarelis are eejits for continuing with a blockade of rubbish goods?
The fact that "The Gazans were desperate for cancer and heart drugs" is proof of the inhumaity of the Israeli blocked - surely this is something they could have assisted with rather nany (at best) delaying them with a blockade - assuming that they would be let through anyway - the Israeli record indicates otherwise.
Not going to fast for you - or using too many words, am I?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Nov 11 - 10:01 AM

Of course under your interpretation of the Law of Armed Conflict, Keith, the Warsaw Ghetto Rising, and the Warsaw Rising itself were both criminal actions. Not to mention a lot of the stuff that was done on the ground during the Battle of Britain.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Nov 11 - 10:37 AM

Then the Istarelis are eejits for continuing with a blockade of rubbish goods?

They did not.
They only insisted on checking it for war materiel before delivering it to Gaza.

Kevin, the Warsaw rising was a rising of the people against an occupying army.

The Battle of Britain was centred on the RAF aerodromes.
Civilians would have been evacuated from defended towns and cities if the invasion had happened.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Nov 11 - 10:50 AM

I'm not the one saying the Warsaw Rising or the Warsaw Ghetto Rising were criminal because they involved "defensive positions in civilian areas".

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 10 Nov 11 - 11:07 AM

Note the DATE: The Warsaw Rising or the Warsaw Ghetto Rising were BEFORE 1949, right???


But I note that not ANY of Jim's comments address the fact that the Palestinians have violated the same rules , by statements of the UN, that Jim is claiming without reasonable cause that Israel violates. I have to presume that Jim does not consider Israelis or Jews to be human beings that these laws apply to, but ONLY the Palestinian are to be considered such.



The Geneva Conventions comprise four treaties, and three additional protocols, that establish the standards of international law for the humanitarian treatment of the victims of war. The singular term Geneva Convention denotes the agreements of 1949, negotiated in the aftermath of the Second World War (1939–45), which updated the terms of the first three treaties (1864, 1906, 1929), and added a fourth treaty. The articles of the Fourth Geneva Convention (1949) extensively defined the basic rights of prisoners (civil and military) during war; established protections for the wounded; and established protections for the civilians in and around a war zone. The treaties of 1949 were ratified, in whole or with reservations, by 194 countries.[1] The Geneva Convention defines the rights and protections of non-combatants, thus:
"        Protected persons are entitled, in all circumstances, to respect for their persons, their honour, their family rights, their religious convictions and practices, and their manners and customs. They shall, at all times, be humanely treated, and shall be protected, especially against all acts of violence or threats thereof and against insults and public curiosity. Women shall be especially protected against any attack on their honour, in particular against rape, enforced prostitution, or any form of indecent assault. Without prejudice to the provisions relating to their state of health, age and sex, all protected persons shall be treated with the same consideration by the Party to the conflict in whose power they are, without any adverse distinction based, in particular, on race, religion or political opinion. However, the Parties to the conflict may take such measures of control and security in regard to protected persons as may be necessary as a result of the war.        "
—— Article 27, Fourth Geneva Convention (1949)
Moreover, because the Geneva Conventions are about people in war, the articles do not address warfare proper — the use of weapons of war — which is the subject of the Hague Conventions (First Hague Conference, 1899; Second Hague Conference 1907), and the bio–chemical warfare Geneva Protocol (Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare, 1929).

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Nov 11 - 11:26 AM

I'm not the one saying the Warsaw Rising or the Warsaw Ghetto Rising were criminal because they involved "defensive positions in civilian areas".

The defenders WERE the civilians in that instance Kevin.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 10 Nov 11 - 11:35 AM

Keith, you're arguing in a vacuum. Israel has been a bad neighbor for a long time in the Middle East and the general American population is finally waking to that fact. It's no longer "Israel Good, Arabs Bad" like the old cowboys and Indians: Americans have been the main enablers in this, an awful thing to have to admit, but many of us have been saying so for a long time now.

A subset of Americans - American Jews - offer mixed support of Israel now - they're no longer One Voice supporting the Jewish state. It won't be long before Israel loses a lot of funding that seems to only go to prolonging the state of near-war. If the Israeli political leaders don't control their radical conservatives who stir up the hornets nest (new settlements, the egregious placement of a "security wall" through fertile Palestinian orchards, etc.) there never will be peace.

