BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Jul 10 - 04:07 AM

To Jim, everything is childishly simple..
Israel bad, Hamas good.Believe everything of one, nothing of the other.
Israel is a tiny country that has had and is still having to fight for its very survival.

He states "What is not in question is Israel's brutal behavior; the act of piracy, the slaughter of refugees, the use of weapons, chemical or otherwise, on civilians, the destruction of homes, hospitals and schools, the open attempts at humiliation and persecution of the ordinary citizens of Gaza, the failure of the Israelis to meet the basic standards of conflict"

Every accusation IS questioned and disputed. None is simple fact.
It has not used illegal or chemical weapons Jim.
The rules say you must not attack civillians with any weaponry, but if your enemy attacks you using civillians as a shield, you are expected to show restraint but you can attempt to deal with the enemy. If you take reasonable steps it is legal even if people die.

Using civillians as a shield is a war crime.
The incursion was only launched to try and stop another war crime.
No dispute. The rockets are intended to kill and maim ordinary people, adults and children.
A war crime that Jim condones. "Evey little helps."

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Jul 10 - 05:19 AM

Every little helps.
Chilling.

Jim says he is a pacifist.

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Jul 10 - 07:15 AM

You seem to need to bee seen to the extent that your postings come in pairs.
Say something original rather than bouncing off what others have said,
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 27 Jul 10 - 08:06 AM

"not used illegal or chemical weapons"

Sigh - it's nice to redefine terms in the middle of a discussion....

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Roberto
Date: 27 Jul 10 - 09:40 AM

A question for Jim. Some posts before, you've definied Israel "the invader". May I ask on what part of the soil that makes up the state of Israel you wouldn't call Israel "invader"? Where would you say that Israel is at home?

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Jul 10 - 01:00 PM

Since the Six Day War Israel has forcibly expanded into Palestinian Territory; in some cases they have been forced to withdraw, or appear to withdraw, but its policy remains expansionism.
As I said, I don't fully understand the rights and wrongs of the territorial dispute; my main concern is their fascist behaviour towards non-combatants, from ordinary citizens to those attempting to bring relief to a besieged people.
Keith said the matter is complicated - this aspect is probably the least complicated of the whole dispute. If Israel wishes to be treated like a responsible, humane state it must behave like one. There can be no possible excuse for the way it treats non-combatants.
It is said that Israeli troops behave the way they do towards civilians because Hamas uses them as shields - even if this were true (and I believe it to be only fractionally so and mostly an excuse to terrorise the Palestinian people as a whole) - but even if it were true NO CIVILISED SOCIETY KILLS OR ENDANGERS THE LIVES OF HOSTAGES. He described Israel as "a tiny country that has had and is still having to fight for its very survival"; a 'weird description for a militaristic nuclear power, deeply into the use of assassination, espionage and simple bully-boy tactics in its expansionist pursuits.
It has some international support, mainly due to its economic and political clout, but it is widely regarded as a terrorist state - if a reactionary country like Turkey can walk away from it as being beyond the pale, something must be coming adrift for them.
Nobody has commented on their refusal to co-operate with the United Nations enquiry into human rights abuses - if their behaviour is so impeccable, why?
Israel appears not to care how it is considered by the rest of the world and is blatent in its human rights abuses, which makes the lickspittle apologists who would turn weapons capable of poisoning, maiming and killing into 'smoke bombs", lethal weapons carried in acts of piracy into "paint-bomb pistols" (and - on another thread, three days of street rioting in Belfast into "skirmishes") so disgusting.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: beardedbruce
Date: 27 Jul 10 - 02:20 PM

So, since in 1968 the Protestants were firmly entrenched in NI, There can be NO allowing of any change to give that area back to Catholics- since it had been YEARS since they controlled it.

You ignore that FACT that the LAST borders accepted by the Arab nations was the 1923 split of Mandate Palestine into the TWO Homelands, with 77% going to the Arab Homeland of TransJordan, with Jews forbidden to settle, and 23% becoming the Jewish Homeland.

YOU claim that the invaded have the right to remove the invaders.

YOU claim that they can do anything needed to do so.

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Jul 10 - 03:02 PM

I ignore nothing Bruce - my position on the politics of the affair is limited as stated.
My involvement of this thread has been on the basis of the aggressive attitude by the Israelis to anybody who gets in their way, which moves me to believing them to be the agressors - but whether that is true or not - their bombastically vicious attitude to non-combatants - which you and your faction appear to either support or ignore, is what concerns me.
Whatever the Palestinian's overall aim might be, primitive rocket launchers against a well armed (nuclear) state strikes me as being defence, or at most, retaliation, and measure up somewhat pathetically against the tanks, planes, and heavy weaponry, including chemical missiles (whatever you and your apologists try to disguise them as) of Israel.
How about you andf youir friends giving us your wisdom an the war crimes and abuses committed by the Israelis and their refusal to participate in the United Nations enquiry, or their participation in the Sharila and Sabra massacres - won't hold my breath though.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: beardedbruce
Date: 27 Jul 10 - 03:24 PM

Jim,

So, if I attack you with a club, and you have a gun, it would be wrong of you to use the gun??

