BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Emma B
Date: 29 Jul 10 - 06:07 AM

Keith you have admitted to not reading my posts as, because I attempt to answer your continual repetitive questioning of evidence in some depth, you clain they are too long except to pick out the 'salient points'

Well here is one 'salient point' you seem to have omitted from my last post

The Goldstone commision accused Israeli forces of using Palestinian human shields during its invasion of Gaza, a breach of the Geneva conventions that prohibit intentionally putting civilian lives at risk; this practice has also been used (and filmed) in Nablus in the West Bank after the Israeli court specifically banned the tactic.


There is also the question of who is a 'combatant' who is a 'civilian'

An article in the Guardian 5 Jan 2009 reported -

"...when an Israeli military spokesman also says things like "anything affiliated with Hamas is a legitimate target," things get complicated.

The International Committee of the Red Cross - guardian of the Geneva Conventions on which international humanitarian law is based - defines a combatant as a person "directly engaged in hostilities".

But Israeli Defence Forces spokesman Captain Benjamin Rutland told the BBC: "Our definition is that anyone who is involved with terrorism within Hamas is a valid target. This ranges from the strictly military institutions and includes the political institutions that provide the logistical funding and human resources for the terrorist arm."

Philippe Sands, Professor of International Law at University College London, says he is not aware of any Western democracy having taken so broad a definition.

"Once you extend the definition of combatant in the way that IDF is apparently doing, you begin to associate individuals who are only indirectly or peripherally involved… it becomes an open-ended definition, which undermines the very object and purpose of the rules that are intended to be applied."

PROTOCOL 1 OF THE GENEVA CONVENTIONS - QUOTED BY ISRAEL, ALTHOUGH NOT SIGNED BY IT - SAYS THAT FOR A SITE TO BE A LEGITIMATE MILITARY TARGET IT MUST "MAKE AN EFFECTIVE CONTRIBUTION TO MILITARY ACTION" AND ITS DESTRUCTION OR NEUTRALISATION MUST ALSO OFFER "A DEFINITE MILITARY ADVANTAGE".

Israel says it has bombed mosques because they are used to store weapons, releasing video of the air strikes which it says shows secondary explosions as its proof.

But it gives no evidence for its claims that laboratories at the Islamic University, which it bombed heavily, were used for weapons research

....on its targeting of the education, interior and foreign ministries and the parliament building, Israel simply argues they are part of the Hamas infrastructure – and there is no difference between its political and military wings."

The Israel-based Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center, charged Hamas with methodically building its military infrastructure in the heart of population centers - againt this depends on the definition of 'military infrastructure'

The first wave of bombings, targeted police stations across Gaza, one strike killed at least 40 trainees on parade.
The Israeli human rights group B'Tselem, said it appears those killed were being trained in first aid, human rights and maintaining public order.

A money changers office was deliberately injuring a boy living on the floor above based on the claim that the money changers were involved in "the transfer of funds for terrorist activities".

Operation Cast Lead left between 1,166 and 1,417 Palestinians dead (most of them civilian) - and 13 Israelis killed (3 of these by an 'errant IDF tank shell')

THE LEGAL CONCEPT OF PROPORTIONALITY. DEMANDS THAT THE MILITARY GAIN OF A PARTICULAR OPERATION BE PROPORTIONAL TO THE LIKELY OR ACTUAL CIVILIAN LOSSES INCURRED IN CARRYING IT OUT.

The difference in civilian casualties in the Gaza war is stark compared with 18 Israelis from rocket fire since 2001.

"Witnesses and analysts confirm that Hamas fires rockets from within populated civilian areas, and all sides agree that the movement flagrantly violates international law by targeting civilians with its rockets.

But while B'Tselem's Ms Montell describes the rocket fire as a "blatant war crime", she adds: "I certainly would not expect my government to act according to the standard Hamas has set for itself - we demand a higher standard." - source as above


p.s.
"No country in the world regards wp smoke as a chemical weapon."