The Palestinians also have to get their hotheads in line. Elect a workable government. But world opinion is shifting and they're now viewed more as victims than aggressors.

People offer you evidence and you just stand on your old hackneyed soap box parroting the same stuff. I don't know why they bother to argue with you at all. You're not discussing this, you're a broken record.

SRS

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Nov 11 - 01:06 PM

"They only insisted on checking it for war materiel before delivering it to Gaza."
You've seen the list of banned good as well as I have - it is spitefully targeted at the civilian population to make life as unbearable as possible of them - parhaps you'd like to put it up and prove e wrong?
And the deliberate targeting of civilian women and children - have we finished with that one
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 10 Nov 11 - 01:11 PM

"And the deliberate targeting of civilian women and children - have we finished with that one ?"


Yes, how about the deliberate targeting of civilian Israeli Jews and Arabs by Hamas rockets???

You have NEVER condemned that, I notice.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Nov 11 - 01:46 PM

So can we take it that those condemning the Hamas (or the non-Hamas) rockets for being directed at targets where civilians live extend the same condemnation to missiles shells and bullets aimed at places where civilians live? My impression is that we cannot.

Whichever side does it the violence is unjustifiable and harmful to the side which indulges in it. It is possible and important to try to understand why it happens, but that does not mean we should try to justify it. People who claim to be sympathetic to Israel should also recognise this in the same way as people who are sympathetic to Palestine.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 10 Nov 11 - 02:04 PM

McGrath,

In general I agree with you. However, there are points that are NOT addressed the differentiate the two sides. IF you are going to apply the "Both sides the same" rule, then let us look:

The Mandate Palestine was formed in 1921, as a Homeland for the Jews. Arabs were to be given equal rights. By 1923, the Mandate Power decided that it was not practical, nd DIVIDED the Mandate into TransJordan ( 77% of the land, for the percentage of population of the Mandate that was Moslem,) and the remainder, the Palestine that was to be the Jewish Homeland. Jews were forbidden from settling in TransJordan, but were in settlements throughout the West Bank.

Those were the LAST borders that the Arab nations have ever acknowledged as valid. The Peace treaty between Jordan and Israel AFTER 1967 acknowledges them.


When the Arabs attacked Israel in 1947-48, the land was occupied BY THE ARABS and the Jews removed. In total 820,000 Jews, basically all of those in Arab lands, were driven from their homes, and (mostly) settled in Israel. 640,000 Arabs had fled from Israel- which was not even the majority of the Arab population in Israel.

In 1967, Israel reclaimed the land TAKEN BY MILITARY FORCE from the Mandate territory. Any settlements on the West bank can be considered as resettlements of those driven out in 1948.


The Palestinians have attacked the civilian population of Israel directly (IN VIOLATION OF INTERNATIONAL LAW), while the Israelis have attacked the military target (According to International Law) that the Palestinians PLACED IN CIVILIAN AREAS ( In violation of International Law)


So tell me now WHY DO YOU THINK THE PALESTINIANS are not being treated fairly? Do you want Israel to treat Palestinians as they have treated the Jews under Palestinian control, or worse, as the OTHER Arab nation have treated the Palestinians???


Or are you saying that there is one set of rules for Arabs, and a different set for Jews???

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Nov 11 - 02:10 PM

I do not accept that civilians are targeted, and I certainly would not support such a crime.

You've seen the list of banned good as well as I have - it is spitefully targeted at the civilian population to make life as unbearable as possible of them - parhaps you'd like to put it up and prove e wrong?
Israel abides by international humanitarian rules on this.
For instance, it is obliged to supply the irrigation pipes that are used for the bodies of the qassam rockets used to attempt the murder of children going to school and mothers hanging their washing.

Stilly River Sage.
you just stand on your old hackneyed soap box parroting the same stuff.
It is true I am repeating myself, because I am responding to the same old challenges.
Why single me out for your opprobrium?

You say I am arguing in a vacuum.
If you check my posts, they are not expressing opinions at all.
They are factual information refuting the opinions expressed by others.
I would never claim "Israel Good, Arabs Bad"
I am just putting Israel's side of the story.
You make no complaints against those who only put the opposing view and just demonize Israel.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 10 Nov 11 - 03:05 PM

Very well put BB

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 10 Nov 11 - 03:08 PM

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

No I didn't. I said that in a small crowded country you do not allow land to go to waste - different thing entirely. If you cannot make the differentiation then you Sir are a blithering idiot.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Lox
Date: 10 Nov 11 - 03:17 PM

BB,

You've used this line of argument before - that nobody is condemning the palestinians.