The Arabs invaded the Jewish Homeland in 1948. SOME of the Palestinian Arabs, who wanted to get ALL the land ( as promised to them by the Arab League) got out of the way of the invading army, and became refugees.

The larger number stayed in Israel, became citizens, and live in peace. ISRAEL settled the Arab Jews that were driven out of Arab nations- TELL ME why the Arab nations did not settle the Palestinian Arabs who fled?


And tell me what happenned to the Jewish population ( and the Christians) of the West bank from 1948 to 1967?

Or do you only support the rights of Non-Jews?

When I hear you express regret at the Palestinians using bruning tire of gasoline to execute political rivals, I might listen to the rest of your comments: Until then, I have to think you care more about condemning Israel than about the lives of Palestinian Arabs.

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Jul 10 - 04:09 PM

The flaw in your analogy is that the Israelis have aimedd their savagery at non-combatants, a fact which you and your fellow apologists consistently avoid.
As I said earlier, no civilised society kills hostages, even if the claims that what they are is true.
I'm sure that the Israelis participated in the Sabra and Shatila massacre because they believed that the refugee camps were crawling with militants - I don't think.
Still no comment on civilian atrocities I see - as silent as our parrot friend who seems to have taken flight.
And you come back when you cease to be a Zionist- fanatic mouthpiece and give us a hint on what you think on human rights abuses.

Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: beardedbruce
Date: 27 Jul 10 - 04:14 PM

And I note you do not address ANY of my questions.


I guess my assumption that you hate Jews more than you care about people is true.

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Jul 10 - 04:43 PM

You are the one who makes it a 'Jewish' thing - that's the second toime you've done it.
My grouse is with the Israelis, not the Jews.
But you continue crouching behind the dead of Auzwich if it makes you feel any more justified in your defence of human rights abuses.
As I said earlier, the greatest friends of anti-Semitism today are the Israeli thugs and their apologists.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Emma B
Date: 27 Jul 10 - 05:11 PM

So, if I attack you with a club, and you have a gun, it would be wrong of you to use the gun??

So if someone drops fully armed onto your boat in international waters would it be wrong to defend yourself with a club?


The history of the Palestinian refugees, like most historical accounts, depends on who is writing it; history is usually written by the 'victors'

However I don't think I have ever come across such a blatant misrepresentation as that presented by BB!


During the 1948 Arab–Israeli War, around 750,000 out of 900,000 Palestinian Arabs fled or were expelled from the territories that became the State of Israel
-United Nations Conciliation Commission for Palestine.

As Wiki states

"The causes and responsibilities of the exodus are a matter of controversy among historians and commentators of the conflict

Whereas historians now agree on most of the events of that period, there remains disagreement as to whether the exodus was the result of a plan designed before or during the war by Zionist leaders, was the result of a plan designed before or during the war by Arab leaders, or was an unintended consequence of the war.

Between December 1947 and March 1948, around 100,000 Palestinian Arabs fled. Among them were many from the higher and middle classes from the cities, who left voluntarily, expecting to return when the Arab states took control of the country.
When the Haganah went on the offensive, between April and July, a further 250,000 to 300,000 Palestinian Arabs left or were expelled, mainly from the towns of Haifa, Tiberias, Beit-Shean, Safed, Jaffa and Acre, which lost more than 90 percent of their Arab inhabitants.
Expulsions took place in many towns and villages, particularly along the Tel-Aviv-Jerusalem road and in Eastern Galilee.

About 50,000-70,000 inhabitants of Lydda and Ramle were expelled towards Ramallah by the Israel Defence Force during Operation Danny and most others during operations of the IDF in its rear area

During Operation Dekel, the Arabs of Nazareth and South Galilee were allowed to remain in their homes.
Today they form the core of the Arab Israeli population.

From October to November 1948, the IDF launched Operation Yoav to remove Egyptian forces from the Negev and Operation Hiram to remove the Arab Liberation Army from North Galilee during which at least nine massacres of Arabs were carried out by IDF soldiers. These events generated an exodus of 200,000 to 220,000 Palestinian Arabs. Here, Arabs fled fearing atrocities or were expelled if they had not fled. After the war, from 1948 to 1950, the IDF expelled around 30,000 to 40,000 Arabs from the borderlands of the new Israeli state.
Many of these figures are from research by Israeli historian Benny Morris who basically claimed that all the Israeli historiography that preceded his book and several other writings was completely fabricated, a series of untrue myths designed to serve the Zionist need for legitimacy.