Please don't start this personal 'smokescreen' again Keith - time after time after time you have been advised that WP is internationally defined as an 'incendiary WEAPON' and by the US as a 'chemical weapon' when it wished to demonstrate the use of such weapons by Saddam

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Emma B
Date: 29 Jul 10 - 06:20 AM

Apologies for a correction - the article quoted above was from the BBC news and not the Guardian as I stated

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Jul 10 - 10:37 AM

"In your quote I did not deny civilian attacks. I am not convinced of them but do not deny. I would need evidence that it was deliberate targeting of civilians"
Yes you did deny it - now you are disputing your own statements. What is there not to believe - don't they have televisions in Hertford or did the cameramen fake them and lie about what they were. Were the UN observers lying in their accounts, or the doctors in the hospitals that were shelled, or the teachers who had to herd the children to relative safety while the barrages were taking place? Were the newspapers lying. Come on!!!
"Prior to the incursion there was no agression by Israel against Gaza."
The Shatila and Sabra massacres took place in 1982 - Israel had already provided the world with proof of their ability to slaughter anybody who got in their way, refugees, civilians, aid workers, you name it , they'll targate them - or don't these count?
"No country in the world classes WP as a chemical weapon, (or WP smoke as a weapon at all) so why should Israel"
You are using diverionary tactics again - you have the effect of these weapons, they are banned for use in residential areas = Israel committing war crimes.
And once again you are trivialising the effect these weapons have on human beings - the ones that appeared in the documentary on the incursion, or the ones shown with the artical on Fallujah, along with the US soldier's description of the horrific injuries; ort maybe this biologist's account
"A biologist in Fallujah, Mohamad Tareq, interviewed for the film, says: "A rain of fire fell on the city, the people struck by this multi-coloured substance started to burn, we found people dead with strange wounds, the bodies burned but the clothes intact"
What kind of person are you that can excuse this in support of a terrorist state?
Can I suggest you grit your teeth, stop feigning goldfish concentration syndrome and read some contributions of more that a couple of paragraphs, particularly Emmas - if you haven't got the humanity to admit Israel's war crimes, at least have the good manners to read what sshe has to say; she's obviously gone to a great deal of trouble searching out her information to answer your 'challenges. Nobody is going to tailor their arguments to suit conveniently acquires dyslexia.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Jul 10 - 12:20 PM

If I am not denying attacks on civilians, but I am not convinced they have been deliberately targeted. I think you are too easy to convince.
No agression prior to incursion.
I know there has been conflict there for ever. I meant since Israel withdrew its settlers and forces from Gaza.
That could and should have been the end of conflict there.
The attacks from Gaza were unprovoked.

Chemical weapons.
Sadaam did use chemical weapons. Poison gas.
Whatever any of us may think, ALL ARMED FORCES USE WP INCLUDING ALL THOSE WHO HAVE SIGNED EVERY CHEMICAL WEAPONS TREATY.
WP is not recognised as CW for all its nasty effects.
Israel's weapons were legal, and had it signed all the treaties they still would have been.

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Jul 10 - 12:21 PM

Sorry, delete first word "If"

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 29 Jul 10 - 12:45 PM

Keith,

They were using White Phospherous on one of the most densely populated strips of land on earth.

They used cluster bombs and land mines on farmland in south Lebanon.

They often use collective punishment.

The very definition of the current blockade is collective punishment.

Why blockade luxury goods if not to punish the population for voting for Hamas?

All of the above are war crimes.

Why level so many buildings then blockade building materials?

Yes concrete can be used build bunkers. But obviously those bunkers are only useful against massed military attacks. the government of Israel may have a right to defend its population, but the "right" they now defend and claim, the "right" to blockade to maximize the possibility of unfettered attack is beyond absurd.

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Emma B
Date: 29 Jul 10 - 01:04 PM

"Even the blockade was only a response to the rockets and other attacks from Gaza."

You are obviously not entirely up to date with the ststements from the Israeli government Keith


Immediately after Israeli commandos killed nine volunteers on a Turkish-organized Gaza aid flotilla, Israel again reiterated its claim that the aim in blockading Gaza was to stop the flow of terrorist arms into Gaza - presumably only achieved by stopping the import of ginger, paper, vegetables, musical instruments and the fabric required for the production of diapers and not allowing the export of vegetables and other means of economic survival etc out

"However, in response to a recent lawsuit by Gisha, an Israeli human rights group, the Israeli government has now explained the blockade as an exercise of the right of economic warfare.