And it was as disingenuous then as it is now.

There is nobody here defending the rockets.

So it follows that there is no discussion.

There is only one side to that argument.

We all deplore the use of rockets.

The only subject being argued is that concerning Israels wildly disproportionate murder of palestinians.

Most of us are against all the murder.

You think Israeli murder of palestinian civilians is justified.

Hence - a discussion.


DUH!!!

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Nov 11 - 03:18 PM

So you've now added the reported killing and maiming of civilians - to your list of "never happened", along with "massacres".
How on earth was the foreighn minister ever found guyilty of war crimes, I wonder!!!
"Israel abides by international humanitarian rules on this."
Prohibited Items
Sage, cardamom, cumin, coriander, ginger, jam, halva, vinegar, nutmeg, chocolate, fruit preserves, seeds and nuts, biscuits and sweets, potato chips, gas for soft drinks, dried fruit, fresh meat, plaster, tar, wood for construction, cement, iron, glucose, industrial salt, plastic/glass/metal containers, industrial margarine,tarpaulin sheets for huts, fabric (for clothing), flavor and smell enhancers, fishing rods, various fishing nets, buoys, ropes for fishing, nylon nets for greenhouses, hatcheries and spare parts for hatcheries, spare parts for tractors,, dairies for cowsheds, irrigation pipe systems ropes to tie greenhouses, planters for saplings, heaters for chicken farms,musical instruments, size A4 paper, writing implements, notebooks, newspapers, toys, razors, sewing machines and spare parts, heaters, horses, donkeys goats, cattle, chicks.

And if thet were not enough!
"The Land of Israel Lobby has called on Transportation Minister Yisrael Katz to close air and sea ports to Palestinian goods following a boycott on products from settlements issued by the Palestinian Authority. "We are convinced that such a step, which is legal and legitimate, would cause Palestinian Authority leaders to think again about the terrorist economic policy they have adopted," a statement issued by the lobby and Knesset members Zeev Elkin and Arieh Eldad noted. (Shmulik Grossman)"
"For instance, it is obliged to supply the irrigation pipes"
So they aren't prepared to kill them off through lack of water or starve them to death by killing off their crops - BIG DEAL
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Nov 11 - 04:21 PM

There is nobody here defending the rockets.

Jim Carroll, is Lox right?
Is that true?
Answer please.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Nov 11 - 05:12 PM

So name someone here who has justified the rockets by Palestinians.

I won't say that's impossible (I haven't read all the posts on all then threads)- but I rather doubt if that can be done.

However when it comes to naming people who have justified the violence carried out by Israel that is a whole different thing...

And that is where a very significant difference lies.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Nov 11 - 02:00 AM

So name someone here who has justified the rockets by Palestinians.

Jim Carroll has, but some time ago.
(Lox started a thread specifically asking the question)
What is your answer now Jim?

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

However when it comes to naming people who have justified the violence carried out by Israel

If you mean me, it is true I have argued that it has been within International Law, or not established.
Otherwise, I condemn it absolutely.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 11 Nov 11 - 03:24 AM

"Jim Carroll, is Lox right?"
No he isn't - I think that they are an inevitable consequence of State military aggression, expansionism, massacres, blockades, inhuman and degrading treatment of civilians, chemical attacks on hospitals and schools, deliberate destruction of homes in order to colonise, the forced eviction of entire cultural groups.... all of which you either support, claim are not happening or ignore completely.
The well armed and trained Israelis are aggressively vicious towards its impoverished, virtually undefended Palestinian neighbours - the Palestinian leadership would be negligent in its duty if it didn't show some resistance - it is the Israelis who are the open and vicious aggressor here - and it has been condemned world-wide because of it.
I give no support to any group of religious fanatics Jewish, Muslim, Christian... whatever, I leave that to you, but, as you rightly say, people have a right to defend themselves.
You - on the other hand have given your vigorous and dishonest support to a country whose former foreign minister has been condemned for war crimes (a fact you have yet to address)
I assume we are finished with the blockade aimed directly at the everyday life of civilians, as proved by the list of banned goods, as we are with the proven military targetting of civilians - which you continue to defend by denying the documented evidence?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 11 Nov 11 - 04:42 AM