"As for Palestinian Christians, refugees and non-refugees, they are found mostly in urban areas of the Middle East but many have opted to leave to far away lands such as the USA, Central and South America, Australia and Canada.

The dispersal of Palestinians since 1948 has spared no one family or group.
The demographics of Palestinian Christians is as much shaped by the politics of the Arab-Israeli conflict, as it is the demographics of Palestinians in general.

Palestinian Christians in East Jerusalem, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip belong to fifteen different denominations, the largest of which are the Greek Orthodox (51 percent), and the Roman Catholics (32 per cent.) Some smaller denominations, such as the Copts who are originally from Egypt, do not number more than a score of families. Yet each denomination or community maintains a rich tradition of rites and rituals, beside educational and other institutions, that speaks of its long presence and attachment to the land called holy"
- Bernard Sabella Associate professor of Sociology Bethlehem University

p.s. Of course I'm also aware of the number of Jewish people that immigrated into Israel from the surrounding Arab countries too during this conflict but then I'm not attempting to minimise or dispute this!

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: beardedbruce
Date: 27 Jul 10 - 05:29 PM

"So if someone drops fully armed onto your boat in international waters would it be wrong to defend yourself with a club?"

If Customs inspectors stop your ship, and come on board armed, AND YOU ATTACK THEM, YOU WOULD BE KILLED. The port was under blockade, and Israel has the right to prevent MORE illegal ( according to Geneva Convention) rockets from coming in.



"During the 1948 Arab–Israeli War, around 750,000 out of 900,000 Palestinian Arabs fled or were expelled from the territories that became the State of Israel
-United Nations Conciliation Commission for Palestine. "
( The number I have seen as best estimate is 640,000)

Which overlooks the population of the Mandate Palestine declared in 1923 to be the Jewish Homeland- THOSE territories were captured by Egypt and Jordan. ONLY the Jews and Christians were removed from those areas.



And the 820,000 Jews driven out of Arab countries? THAT was the vast majority - YET YOU IGNORE THEM. A LARGER NUMBER, but since they were just Jews, I guess they have no significance to you.

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Emma B
Date: 27 Jul 10 - 05:50 PM

"The number I have seen as best estimate is 640,000"

Take it up with the UN Bruce!

Also I did say that I was well aware of the movement of Jews into Israel from the surrounding Arab counties during the conflict

but then I'm not attempting to minimize their situation!

I have given references for the figures I quoted BB - perhaps you could do the same - regarding the situation of Palestinian Christians too?

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Peace
Date: 27 Jul 10 - 05:59 PM

I wish to apologize to the clone I was rude to. I had NOT recalled posting as Peace after the time Joe wrote that Guests were no longer allowed on the thread. My first `Peace` post was accidental, and the second was necessary.. That said, the clone might have pointed me to or quoted the post. Jeri suggested that I KNEW I wasn`t allowed to post as Guest. That just ain`t so. And, THAT said, I will reiterate:

SSDD

I thank Bobad for takin` care of business when I asked for his help, and I`m sorry if it caused you any difficulty, bobad. To my half dozen or so other friends, many thanks. I was NOT aware that I was breaking protocol--or orders from the top.

Guest,999

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 27 Jul 10 - 09:32 PM

"If Customs inspectors stop your ship, and come on board armed"

In International Waters, that is called Piracy, irrespective of what nation is trying to play God, and what term they wish to call their armed warriors - defending yourself with weapons is considered acceptable.

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 27 Jul 10 - 09:37 PM

"The port was under blockade, and Israel has the right to prevent MORE illegal ( according to Geneva Convention)"

Once you start to claim "Geneva Convention protection for your actions", refusing to abide by all of them just makes you a hypocrite - also probably just another hypocritical bullying armed thug.

And you are thus also claiming now that this is legitimate "War" under International Conventions, so now there is no excuse to not apply the other proper appropriate Conventions, feeding, not starving civilians 'under your control', etc. :-)

Only a hypocrite wants (needs) it both ways....