"A country has the right to decide that it chooses not to engage in economic relations or to give economic assistance to the other party to the conflict, or that it wishes to operate using 'economic warfare,'"

The Israeli government also took an additional step and said the economic warfare is intended to achieve a political goal a government spokesman commenting that authorities will continue to 'ease' the blockade but "could not lift the embargo altogether as long as Hamas remains in control" of Gaza"

Information from McClatchy website June 9, 2010 "Israeli document: Gaza blockade isn't about security"

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Jul 10 - 02:11 PM

Jack and Emma, I told Carol much earlier in thread that i do not support the blockade, but it is usual for warring states to blockade.
Hamas chose to make war on Israel and israel imposed a blockade. Some people say blockade is collective punishment, but it has always been a legitimate tactic in war. The concept of collective punishment was never intended to cover it.

I remember the cluster bombs in Lebanon, and the civilian casualties caused by unexploded bomblets.
It was argued with some justification that they should be treated as land mines because of that. Are you sure that Israel ever used them again? In Gaza?

They used white phosphorus smoke munitions in gaza. We have argued about it here. I acknowledge civilian casualties were caused, but not that civilians were targeted. It was to screen their soldiers from the enemy.

It would be better if Hamas did not choose to engage Israel from within Gaza City.

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

I really don't see the point of carrying this any further with Keith.
You say that my attitude to the bombardment is Creepy (or some such word - can't be bothered)
Your attitude to this is creepy to me in one respect.
It closely resembles every argument I have ever had or read on holocaust denial.
You present a holocaust denier with concentration camps - they didn't exist and were made up (eye witness accounts and photographs - lies and fakes).
Present you with phosphorus bombing and the deaths and injuries caused - didn't happen they were smoke bombs (eye withness evidence and photographs ignored).
Present them with the anihilation of millions of human beings - the natural casualities of wartime conditions.
Present you with civilian casualities and deaths - the natural casualties of war.
When people like Emma or Foolstroop present information, you refuse to read it because it's 'too long', and they are deliberately trying to blind you with science - pretty much as you did with me on the Unionist Marches thread.
Everything else is either ignored or flatly denied - never disproved. Your ignorance of all the subjects I have encountered you on is monumental - you argue without proof, picking up on what others put
forward rather than producing knowledge and understanding of your own.
In an odd way I can understand holocaust deniers - If I supported an political ideal or a national leadership who did the things the Nazis did, I would want it not to be true; I would want to persuade people (and myself) that those I had put my trust in and given my support to could not possibly have done the things they were accused of doing.
I don't begin to understand where you are coming from.
You have spoken up fin support of three of the most inhuman and degrading subjects I know - the massacre of unarmed demonstrators in Derry, the causes of sectarian violence, and now Israeli fascism. You argue as if it's a ego-boosting, point scoring game.
I've finished arguing with you Keith - come back when you've got something to contribute and when you are prepared to consider and respond top the arguments of others.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 29 Jul 10 - 04:17 PM

I suspect that Jim Carroll is onto something here.

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Jul 10 - 05:39 PM

Not creepy.
Only thread creep.
I said i was shocked by your attitude to the rockets.
Every little counts means good, and more would be better.
I am glad you have now called them bad.

"never disproved"
Of course I can not disprove deliberate attacks on civilians.
You can not prove such a negative.
There is no proof either way or the debate would not go on, and I do not just mean on Mudcat.
I keep an open mind. You all close yours and just heed the propaganda of one side.

We must accept we will never agree.
I do agree further discussion is futile.

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Jul 10 - 05:54 PM

"I am glad you have now called them bad." "You all close yours and just heed the propaganda of one side."
To the end you go down trying to score egotistical points.
"I do agree further discussion is futile."
No Keith - discussion WITH YOU is futile - I am more than happy to continue debating with anybody else - they listen and are prepared to consider and debate the arguments of others.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Emma B
Date: 29 Jul 10 - 08:51 PM

"...it is usual for warring states to blockade"

I am not interested in 'scoring points' just at least maintaining some accuracy - I prefer to make up my own mind about the Hasbara machine's propaganda.