"Otherwise, I condemn it absolutely. "
Where?
By denying it happened you have supported it
By demoting White phosphorus used against hospital patients to "smokescreen" you have supported it (in spite of the horrific photographs)
By claiming the part played by the Israeli's in the Shatila/Sabra massacres was just "failing to stop it" (they at least providing the transport, opening the gates to let the killers in, providing illumination so they could carry out the killing and rape, and probably actually watching it happen and helping to bury the bodies) - you have supported it.
By claiming "there have been no massacres" you have supported it.
By denying that civilians were not deliberately targeted, despite independent eye witness medical staff accounts and media reporting (or don't you believe the BBC to be independant?) you supported it
By ignoring the forced eviction of Palestinians, the destruction of their homes, the proposed expulsion of the Bedoins - you have supported it
By continuing to ignore the fact that a former Israeli foreign minister has been found guilty of war crimes - you have supported it.
These and all the other human rights abuses and crimes against humanity you have supported with your mealy-mouthed excuses, your lies and distortions and your deliberate self-imposed ignorance YOU ARE A SUPPORTER OF A VICIOUS, ABUSIVE AND EXPANSIONIST REGIME THAT IS NOT ONLY A THREAT TO ITS THIRD-WORLD, IMPOVERISHED NEIGHBOURS, BUT ALSO, BECAUSE OF IT'S NUCLEAR CAPABILITY, TO WORLD PEACE - TO ALL OF US
You are probably the most goose-stepping right-wing sieg hieler I have ever come across, certainly on par with Bluesman - apart from your bullying and bullshitting friend Terrapin - but nobody takes him seriously anyway.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Lox
Date: 11 Nov 11 - 04:55 AM

"No I didn't. I said that in a small crowded country you do not allow land to go to waste"

mm hmm ...

... in response to points made about settlements forcibly built on palestinian land ....

Your resort to the usual macho crap to augment your alleged rebuttal is as telling and as impotent as always.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 11 Nov 11 - 05:01 AM

"a former Israeli foreign minister has been found guilty of war crimes" ---

You use the formula 'found guilty' rather loosely here, Jim. Found guilty by whom? On what evidence and after what procedure? If you mean that a warrant for her arrest if she visited UK was issued by that notable international authority, Westminster Magistrates Court, at the request of a group of impartial, disinterested , and objective - er - Palestinian militants ~~ you should say so. Otherwise, what are you on about, with your "found guilty"? Under our law of innocent-until-proved-guilty, which you have apparently forgotten, a warrant for arrest [subsequently withdrawn in any event when diplomatic protocols were properly re-established] does not by any means constitute a 'finding of guilt', or anything resembling it.

~M~

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 11 Nov 11 - 05:51 AM

... or did you mean the earlier Barak incident? If so, see here ~~

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/dec/14/tzipi-livni-israel-gaza-arrest

There was nothing resembling any "finding of guilt" in either case, and it is , to put at its mildest, mischievous to employ the term in this context.

Surprised at you ~~ or at any rate wish I could be...

~M~

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 11 Nov 11 - 06:32 AM

Tzipi Livni.
"Livni, head of the opposition Kadima party, played a key role in decisions made before and during the three-week offensive. Palestinian officials and an Israeli human rights organisation say about 1,400 people, mostly civilians, were killed in the Gaza offensive. Israel says 1,166 Palestinians died and claims most were combatants. Israel says it acted in self-defence against Hamas rockets from Gaza. Thirteen Israelis died."
You mean this Mike (you've kidy put up the whole article for anybody to reference to)
What's your point - have I misread something, if so, please cross this off Keith's large enough without list?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 11 Nov 11 - 06:40 AM

My point is that you say she has been "found guilty of" war crimes. "Found guilty" implies a judicial process. By whom has she been so convicted, please, Jim? By Jim Carroll? And where, pray, does his writ in such matters run?

The worst that has happened to her is that a warrant for her arrest on arrival in this country was issued by the international might and hegemony of the Marylebone Magistrates Court, at the instance of the undisputed authority of a self-appointed group of lippy expatriate Palestinian militants.

"Found guilty", your ɷ, Mr Carroll.