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Jul 10 - 03:29 AM

"I guess my assumption that you hate Jews more than you care about people is true."
Can I just clear one point up before this sinks any deeper into the slime.
So far this thread has been refreshingly clear of anti-Semitism and has largely confined itself to discussing the actual events of the Palestine-Israeli conflict. This may be down to the vigilance of the site administrators keeping an eye on things, but I like to think that it is because the posters involved care about what is happening in Gaza and have no axe to grind, racist or otherwise.
I suppose it was inevitable that somebody should play the 'race card' - it is a despicable and cowardly way to debate and, to me, shows a paucity of arguments by those who pull such stunts.
Taken to its logical conclusion it means that we can never discuss Zimbabwe because Denis Mugabe is black, or it would make Iraq a no-go area because of the ethnic origins of Sadam Hussain.
Let's keep it clean and not let this become a slanging match or yet another closed thread-eh?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Jul 10 - 03:49 AM

Jim,
"primitive rocket launchers against a well armed (nuclear) state strikes me as being defence, or at most, retaliation"

Defence or retalliation against nothing.
Israel was not attacking them with anything.
It had left Gaza, using its army to force out its own settlers.

The rockets were unprovoked, and were and are a war crime against civillian people.
Other means to stop them were tried and failed.
The incursion was a last resort, and you are wrong to say that civillians were targeted.

Israeli people were dying, and towns in range lived in a permanent state of terror.
What choice did they have?

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Jul 10 - 03:57 AM

You said I had taken flight.
You did not really challenge my last posts, and I had nothing to add.
I have no interest in sustaining this, unlike you.

Do we need to go back to the convoy?
The legality is disputed by some, but it is an argument for international lawyers.
Your are entitled to your own opinions, but that is all they are.

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Jul 10 - 05:34 AM

"Defence or retalliation against nothing."
Except forty-odd years of incursion into their land, illegal settlements, chemical weapons, killing and maiming of civilians, destruction of homes, attempts at starvation into submission, a Berlin-type wall, constant persecution and humiliation.... you name it.
"are wrong to say that civillians were targeted."
WHAT????
"I had nothing to add."
This has never stopped you on any of the threads you have contributed to in the past.
"Do we need to go back to the convoy?"
Bit of a turnaround - what!
It is usually you complaining that people should stick to the topic in hand, which in this case is....... an attack on a relief convoy by Israeli pirates.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Jul 10 - 05:54 AM

"Defence or retalliation against nothing."
Except forty-odd years of incursion into their land....

Yes, the rocket attacks were to avenge historical grievances.
Today's children must die for yesterdays hate.
And you, the pacifist, support it.

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Jul 10 - 06:30 AM

Sorry Keith - not being dragged into another of your blind alleys - you've had the arguments, so it's not worth repeating them because you only hear what you want to.
I read this morning that UK Conservative Prime Minister David Cameron is in trouble for describing Gaza as a "prison camp for its 1.5 million Palasinian inhabitants" and that the blockade must end.
Not a place I would usually go for political information or inspiration, but if Maggie Thatcher's party says it is unacceptible - things must be bad,
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Jul 10 - 07:09 AM

In the absence of any challenge I will take flight again.

Question to Emma and Foolestroupe. Do you think the rocketing of civillians is wrong, and should it stop?

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 28 Jul 10 - 07:28 AM

"It had left Gaza, using its army to force out its own settlers."

Haha! They missed a massive number - they musta been hiding, what? :-)

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 28 Jul 10 - 07:32 AM

"Question to Emma and Foolestroupe. Do you think the rocketing of civilians is wrong, and should it stop?"

And the targeting of kids throwing stones at tanks being killed by bullets (just to mention ONE of the many endless atrocities against civilians too numerous to mention) is, and it should stop also.

Goodbye - at least till you come back...

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 28 Jul 10 - 07:36 AM

"And you, the pacifist, support it. "

That's a disgusting gutter level smear.

A pacifist is unable to stop irrational war mongering rabid nutters like you by force - by definition, all he can do is try to engage them in rational discussion - which of course they always refuse.

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Jul 10 - 07:48 AM

"In the absence of any challenge I will take flight again."
Bye-eee
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Jul 10 - 08:12 AM

Foolestroupe, he does supportit, saying every little helps.
I find that shocking too.

Are you saying that they have not actually left Gaza, or some settlers remain?
They left completely long before the incursion (which was only a few days).