Please note!

GAZA IS NOT A STATE!
this has far greater implications legally than just a correction of an inaccurate statement on a mudcat thread


Gaza was occupied by Israel in 1967 and, under customary international law, Israel has been the occupier of the strip since.
Despite ending their physical occupation of the Gaza Strip in 2005 when they withdrew Israel still maintained "effective control" over the Gaza Strip through control of its land borders (the Apartheid Wall), air space and of course, sea lanes.

It has the security advantage of effective control which it has exercised through incursions, the creation of buffer zones within the strip, routine aerial attacks etc.

BUT, it has simultaneously denied the obligations which come along with occupation; the main one which is upholding the well-being of the civilian population.


The international legal framework which is most appropriate for assessing Israel's obligations is the Fourth Geneva Convention, to which Israel is a party to.

Part 1 Article 55 of the IV Geneva Convention clearly states:

To the fullest extent of the means available to it, the Occupying Power has the duty of ensuring the food and medical supplies of the population; it should, in particular, bring in the necessary foodstuffs, medical stores and other articles if the resources of the occupied territory are inadequate.

From the San Remo San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea

Part IV : Methods and means of warfare at sea

SECTION II : METHODS OF WARFARE

Blockade

102. The declaration or establishment of a blockade is prohibited if:

(a) it has the sole purpose of starving the civilian population or denying it other objects essential for its survival; or

(b) the damage to the civilian population is, or may be expected to be, excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated from the blockade.

103. IF THE CIVILIAN POPULATION OF THE BLOCKADED TERRITORY IS INADEQUATELY PROVIDED WITH FOOD AND OTHER OBJECTS ESSENTIAL FOR ITS SURVIVAL, THE BLOCKADING PARTY MUST PROVIDE FOR FREE PASSAGE OF SUCH FOODSTUFFS AND OTHER ESSENTIAL SUPPLIES…


The bottom line is that the legality of the blockade- which has, by the admission of the Israeli government itself, the purpose of "putting the Gazans on a diet", is in fact illegal under these laws because it is designed specifically to cause collective suffering throughout the entire populace.

Additionally, Israel is not letting supplies through freely after inspection- it is in fact seizing those supplies and letting the vast majority of them rot, like the clothing and shoes that were held up for 3 years - obviously because they threatened Israel's security!

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Jul 10 - 03:09 AM

You should try discussing with me before giving up Jim.
You say Israel used illegal weapons.
I point out that all countries have them including liberal demacracies like Norway,Sweden, Canada, New Zealand,...
You can not reply, so liken me to a holocaust denier instead.
Jack says they used cluster bombs in Gaza.
I ask for confirmation.
Nothing, except agreement with Jim about me being like a holocaust denier.
You say they target civilians.
I point out that an agressive enemy was fighting them from among those civilians so how can you be sure.
You can not answer so say it is futile.

Emma, whatever Gaza is, it is at war with Israel.
Israel is careful to abide by the letter of the law on blockades.
It does let humanitarian stuff in and enough food to prevent starvation.
You can say it is not enough. I can agree, but the legality is a matter for lawyers.

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Jul 10 - 05:47 AM

2 reports from today's Irish newspapers:
Dunnes Stores:
Dunnes, the Irish Supermarket chain has received a petition from The Irish Palestine Solidarity Campaign bearing 6,000 names, requesting that it stop stocking Israeli products becausee of its polices on Palestine.
IPSC chairperson Freda Hughes said all supermarkets selling Israeli goods would eventually be targeted, but Dunnes had been chosen to start the campaign because of the historical significance of the anti-apartheid strike in the 1980s.
Parallels were drawn between the apartheid regime and the State of Israel.
"Just as South African forces shot and killed their own people in Sharpville and Uitenhage, so do the Israeli military adopt a shoot-to-kill policy".