Happy 11.11.11 justa-same!

~M~

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 11 Nov 11 - 06:54 AM

Sorry ~ Westminster Mag Ct ~~

Accuracy matters...

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 11 Nov 11 - 07:13 AM

"Found guilty", I would add, with its legalistic overtones, is definitely defamatory, in a moral sense; and possibly [one of our lawyers please advise] in a legal one also.

However much one may deplore her actions {& I join you in that, however much you may mutter 'lip-service' & whatever the other phrase was that you found to belittle my disgust}, she has not, in any meaningful sense, been 'found guilty' of anything. You merely make yourself look both more stupid, more malevolent, & more prejudiced, by persisting in asserting so, Jim.

~M~

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 11 Nov 11 - 07:52 AM

As I say - if you feel I have misrepresented her crimes (for which she has been unable to enter Britain, unless the new regulations regarding entry have altered that situation) please feel free to exclude her from the list. It was never my intention to mislead; I put as link in when I referred to her earlier.
If her guilt is of my imaginings, I am at a loss to understand why an arrest warrant was issued - but there you go!!
The other items will serve just as well to make my point regarding the dishonest and reacionary nature of Keith's bais - which he accuses others of.
All this still has a whiff of "praising with faint damns" - but that's probably due to my over-active imagination too
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 11 Nov 11 - 08:28 AM

"If her guilt is of my imaginings, I am at a loss to understand why an arrest warrant was issued"
.,,.

Please, Jim: FOR CRYING OUT BLOODY LOUD! ~ Do you really not know, or respect, the principle vital to out law of Innocent Until Proved Guilty? An arrest warrant merely means that someone in authority - in this case the Overwhelming Worldwide Recognised Majesty of the Westminster Bench of Magistrates - considers there might be a case to answer. IT IS NOT A FINDING OF GUILT. So what 'GUILT' are you constantly on about? Nobody has been "found guilty" of bloody anything ~~ except in J Carroll's wishful, prejudiced, maundering, diseased imaginings.

Not like you to be so uncharacteristically bloody THICK, for heavens sake: I say again, it can only attributed to PREJUDICE in this instance.

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

"except in J Carroll's wishful, prejudiced, maundering, diseased imaginings."
Then why "However much one may deplore her actions {& I join you in that" are you joing me in that.
As you appear to wish to defend the lady's honour (at the same time as deploring her actions) I apologise unreservedly for mistaking the situation before one of us bursts a blood vessel.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Nov 11 - 09:33 AM

So if there is a case to answer, then if she comes here she ought to answer it. If she doesn't wish to answer it in court she needn't come here. But it should be no business of the British Government to give her immunity from court proceedings if she does come here.

I would hope that the same kind of consideration puts restraints on the world travels of Tony Blair and sundry other politicians of many countries.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 11 Nov 11 - 11:38 AM

Pssst Lox - The Jews of Palestine are as Palestinian as the Arabs of Palestine.

Take a good look at the map of the Palestine Mandate 1920 - compare that to the Palestine Mandate created by hiving off 77% for exclusive settlement by the Arabs of Palestine in 1923. The first recognised borders of "Palestine"

That Palestine disappeared in 1949 but no borders were ever established - The Jews accepted the 1947 UN Plan the Arabs didn't, therefore no borders were ever agreed.

"Palestine" as it existed and was recognised in 1923 did not come back into being, with all invaders ejected and it's borders officially recognised, until 1994 (Egyptian Peace Treaty 1979; Oslo Peace Accords 1993 & Jordanian Peace Treaty 1994)

The Arabs of Palestine cannot have it both ways, they cannot insist that others observe and adhere to borders which they themselves do not recognise, nor ever have recognised.

Jews may settle anywhere within the borders of what defined Palestine in 1923.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Nov 11 - 03:39 PM

I assume we are finished with the blockade aimed directly at the everyday life of civilians, as proved by the list of banned goods, as we are with the proven military targetting of civilians - which you continue to defend by denying the documented evidence?

I am not denying "documented evidence" Jim.
I have never seen any!
Show some to us please.

Israel is within its rights to impose a blockade.
It allows through that which is required under International Law.
Why should they go further?
Gazans elected a government whose stated aim is the destruction of Israel, launch deadly attacks on ordinary Israeli people, and expect Israel to be nice to them in return.