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Jul 10 - 10:32 AM

"Foolestroupe, he does supportit, saying every little helps."
You are somewhat overmilking this aren't you - not surprising, as you have very little else to offer.
As a pacifist I would not wish to be involved in killing - a personal choice that I would not wish to enforce on anybody else.
As a pragmatist I realise that without some sort of resistance Israel would have no hesitation in moving in on Gaza and moving the Palestinians out, with any means at their disposal.
Israel has resorted to heavily armed incursions into Gaza using tanks, planes and chemical weapons. The West has stood by and watched the (yet uncommented on by you) war crimes happen unopposed, apart from an occasional tut-tut, thanks to the economic and political influence wielded by Israel's supporters.
While I have no brief for Hamas, or any religion-driven organisation; (I believe the mixture of politics and religion to be a highly volatile one), and as pathetic as Hamas's opposition is, it does act as a stop-gap and keeps the eyes of the world on the fact that there is resistance. I believe it helps prevent a wholesale massacre of the type that Israel has proved itself more than capable of in the past (also uncommented on by you). As I said - every little helps - any resistance is better than none in this situation.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 28 Jul 10 - 10:40 AM

"Foolestroupe, he does supportit, saying every little helps."

You sir, are a twisting manipulating liar, or else you lack the ability to understand plain English!

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Jul 10 - 11:04 AM

I ask you Foolestroupe, is it wrong and should it stop?
Jim has answered both, with no. Long winded, but no.
No twisting. No lying.
If he meant yes let him say so.

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Jul 10 - 01:20 PM

Don't put words in my mouth.
The bombardment is a result of permanent terrorist persecution by the Israelis and will only stop when the Israelis cease that persecution.
The Israelis are the agressors and out-man and out-weapon the Palestinians.
If the Palestinians were to ceace their opposition the Israelis would undoubtably regards this as weakness and move in - and we know what could happen by their previos atrocities in Shatila and Sabra.
Of course the opposition is not good, but in the lighht of past atrocities by the Israelis it is the lesser by far of two evils.
Stop poncing off my ideas tio try and scor points over another member of this forum - THINK FOR YOURSELF OR CUT-N-PASTE SOMETHING.
You are a hypocrite in not even acknowledging the human rights abuses by the Israelis, let alone condemning them.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: beardedbruce
Date: 28 Jul 10 - 02:14 PM

You are a hypocrite in not even acknowledging the human rights abuses by the Palestinians, let alone condemning them.


Yet you keep saying you have the moral high ground.

SO, if it is OK to commit war crimes if one is invaded, Israel is let off the hook, and cannot be held any more accountable than you are holding the Palestinians.

Unless, against your denials, YOU are applying a different standard to one side than you do to the other- which most would determine is bigotry.

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 28 Jul 10 - 03:18 PM

The two most consistent arguments in support of Israel's war crimes are listed at the bottom as quoted on this thread.

It does not take a rocket scientist to see where the hypocrites are.

Obviously, If one is saying that we should support Israel because they are better than the Palestinians, then Israel MUST be held to that standard. They need to be better than the Palestinians. They need to behave better and be more civilized.

On the other hand there is a second fallacy in Bruce's post. It gives some proof to opposition claims of collective punishment. Bruce is comparing the actions of violent fringes of Palestinian society to official actions of the Israeli government. Can he really be saying that as long as the worst Palestinian commits a crime, Israel has the right top commit and equal or worse crime in response.

That attitude is not only illogical. It is barbaric and uncivilized.

_________________________________

For a long, long time, Michaelr. Israel is the best friend we have in the mid-east. Probably the only one, actually.

DougR

------------------

Yet you keep saying you have the moral high ground.

SO, if it is OK to commit war crimes if one is invaded, Israel is let off the hook, and cannot be held any more accountable than you are holding the Palestinians.

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Jul 10 - 03:19 PM

I do not need to put words into your mouth Jim.
Your own words condemn you.
"As a pragmatist I realise that without some sort of resistance Israel would have no hesitation in moving in on Gaza and moving the Palestinians out, with any means at their disposal."

Israel moved out of Gaza completely.
The rockets increased.
You say they should still resist, and even though you claim to be a pacifist, you demand violent resistance.
Never mind that the shrapnel packed rockets are intended for ordinary, innocent people and their children.

I do not think Emma or Foolestroupe are with you on that Jim.
I think you are in a place on your own.

I have not and do not support Israel's abuses. I just seek balance.

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 28 Jul 10 - 03:38 PM

The only balance will come when the Zionist's have been stopped in their quest to fulfill the prophecy of Israel stretching from Egypt to the Euphrates or when weapons of war are completely removed from their control.

I just wish my taxes were not putting weapons in their hands.

