 sj |
||
|
||
BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid From: Stringsinger Date: 03 Sep 11 - 08:25 PM The pros and cons of this situation have gone round and round without a resolution. It seems as if the arguments here depict an unshakeable orientation without agreement on opposing views. My contention is that Israel and the US are occupiers. The only way to resolve this conflict is through non-violence. One way to support the Palestinians is to consider supporting the BDS (Boycott, Disinvestment and Sanctions) toward Israel. This is one way to force them to the table to negotiate. From what I can gather, through Ha'eretz and other sources, Israelis are divided on the occupation of Gaza and what is really at loggerheads here is the Netanyahu recalcitrance with some of the Israeli people. Israel through Netanyahu is taking an isolationist position, a defensive paranoid military approach and I wonder how much real backing he has. There is an underlying problem here in that Israel is becoming less democratic and more theocratic. There is another underlying problem with Palestinian religious orientation which at this point is not entirely secular. As we wrestle in the US with the same issue, separation of Church and State, and the possibility of a president who is persuaded that the US Constitution should turn into the Ten Commandments and that Christians have dominion over government, there is the similar problem of religious strife in the Mid-East that dictates the divisions between not only Jews and Arabs but Arabs against Arabs. fighting over territory. The mistake that Egypt made was to turn their fledgling new government over to the military which means that the decisions are authoritarian and not favorable to the Gazans, so Carol's concerns here are justified. We have to face facts that theocratic decisions are being made in Israel and Gaza and this compounds the problem. The UN at this point as abnegated its responsibility to resolving this issue of occupation and legality of borders and who owns Gaza's waters. The US has made its position clear and this may be one of the reasons the UN is being bullied. BDS might send a message that occupation is not the answer for Israel. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 03 Sep 11 - 06:23 PM I think it reasonable to assume that they had advice from some of the best lawyers in the world on the issue. Greg, you said I made stuff up. Did you make that up, or was there something? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid From: Greg F. Date: 03 Sep 11 - 04:06 PM yup- the conclusions drawn by the members of the U.N. panel resulting from their inquiry and the "applicable international legal principles" as interpreted by that panel. But in no way is it a "judgement" from the U.N. Right you are.......... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid From: bobad Date: 03 Sep 11 - 08:30 AM Peter, the legality of the blockade is not a "judgement from the UN" rather the determination is based on international law and the applicable international legal principles are cited in the report if you had bothered to read it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid From: Peter K (Fionn) Date: 03 Sep 11 - 07:03 AM Let's not forget (Keith, bobad) that according to the UN itself (in the shape of UNCHR) the blockade is illegal. Not that I'm too concerned about judgments from the UN, or from any ad hoc panel it cobbles together for the express purpose of finding a form of words that can get two of America's buddies (probably the last two, if Doug R is to be believed) talking again. It is enough for me that Israel's reckless behaviour has cost it another friend, just when the country is being rocked by demonstrations that have gone virtually unreported in the US and UK, and by simmering conflict between zealots and secularists. Happy days! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 03 Sep 11 - 04:09 AM And Greg, exactly what did I make up? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 03 Sep 11 - 04:08 AM The aid reached Gaza, and would have got there much quicker via an Israeli port. The passengers started the violence, attacking the boats before any boardings, and the commandos as they descended. Many passengers had expressed a determination to be killed fighting Jews. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid From: bobad Date: 02 Sep 11 - 10:40 PM The panel's recommendations for rapprochement: (which are reasonable in my opinion) • An appropriate statement of regret should be made by Israel in respect of the incident in light of its consequences. • Israel should offer payment for the benefit of the deceased and injured victims and their families, to be administered by the two governments through a joint trust fund of a sufficient amount to be decided by them. • Turkey and Israel should resume full diplomatic relations, repairing their relationship in the interests of stability in the Middle East and international peace and security. The establishment of a political roundtable as a forum for exchanging views could assist to this end. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid From: bobad Date: 02 Sep 11 - 10:26 PM Please note: 133. Israeli Defense Forces personnel faced significant, organized and violent resistance from a group of passengers when they boarded the Mavi Marmara requiring them to use force for their own protection. Three soldiers were captured, mistreated, and placed at risk by those passengers. Several others were wounded. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid From: Greg F. Date: 02 Sep 11 - 10:20 PM Please note: But the subsequent steps taken raise serious questions as to whether the enforcement was executed appropriately in the circumstances. Israel's decision to board the vessels with such substantial force at a great distance from the blockade zone and with no final warning immediately prior to the boarding was excessive and unreasonable: a. Non-violent options should have been used in the first instance. In particular, clear prior warning that the vessels were to be boarded and a demonstration of dissuading force should have been given to avoid the typeof confrontation that occurred; b. The operation should have reassessed its options when the resistance to the initial boarding attempt became apparent so as to minimize casualties. 134. The loss of life and injuries resulting from the use of force by Israeli forces during the take-over of the Mavi Marmara was unacceptable. Nine passengers were killed and many others seriously wounded by Israeli forces. No satisfactory explanation has been provided to the Panel by Israel for any of the nine deaths. Forensic evidence showing that most of the deceased were shot multiple times, including in the back, or at close range has not been adequately accounted for in the material presented by Israel. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid From: bobad Date: 02 Sep 11 - 09:15 PM Excerpts from the UN Report which can be read in PDF format here: Report of the Secretary-General's Panel of Inquiry on the 31 May 2010 Flotilla Incident humanitarian missions must respect the security arrangements put in place by Israel. They must seek prior approval from Israel and make the necessary arrangements with it. This includes meeting certain conditions such as permitting Israel to search the humanitarian vessels in question. The fundamental principle of the freedom of navigation on the high seas is subject to only certain limited exceptions under international law. Israel faces a real threat to its security from militant groups in Gaza. The naval blockade was imposed as a legitimate security measure in order to prevent weapons from entering Gaza by sea and its implementation complied with the requirements of international law. For Israel to maintain the blockade it had to be effective, so it must be enforced. That is a clear legal requirement for a blockade.344 Such enforcement may take place on the high seas and may be conducted by force if a vessel resists. To this point in the analysis no difficulty arises. But the subsequent steps taken raise serious questions as to whether the enforcement was executed appropriately in the circumstances Israel's decision to board the vessels with such substantial force at a great distance from the blockade zone and with no final warning immediately prior to the boarding was excessive and unreasonable: a. Non-violent options should have been used in the first instance. In particular, clear prior warning that the vessels were to be boarded and a demonstration of dissuading force should have been given to avoid the type of confrontation that occurred; b. The operation should have reassessed its options when the resistance to the initial boarding attempt became apparent so as to minimize casualties. 133. Israeli Defense Forces personnel faced significant, organized and violent resistance from a group of passengers when they boarded the Mavi Marmara requiring them to use force for their own protection. Three soldiers were captured, mistreated, and placed at risk by those passengers. Several others were wounded. 134. The loss of life and injuries resulting from the use of force by Israeli forces during the take-over of the Mavi Marmara was unacceptable. Nine passengers were killed and many others seriously wounded by Israeli forces. No satisfactory explanation has been provided to the Panel by Israel for any of the nine deaths. Forensic evidence showing that most of the deceased were shot multiple times, including in the back, or at close range has not been adequately accounted for in the material presented by Israel. The blockading power is entitled to board a neutral merchant vessel if there are reasonable grounds to suspect that it is breaching a blockade. The blockading power has the right to visit and search the vessel and to capture it if found in breach of a blockade. Breach could occur outside the blockade zone, including on the high seas where there is evidence of the vessel's intention. If there is clear resistance to the interception or capture, the blockading power may attack the vessel, after giving a prior warning. The level of force used to enforce the above-mentioned rights must be proportionate; in particular, it must be limited to the level necessary to achieve the military objective. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid From: Greg F. Date: 02 Sep 11 - 06:57 PM Not quite, Bo - See post 02 Sep 11 - 12:47 PM. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid From: bobad Date: 02 Sep 11 - 06:51 PM The report states that Israel has the right to establish a blockade to prevent weapons from entering Gaza and it has the right to board any vessel heading to Gaza by sea. It also says that the commandos used excessive force when they were attacked by passengers on board the ship. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid From: Greg F. Date: 02 Sep 11 - 06:06 PM Sorry, Keith, you're inventing things again. The U. N. Report said that the blockade was "legal", under international law. It also said the the boarding and its aftermath were a colossal clusterfuck. Spin it any way you like, it is what it is. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 02 Sep 11 - 01:43 PM The Israelis were morally and legally entitled to impose a blockeade to prevent arms reaching Gaza. They offered to deliver the aid to Gaza from an Israeli port, and that is what eventually happened. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid From: Greg F. Date: 02 Sep 11 - 12:47 PM You're confusing 'legal' with 'justified' and 'legitimate' and- dare I say?- moral. Voice of America News 1 Sept. 2011 "A long-awaited U.N. panel report on the Israeli raid of a Turkish aid ship bound for the Gaza Strip was leaked Thursday by the New York Times. In it, the panel found that Israel used excessive and unreasonable force during its raid of the Mavi Marmara last year, but concluded that the naval blockade of Gaza is legal under international law." "The panel says the action of the Israeli commandos "seems to us to have been too heavy a response too quickly" and "it was an excessive reaction to the situation." They conclude that "the operation should have been better planned and differently executed." The report notes that seven of the dead suffered multiple gunshot wounds." "The report criticized the loss of life resulting from the Israeli raid as "unacceptable." It said Israel has not provided a "satisfactory explanation" for the killings of the nine Turks, most of whom it says were "shot multiple times, including in the back, or at close range." "The U.N. panel did recommend that Israel should express regret and compensate the victims." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 02 Sep 11 - 12:32 PM No. Conforming to International Law according to UN. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid From: Greg F. Date: 02 Sep 11 - 12:22 PM conforming to recognized principles or accepted rules and standards. Yup. Conforming to the Israeli's own rules & standards- wch by & large they make up to suit their own purposes. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid From: bobad Date: 02 Sep 11 - 10:54 AM legitimate adj : accordant with law or with established legal forms and requirements : conforming to recognized principles or accepted rules and standards Merriam-Webster Dictionary |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid From: Greg F. Date: 02 Sep 11 - 10:38 AM atrocity, n, 1: The quality or state of being atrocious. 2: An atrocious act, object, or situation atrocious, adj, 1: Extremely wicked, brutal or cruel : BARBARIC. 2: APPALLING, HORRIFYING 3a: utterly revolting, ABOMINABLE. b. Of very poor quality. syn see OUTRAGEOUS Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid From: Greg F. Date: 02 Sep 11 - 10:23 AM Well Bo & Keith, dress it up with weasel-words any way you like. It is what it is. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 02 Sep 11 - 10:03 AM Claims that the Marmara was fired on from Israeli ships or helicopters have been quietly forgotten.(It was paint, not blood Lox.) The boarding was legitimate. The boarders were met with "organised and violent resistance" according to the report. That much is factual. How the vastly outnumbered boarders should defend themselves from such an attack can only be a matter of opinion, and much easier to form such an opinion when your own life is not in danger. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid From: bobad Date: 02 Sep 11 - 10:01 AM Yup Keith - a legitimate (or should I say "legitimized"?) Israeli Corrected |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid From: Greg F. Date: 02 Sep 11 - 09:47 AM Yup Keith - a legitimate (or should I say "legitimized"?) Israeli atrocity. And hardly the first, or the last. Business as usual |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid From: bobad Date: 02 Sep 11 - 09:40 AM Legal opinion challenges PLO statehood bid Palestinians risk losing their rights under the new bid, as representation is called into question, legal expert says: "A legal opinion highlighting the challenges and risks facing the Palestinian people in their quest for statehood has been obtained by Al Jazeera, in the lead up to the Palestinian Liberation Organisation's bid at the United Nations in September. The opinion, written by Guy Goodwin-Gill, a professor of public international law at Oxford University and a member of the legal team representing Jordan's government in 'The Wall' case against Israel at the International Court of Justice in 2004, tackles the issues of Palestinian rights, representation, and the right of return, which may all be seriously affected by the outcome of the bid." Continued |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid From: GUEST,livelylass Date: 02 Sep 11 - 09:14 AM Thread drift - for anyone interested: The UN will vote shortly on whether or not to officially recognise Palestine as an independent state alongside the state of Israel. Most member states have indicated their support it. Although the US have made it clear that they will definitely veto the resolution, other nations bar the US who also oppose the measure - notably in Europe and the Antipodes - could still feasibly be publicly pressured into supporting the measure. Nearly a million signatories so far - support the Palestinian campaign for statehood: http://www.avaaz.org/en/israelis_for_pal_independence/ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid From: Peter K (Fionn) Date: 