Jerusalem:
Israeli settlers took over a Palestinian home in Jerusalem's Old City yesterday, evicting about 44 members of an extended family who had occupied the building for more than 70 years.
The settlerrs said they had bought the building.
The Palestinians were challenging the takeover in court. They had rented the building since 1938 and had won two previous court cases challenging eviction orders.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Emma B
Date: 30 Jul 10 - 06:35 AM

Keith - this is YOUR method of 'discussion'

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Jack the Sailor - PM
Date: 29 Jul 10 - 12:45 PM

Keith,
They were using White Phospherous on one of the most densely populated strips of land on earth.

They used cluster bombs and land mines on farmland in south Lebanon.

From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 29 Jul 10 - 02:11 PM

I remember the cluster bombs in Lebanon, and the civilian casualties caused by unexploded bomblets.
Are you sure that Israel ever used them again? In Gaza?

From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 30 Jul 10 - 03:09 AM

Jack says they used cluster bombs in Gaza.
I ask for confirmation.

Nobody, NOBODY in this thread has said that cluster bombs were used in Gaza!

You do this ALL the time Keith

This is NOT 'discussion' in any meaning of the word I'm aware of

You are just so damn anxious to get your 'point scoring' in that you consistently fail to read what people actually say and, as you have been frequently - and accurately - accused, put words in people's mouths.

This, of course, drives people to frustration and simply accepting there is no point in any further attempts at normal debate - at which point you have 'won' haven't you?

I care deeply about the humanitarian crisis in Gaza and I'm not prepared to use the situation to indulge in this kind of 'game playing'

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Jul 10 - 06:57 AM

"I care deeply about the humanitarian crisis in Gaza"
You're wasting your time Emma - you are talking to somebody who doesn't.
Why not find a convenient wall to talk to, you'll probably get a more intelligent response.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Jul 10 - 08:09 AM

I made a mistake about the cluster bombs.
Thank you for pointing it out Emma.
Jack, I am sorry for what I said.
keith.

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Jul 10 - 08:16 AM

Jim, you quoted me,
"I am glad you have now called them bad." "You all close yours and just heed the propaganda of one side."
and added,
"To the end you go down trying to score egotistical points."

If it is egotistical to be open minded, questioning and sceptical, then I plead guilty.
What words describe someone who just swallows anything Hamas claims?
Naive? Gullible? Dupe? (Can you give a single Hamas claim you question?)

I was glad you called the rocketing of Israeli civilians bad.
Previously you described it as good. That is what "every little helps" means after all.

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 30 Jul 10 - 10:23 AM

"It would be better if Hamas did not choose to engage Israel from within Gaza City. "

Well, where the bloody hell are they supposed to 'engage them from' - bloody Poland?

!!!! They'd probably LOVE to do that, if the Israelis would let them LEAVE GAZA, WHICH IS WHERE THEY LIVE, anyway..... sigh....

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Jul 10 - 10:53 AM

"I was glad you called the rocketing of Israeli civilians bad."
You continue to distort the meaning of what I said despite the fact that I have clarified my position on the subject of the bombardment on at least three seperate occasions - point-scoring to the point of obsession.
This malicious method of distortion on your part is typical of your style of 'debating' on every thread I have encountered you on.
You have deliberately attempted to misrepresent what I and others have said on this thread, which serves only to underline perfectly why responding to you is a total waste of time.
Why involve yourself in a debate on something you neither understand nor care enough to discuss honestly?
Please leave me out of your sick deliberations.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Jul 10 - 11:21 AM

Foolestroupe, Gaza City is urban and densely populated.
Not all of Gaza is, but that is where the rockets mostly come from and where Hamas fighters operate from.
Israel entered Gaza to try to stop the rockets.
Where should they have gone after the war criminals, Poland?
(Sigh)

Jim, "bad as they are" means "they are bad", just as "every little helps" means "they are good but more would be better"

Why write such stuff if you mean something else?

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Jul 10 - 11:54 AM

Emma, I know you care deeply.
You should not presume to have the monopoly on caring.
Wanting to see past the propaganda and lies of both sides is not absence of feeling.
We should be able to have some friendly banter across the barricades too.

Further debate with me really will be futile for the next couple of days, as I will be off line.

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Jul 10 - 01:20 PM

I repeat - leave me out of your sick mind-games.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Emma B
Date: 30 Jul 10 - 01:28 PM

'A "loaded question", like a loaded gun, is a dangerous thing. A loaded question is a question with a false or questionable presupposition, and it is "loaded" with that presumption.