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Jul 10 - 07:49 PM

"Yet you keep saying you have the moral high ground."
Where?
"SO, if it is OK to commit war crimes if one is invaded, "
Where has anybody said that? some people, me included, have said that it is acceptable for people to defend themselves when attacked - it is the Israelis who have consistently committed war crimes (chemical (illegal) weapons, piracy, destruction of hospitals and schools...) and have refused to co-operate with the United Nations investigation team - why, if they've nothing to hide (unless, of course, they are all anti-Semits too)?
"I do not think Emma or Foolestroupe are with you on that Jim."
Once again you are parasiting on other people's ideas by claiming them as your own. Can't you speak for yourself? Emma and Foolstroop are articulate people who put forward their own ideas; if I disagree with them, I will say so (I don't see a great deal of conflict here), but they are both capable of speaking for themselves - you just echo what others say or bounce off what others have said - no original ideas - just like previous threads
"I have not and do not support Israel's abuses. I just seek balance."
Then why not acknowledge and condemn or excuse, if you can, the Shatila and Sabra massacres, the attacks on civilians, which you denied happened despite filmed and eye witness evidence, the chemical attacks on occupied townships, the destruction of hospitals and schools.....
"I think you are in a place on your own."
I suggest you count your supporters on this and the two previous threads and come back when you have a number. You and BB appear to be the only supporters or apologists of Israel's atrocities here.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 28 Jul 10 - 08:21 PM

""Foolestroupe, he does supportit, saying every little helps.""

I took this wording to mean that _I_ support the madness. I do not support 'attacks', but one has to support 'defence' (pacifist or not!) - this does not mean that I see shooting live rounds at kids throwing rocks at tanks as a 'defence' - nor the said throwing of such rocks as an 'attack'!

To support aggression by one side while denying whatever poor 'retaliation' the victims of it can respond with very limited military force (throwing rocks!) to, IS hypocritical - just like the madmen in Ireland and their loony bigoted supporters carried on with.

Don't drag _ME_ into defending your losing argument with someone else!

The world is NOT just 'black and white' - it is shades of grey that you are unwilling to admit to, lest you feel that YOU could be wrong!

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 28 Jul 10 - 08:26 PM

"I ask you Foolestroupe, is it wrong and should it stop?"

QUOTE

"Question to Emma and Foolestroupe. Do you think the rocketing of civilians is wrong, and should it stop?"

And the targeting of kids throwing stones at tanks being killed by bullets (just to mention ONE of the many endless atrocities against civilians too numerous to mention) is, and it should stop also.
UNQUOTE

That was my plain and simple answer.

QUOTE
You sir, are a twisting manipulating liar, or else you lack the ability to understand plain English!
UNQUOTE


Go away!

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 28 Jul 10 - 08:30 PM

"The only balance will come when the Zionist's have been stopped in their quest to fulfill the prophecy of Israel stretching from Egypt to the Euphrates or when weapons of war are completely removed from their control."

Well JTS, I have been known to say for many years, that it would just be much cheaper for the US to target a couple hundred megatons on that big rock in the centre and melt it into a huge glowing hole that would keep ALL people away for a few hundred thousand years... :-)

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Emma B
Date: 28 Jul 10 - 09:24 PM

"Question to Emma and Foolestroupe. Do you think the rocketing of civilians is wrong, and should it stop?"

It is NOT 'acceptable' for ANYONE to commit war crimes

The Goldstone report in a 547 page document stated unambiguously that both sides in the conflict during Operation Cast Lead had committed 'war crimes' and 'acts that were likely crimes against humanity' during the fighting in the Gaza Strip.

This investigation was headed by Richard Goldstone, the former chief prosecutor of the international courts for Yugoslavia and Rwanda, comprised three other experts in various fields, including international law and weapons and was based on nearly 200 interviews and over 20,000 pages of documents and photos.

The report clearly stated its belief that the Israeli military operation was "directed at the people of Gaza as a whole" to "punish" the population.
It cited incidents where food productions facilities, drinking water installations and other such sites were attacked, saying these might be "crimes against humanity."

Investigations, the report said, led the team to believe Israeli forces used human shields in certain cases, hospitals were attacked and civilians were shot while carrying white flags.

On the other hand the report also condemned Palestinian rocket fire into southern Israel which constituted "war crimes and may amount to crimes against humanity" as the militants failed to distinguish between civilians and soldiers, causing "terror." but also added that Israel failed to protect its Arab citizens against the rocket fire in the same way that it protected its Jewish residents.


SO!
What was the response to the Goldstone report that concluded Palestinian factions were ALSO responsible for committing 'crimes against humanity'? ………………..

Now let's talk about 'balance' ............

The Jerusalem-based NGO Monitor predictably cast doubt as to the 'neutrality' of the Goldstone Commission on Gaza in much the same way it attempted to revile the Human Rights Watch group that reported critically on BOTH the firing of rockets from Gaza AND the use of White Phosphorus

Defence Minister Ehud Barak described it as "false, distorted, and irresponsible".

Maybe more predictably, Information Minister Yuli Edelstein called it "anti-Semitic.