02 Sep 11 - 08:52 AM One issue debated here was cleared up though. Both the blockade and the boarding were perfectly legal and legitimate. Wonderful news, Keith! Time for a little celebration! On another issue debated here the report says: "Israel's decision to board the vessels with such substantial force at a great distance from the blockade zone and with no final warning immediately prior to the boarding was excessive and unreasonable" (NYT). As nine people were killed, I think we can take it that "excessive and unreasonable" are weasel-words code for "murder." But the internal politicking of the UN is really neither here nor there. Under the shield of US protection Israel doesn't give a fuck about the UN anyway. What Israel will find a little more difficult is that it is fast losing one of its last friends in the region, and one of the most powerful. Already fazed at the loss of valued buddies like the monster tyrant Mubarak, the 51st state is now burning its boats with Turkey. Somewhat like the hardline protestants who assaulted children at Belfast's Holy Cross school a few years ago, Israel is now caught in an unhappy downward spiral. Its lunatic behaviour is making it increasingly isolated, and this will make its behaviour ever more desperate. Pity American presidents, who will dare to do no other than pander to the New York zealots. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 02 Sep 11 - 02:20 AM We finally have the results of the UN enquiry. They found that the commandos did have to protect themselves from violent attack but, strangely, the force they used was deemed excessive. One issue debated here was cleared up though. Both the blockade and the boarding were perfectly legal and legitimate. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid From: CarolC Date: 30 Sep 10 - 10:02 AM http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-A1PYgzMv0 http://mondoweiss.net/2010/09/un-report-israeli-interception-of-the-gaza-flotilla-was-illegal.html http://sabbah.biz/mt/archives/2010/09/28/un-says-israelis-executed-us-citizen/ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 12 Aug 10 - 10:37 PM "Once the decision was made to stop the ship, the conflict was inevitable." Yep. People tend to resist bullies, even those with big scary 'paint gun' weapons ... but that's what they claimed they were using... oh, sorry, that was proved a lie too, sorry, I can see how easy it is to get confused .... "said 'accurate weapons' rather than stun grenades, should have been employed to 'incapacitate' people on the deck of the ship" "underestimated the threat and should have used more force to subdue activists before boarding" "We should have ensured sterile conditions in order to dispatch the forces in a minimum amount of time," => We should used better weapons to kill them faster. sterile conditions => everybody dead. Why just not sink the bloody ships to stop 'blockade running' in a state of war then? Logic says less damage to those trying to stop the ships, surely... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid From: Emma B Date: 12 Aug 10 - 11:31 AM From the ongoing Israeli internal inquiry into the legality of the action of the IDF in international waters - 'The head of Israel's military has defended its troops' use of live ammunition during a deadly raid on an aid flotilla sailing to Gaza in May. But Lt Gen Gabi Ashkenazi told an Israeli inquiry they underestimated the threat and should have used more force to subdue activists before boarding. The general said 'accurate weapons' rather than stun grenades, should have been employed to 'incapacitate' people on the deck of the ship before the commandos rappelled onto it. "We should have ensured sterile conditions in order to dispatch the forces in a minimum amount of time," he said.' BBC news August 11 'STERILE CONDITIONS'? Does anyone else find military euphemisms like this and 'Collateral Damage' more than a little disturbing? The general added that the use of these 'accurate weapons' to ensure the 'sterile conditions' on board would have "lowered the risk to our soldiers but it would not have prevented the tension... Once the decision was made to stop the ship, the conflict was inevitable." The general's testimony follows that of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defence Minister Ehud Barak. In their testimonies, the prime minister tried to shift some of the responsibility toward Barak, while the defence minister indicated the military did not execute the plan properly. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 06 Aug 10 - 04:42 AM "You were sarcastically saying that it could not have been an ambush because the Lebanese would not know where to set it." You must be an idiot, that is is NOT what I said - it may, sadly, be what you heard - this is what is wrong with your arguments.... "I will refrain from being sarcastic about your immediate, unquestioning, gullible acceptance that Israel was the agressor and Lebanon the victim." Wrong Again - Comrade Napoleon... To (Mis)quote Orwell from Animal Farm... But when Muriel reads the writing on the barn wall to Clover, interestingly, the words are, "No animal shall kill any other animal without cause." Remember, comrades, your resolution must never falter. No argument must lead you astray. Never listen when they tell you that Man and the animals have a common interest, that the prosperity of the one is the prosperity of the others. It is all lies. Man serves the interests of no creature except himself. And among us animals let there be perfect unity, perfect comradeship in the struggle. All men are enemies. All animals are comrades. Squealer: Do not imagine, comrades, that leadership is a pleasure. On the contrary, it is a deep and heavy responsibility. No one believes more firmly than Comrade Napoleon that all animals are equal. He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be? None of the animals could form any idea as to what this meant, except old Benjamin, who nodded his muzzle with a knowing air, and "Ah, that is different!" said Boxer. "If Comrade Napoleon says it, it must be right." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 06 Aug 10 - 03:32 AM But I do understand irony and sarcasm Foolestroupe. You were sarcastically saying that it could not have been an ambush because the Lebanese would not know where to set it. I turned the satire back on you because the Lebanese were told in advance where and when the Israelis were going pruning. Any more sarcasm? I will refrain from being sarcastic about your immediate, unquestioning, gullible acceptance that Israel was the agressor and Lebanon the victim. But you were all wrong, weren't you? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 05 Aug 10 - 08:03 PM Oh bobad - don't applaud - throw money! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid From: bobad Date: 05 Aug 10 - 07:56 PM Carry on boys - delightful entertainment. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 05 Aug 10 - 06:58 PM "Oh yes, it was YOU Foolestroupe who said, "I have heard that 'it was a Lebanese ambush' - right, they planted that tree 20 years ago and have been staking it out ever since... hahahahaha! oh boy! talk about 'gullible' ..." " The inability to recognise Satire is a mark of low intelligence. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 05 Aug 10 - 10:30 AM Oh yes, it was YOU Foolestroupe who said, "I have heard that 'it was a Lebanese ambush' - right, they planted that tree 20 years ago and have been staking it out ever since... hahahahaha! oh boy! talk about 'gullible' ..." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 05 Aug 10 - 10:18 AM "One of you gullibles said" Stop looking in the mirror! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid From: Lox Date: 05 Aug 10 - 07:06 AM "otherwise you would see that the NYT is pro Israel. Think about where the paper is located. It's market is very likely the most Pro Israel city in the US, by population. [Jack, I'd be a bit careful with this statement. You're getting close to the 'border' here.] " Would you care to explain why Jack should be careful with this one? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 05 Aug 10 - 05:16 AM One of you gullibles said the Lebanese would have had to plant the tree and wait ten years. The Lebanese were given the time and place in advance by IDF via UNIFIL. They brazenly murdered, confident that they could con the world that they were the victims! They certainly conned Mudcat. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 05 Aug 10 - 04:34 AM Here are the words of Milos Struga, the senior political advisor to the commander of UNIFIL forces on the border. All you gullible people who always unquestioningly believe anything bad said by anyone about Israael, are starting to look silly. http://idfspokesperson.com/2010/08/04/audio-transcript-of-israel-army-radios-interview-with-unifil-spokesman-milos-struger-4-aug |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid From: Jack the Sailor Date: 05 Aug 10 - 04:01 AM John John John.... Do you really think a large percent of the people who voted for Prop 8 subscribe to Newspapers? I think not. "Liberal elite media readers" did not vote for prop 8. I don't mind saying that a large percentage of the readership of the New York Times supports Israel for Religious reasons. That is a secret to know one. It is just demographics. I am not ignorant enough to assert that The NYT has no Bias towards Israel nor would I claim that the San Francisco Chronicle has no opinion about Gay rights or that the Miami Herald is neutral about Castro. These are business and they have paying subscribers and they are not going to say anything to harm their business. At the very least they with tiptoe diplomatically around issues important to their subscriber bases. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 05 Aug 10 - 03:14 AM Israel built the fence. To do that they needed access to both sides of it. These things are always well inside the border. The old Iron Curtain fence was the same. This fence had been there for years and the vegetation on both sides had been cut in the same way for years. Everyone who patrolled the border would know all about that. It comes as a surprise to Jack, but that does not signify. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid From: mousethief Date: 05 Aug 10 - 02:04 AM Unless I read or see anything that is substantially different, this will be my last post on the episode. Does this say what I think it says, viz, "I'm not going to post again unless you disagree with me"? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid From: John on the Sunset Coast Date: 05 Aug 10 - 12:48 AM I think it is quite understandable that the border guards thought the Israeli soldier were in Lebanese territory. I did looking at the video. [You saw what you wanted to see] I was suggesting to you that the ultimate problem was in the placement of the fence. [Funny, all the other times Israel cut down trees along the fence there was no problem] You are obviously Pro Israel your self [Proudly] and hypersensitive about criticism of it [No, I am sensitive to hyper-criticism of Israel] otherwise you would see that the NYT is pro Israel. Think about where the paper is located. It's market is very likely the most Pro Israel city in the US, by population. [Jack, I'd be a bit careful with this statement. You're getting close to the 'border' here.] Do you think they do not reflect the views of their readers? [Yes, I think many papers do not necessarily reflect the views of their readers. Today in California, a judge overturned Prop. 8. which had passed by a 56% or 58% margin at the ballot box. Every major California newspaper--including the LA Times--editorialized for that law being overturned. Please note, my reference to Prop. 8 is not a criticism of the newspapers; it is the most current example of newspapers bucking their readership.] |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid From: Jack the Sailor Date: 05 Aug 10 - 12:09 AM I think it is quite understandable that the border guards thought the Israeli soldier were in Lebanese territory. I did looking at the video. I was suggesting to you that the ultimate problem was in the placement of the fence. You are obviously Pro Israel your self and hypersensitive about criticism of it otherwise you would see that the NYT is pro Israel. Think about where the paper is located. It's market is very likely the most Pro Israel city in the US, by population. Do you think they do not reflect the views of their readers? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid From: John on the Sunset Coast Date: 04 Aug 10 - 11:02 PM Jack, please don't tell me what I think. I used the exact words I meant to use...NYT are generally hard on Israel. They just aren't as hard as many folks here.. I looked for your alleged Cavuto excerpt, but have not found it. But I did find this: /www.foxnews.com/world/2010/08/04/israeli-military-uprooting-trees-near-site-deadly-clash-lebanese-troops/ The pertinent graphs follow: "This time the tree trimming was followed by gunfire from the Lebanese army, apparently aimed not at the soldier hanging over the fence, but at a base some distance away, where a senior officer was killed by a shot to the head. Another officer was wounded. Israel responded with gunfire and shelling, killing two Lebanese soldiers and a journalist. "On Wednesday the U.N. ruled that the tree, while across the fence, was inside Israeli territory. The U.N. drew the border line in 2000 after Israel withdrew its forces from south Lebanon after an 18-year occupation that followed its invasion in 1982 to fight Palestinian forces and try to install a pro-Israel government in Beirut. "UNIFIL established ... that the trees being cut by the Israeli army are located south of the Blue Line (border) on the Israeli side," said force spokesman Lt. Naresh Bhatt." You might also take a look at this Jordanian source which confirms the above: www1.albawaba.com/en/main-headlines/unifil-israel-didnt-act-lebanese-territory Further, Jack, your sarcasm in your last paragraph does you no service. It is okay to be wrong sometimes; it is okay to be sarcastic sometimes; but being both sarcastic and wrong at the same time makes one look pretty silly. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid From: Jack the Sailor Date: 04 Aug 10 - 10:26 PM I don't know about pockets, but if you think the NYT is not pro-Israel, you have not read it. I just saw a clip of Neil Cavuto of Fox News saying that the UN more blames Israel. By the way everyone agrees that a tree was being cut. I just saw a film of an Israeli soldier in a bucket on the Labanon side of the border. The Israelis now say that they built the fence on their own land and that the tree was also on their own land. How stupid of the Lebanese border guards to think that the Israeli was in their territory just because he was on their side of the fence separating the two countries. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid From: John on the Sunset Coast Date: 04 Aug 10 - 10:06 PM http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/05/world/middleeast/05mideast.html?_r=1&ref=world This is the headline and the lead: "U.N. Supports Israeli Account of Border Clash" By ISABEL KERSHNER Published: August 4, 2010 JERUSALEM — The United Nations peacekeeping force in southern Lebanon, Unifil, said Wednesday that it had concluded that Israeli forces were cutting trees that lay within their own territory before a lethal exchange of fire with Lebanese Army troops, largely vindicating Israel's account of how the fighting started. --- --- --- I believe that the NYT is in the pocket of neither Israel nor the UN. In fact, I would characterize it as being generally hard on Israel when it comes to questions regarding the Middle East, and especially vis-a-via the Palestinians. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid From: Lox Date: 04 Aug 10 - 09:21 PM "3-The maps, which you ignored in your post, show that the Israelis were operating from Israeli territory. None of this is corroborated by the UNIFIL guy. The most recent press release from UNIFIL was on 27th May. They have no official position on this skirmish. Your link is to an IDF blog. The blogger provides his own maps and has drawn on them. I could do that and it would have no greater significance. Spin? You have taken the uncorroborated point of view of a wholly partisan blogger and used that as evidence. If that isn't spin then I don't know what is. |