Perhaps even more predictable was the infinite stream of ad hominem libel against its main author in a sustained effort to undermine the commissions findings, despite Israel's concerted non-cooperation with the commission and resistance to calls by Israeli and international human rights organisations for an independent Israeli investigation outside the military framework.

South African Judge Richard Goldstone, was also excoriated by leading members of the local Jewish community for chairing the commission.
He was told his commission's findings were lies; that he was naive and gullible for accepting the version of events given by terrorists; and that, since he is a Jew, he was a traitor to his people.

His critics were given support by Chief Rabbi Warren Goldstein, who chastised Goldstone for "doing great damage to the state of Israel". He should have recused himself instead, Goldstein said, and taken no part in the investigating mission.

Veteran journalist and political analyst Allister Sparks posed the question

"Goldstein is a trained lawyer as well as a rabbi. Did he mean that no Jew, however professionally disciplined — and Judge Goldstone's legal reputation is among the highest in the world — can be objective when it comes to a matter involving Israel?

And if so, does that involve Jews individually or collectively as well, or just the interests of the state of Israel?

Or did he mean that it is a Jewish person's inherent duty either to set aside his professional ethics and find in favour of the state of Israel regardless of the merits of a case or, if that is unacceptable, to recuse himself?
But that for a Jew to find against Israel is traitorous?"

Goldstone determined both sides had committed 'war crimes'

Israel initially completely denied any of its findings and instead substituted 'alternative' versions later proved to be fraudulent - critics were subsequently attacked as anti-semites or self-hating Jews -
there seems to be a pattern which was reflected in the reaction to the attack on the flotilla - to take us back to the start of this thread.

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Jul 10 - 02:08 AM

"Then why not acknowledge and condemn or excuse, if you can, the Shatila and Sabra massacres, the attacks on civilians, which you denied happened despite filmed and eye witness evidence, the chemical attacks on occupied townships, the destruction of hospitals and schools....."

The massacres were truly deplorable. Israeli forces should have acted to prevent them. They were disgraced by it.

I do not deny attacks on civillians but Israel does and the evidence is not there. Both sides do lie.

I do not know of any chemical attacks on townships. Please give details.

The destruction of schools and hospitals. The guilt is shared. Hamas chose to make civillian areas their battlefield for the shielding effect and the propaganda value of civillian casualties.
Israel should have shown even more restraint.

No unequivocal war crimes by Israel.
The rockets are. Also using civillians as shields is.

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Jul 10 - 03:49 AM

You have Emma's and Foolstroop's answer to your question Keith - more or less same as mine, and virtually everyone else's on this thread with the exception of a couple of rabid right wingers like yourself.
"The massacres were truly deplorable. Israeli forces should have acted to prevent them"
The Israelis participated in the massacres by providing the weapons and driving the actual perpetrators to the camps and then allowed the killers in - their role was an active, not a passive one - they shouldn't just have prevented them, they should not have participated in them, and should have punished the guilty people and not elected the one chiefly responsible Prime Minister.
"I do not deny attacks on civillians...."
Make up your mind Keith - you said or you didn't say "you are wrong to say that civillians were targeted." earlier; what's it to be?
"No unequivocal war crimes by Israel."
Then they should have no problem in participating in any enquiries along with the UN team, rather than insisting on holding their own (and finding themselves not guilty (once again). The history of this conflict is a long list of war crimes committed against civilians.
"I do not know of any chemical attacks on townships."
I assume you are continuing to re-define 'chemical weapons - been there, done that - read the thread - you and Brucie are the only ones denying that the weapons used are chemical - and you have a list of their effects on human beings.
"The guilt is shared. Hamas chose to make civillian...."
Been there also - even if this were true, and not used as an excuse to terrorise non-combatants - NO CIVILISED SOCIETY PARTICIPATES IN OR ALLOWS THE KILLING OR THE ENDANGERING OF THE LIVES OF HOSTAGES.
As bad as the rockets may be - and they're a pinprick compared to the military might of the Israeli weaponry used on civilians throughout this conflict, they are the only defence the Palestinians have to Israeli agression - what opposition would you propose in their place, or do you suggest that they surrender outright - and lay themselves open to further destruction of their homes, hospitals and schools, become refugees, move into camps, and are treated to repeats of past massacres?
You are, in effect, demanding the surrender of the Palestinians to Israeli demands. They could not rely on International protection as the most powerful countries, notebly the US have refused to act on their behalf, will continue to do so while they are under the thumb of Israeli supporters, and tend to be very free with their veto in the UN whenever action is proposed which runs contrary to their interests. They cannot go to the UN as the Israelis have refused to participate even in an enquiry on human rights abuses (they can afford to - they hold the nuclear threat).
As I said - you are demanding their outright surrender to a terrorist state - have I got that right?
A small thing - not trying to score points, just a persistant irritant - 'civilians' only has one 'l'
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Jul 10 - 04:19 AM

Make up your mind Keith - you said or you didn't say "you are wrong to say that civilians were targeted." earlier; what's it to be?

You are wrong to say it without clear evidence. I do not deny it, but it seems unlikely as Israel would gain nothing from it and suffer a propaganda defeat.

No country in the world regards wp smoke as a chemical weapon. Mudcat opinions hardly count.
Why single out Israel alone?

I do not demand Palestinian surrender.
It was Hamas rocketing that led to the incursion and all the consequent suffering. It would never have happened.
If Hamas renounced violence and recognised Israel, conflict would cease and a negotiations begin. Also there would be no blockade.

You have just said "bad as the rockets are"
I see that as a breakthrough and bringing us closer in our views. I do not understand how they can be said to be defencive though. Can you explain that?

Thanks for the spelling correction. Me a teacher too. The shame.

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Jul 10 - 05:19 AM

Firstly you have denied it and I included your having done so as a quote.
There is filmed evidence of Israeli attacks on civilians and the destruction of their homes; this was included in the BBC documentary on the incursion into Gaza, persistantly on news footage - (unless the UK has a news blackout on the subject - which I very much doubt, as BBC's has been the fairest and most comprehensive of all reporting). I would again recommend the harrowing 'Occupation 101 - Voices of the Silenced Majority (winner of 8 film festival awards), a comprehensive account of the whole conflict. We got our copy at a public screening by some of the people who were due to set off on the Rachel Corry relief ship the following week. The evidence is only not available if you do not wish to find it.
"No country in the world regards wp smoke as a chemical weapon"
Look at the definition and dispute it if you can.
If you mean the US does not recognise it as a chemical weapon - they describe the killing of civilians as 'collateral damage' and torture as 'extreme rendition' - they tend to have a way with words when it suits them. Your argument is a facilile one and whatever side of the fence you happen to fall on, the description of the effects on phosphorus remain exactly the same. It is these that the arguments should be centred on, not the diversionary what name it is given. The use of phosphorus is prohibited in populated areas; Israel was aware of this to the extent that they denied its use until they were faced with contrary evidence and admittted it; it is only you apologists who continue to attempt to divert the attention from it.
"Why single out Israel alone?"
I seem to remember discussing its use in Fallujah further up this thread - anyway, the subject on hand is Israel's atrocities.
"I do not understand how they can be said to be defencive though"
They are the only opposition to Israeli agression - you have not suggested an alternative, therefore the only option on hand is surrender.
"If Hamas renounced violence and recognised Israel, conflict would cease and a negotiations begin. Also there would be no blockade."
As the main aim of Israel is the acquisition of territory, I very much doubt that. It is Palestinian opposition to agression that will bring Israel to the conference table, not surrender - life appears to be like that everywhere unfortunately (including Ireland btw).
Why is it you always attempt to minimise israeli war crimes?
In your last posting you said of Shatila and Sabra "Israeli forces should have acted to prevent them" giving the impression that their only crime was inaction; surely you knew the extent of their participation in them? You adopt a similar stance on chemical weapons.
And now you remain silent on the killing of hostages - argument by ignoring the awkward bits seems to be your favoured technique.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Jul 10 - 05:38 AM

In your quote I did not deny civilian attacks.
I am not convinced of them but do not deny.
Obviously there were civilian casualties and damage. I would need evidence that it was deliberate targeting of civilians. What purpose?
Why not just attack those fighting back, of whom there were plenty?

Chemical Weapons.
It is not just USA. All armed forces use WP including those who have signed every chemical weapons treaty.
No country in the world classes WP as a chemical weapon, (or WP smoke as a weapon at all) so why should Israel?

Human shields in battle is not the same as a hostage situation.
You do not have to give up the battle because the enemy is using them.
The rules say you must give warnings and Israel complied with that.

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Jul 10 - 05:43 AM

"They are the only opposition to Israeli agression - you have not suggested an alternative, therefore the only option on hand is surrender."

Prior to the incursion there was no agression by Israel against Gaza.
Even the blockade was only a response to the rockets and other attacks from Gaza.
Killing civilians in Sderot is not defending you from anything.
It is just killing and unequivocally a war crime

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 29 Jul 10 - 06:05 AM

"Prior to the incursion there was no agression by Israel against Gaza."

Oh my God - my head hurts - is he really stupid or should I start believing the conspiracy theory that he is a dupe/secret agent trying to brainwash us....