Since a question is not an argument, simply asking a loaded question is not (in itself) a fallacious argument although fallacious arguments are often structured using rhetorical patterns that obscure the logical argument,'

Rather, loaded questions such as you continually pose Keith are typically used to trick someone into implying something they did not intend and I am inclined to agree with Jim that attempts at debate against such tactics are futile

You ask
"What words describe someone who just swallows anything Hamas claims?"

The thing is Keith - it's not 'Hamas claims' that are being discussed here but evidence from various sources including human rights groups, witnesses to UN commissions, and IDF soldiers themselves.

The only appropriate response to such a question - containing as it does the implication that the people disagreeing with you are merely acting as mouthpieces for Hamas - is not to answer it directly, but to either refuse to answer or to reject the question..

But the 'game' demands that any refusal to answer these loaded questions is some kind of admission that you have 'won'

"Wanting to see past the propaganda and lies of both sides is not absence of feeling"
"You all close your (minds) and just heed the propaganda of one side"

Keith I will once more point out to you that much of what has been posted here has come not from 'one side' as you fallaciously put it but from the UN and a number of human rights organizations from both inside and outside Israel

The use of air fired WP shells bombarding Gaza City, for example, has not only been recorded on film, observed in the horrific burns and deaths of civilian victims, confirmed by some IDF soldiers themselves and even admitted (finally) in the Israeli press

But you continue to regurgitate the Hasbara line which has now apparently taken an interesting twist by claiming, as the American abused this weapon in Fallujah, they have no right to criticize Israel for its use in densely populated areas in Gaza


"Hamas chose to make civillian areas their battlefield for the shielding effect and the propaganda value of civillian casualties."

This is an example of your claim to be the only person 'Wanting to see past the propaganda'?

The Gaza citizens, whether they support Hamas or not - and enough people did to democratically vote them into power while 56% of the population are children and unable to vote - live alongside members of the Hamas government in much the same way that people in other countries are neighbours of their local elected representatives.....

Yeah! ….futile.

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Jul 10 - 02:41 PM

It would appear the supporters of Israel are members of the "melt the skin off children" lobby, if this article from an American newspaper is anything to go by.
This is what the Israelis used in heavily populated Gaza - what the apologists are supporting by lying about its effects and dening that it is illegal to use it in residential areas.
Jim Carroll.

An account of the use of White phosphorus in Fallujah from an American report of the battle and its aftermath.

"We fired 'shake and bake' missions at the insurgents, using WP to flush them out and HE to take them out."
Mr. D also points to a comment on Altercation.com, that provides further ammunition – for "illumination purposes" – on the effect of white phosphorous on human beings. There, Mark Kraft writes: "There is no way you can use white phosphorus like that without forming a deadly chemical cloud that kills everything within a tenth of a mile in all directions from where it hits. Obviously, the effect of such deadly clouds weren't just psychological in nature."
Another Kossack, "Hunter," digs up mention of Willy Pete use as a weapon in Washington Post reports from the battlefield itself last November. He then takes on the hair-splitters who immediately arose on the Right to declare that white phosphorous is not itself a banned substance, so it's OK to incinerate children with it. Hunter's incandescant irony is worth quoting at length:
"First, I think it should be a stated goal of United States policy to not melt the skin off of children. As a natural corollary to this goal, I think the United States should avoid dropping munitions on civilian neighborhoods which, as a side effect, melt the skin off of children.
You can call them 'chemical weapons' if you must, or far more preferably by the more proper name of 'incendiaries.' The munitions may or may not precisely melt the skin off of children by setting them on fire; they do melt the skin off of children, however, through robust oxidation of said skin on said children, which is indeed colloquially known as 'burning'…
"And I know it is true, there is some confusion over whether the United States was a signatory to the Do Not Melt The Skin Off Of Children part of the Geneva conventions, and whether or not that means we are permitted to melt the skin off of children, or merely are silent on the whole issue of melting the skin off of children…[However] I am going to come out, to the continuing consternation of Rush "Drug Rehab" Limbaugh and pro-war supporters everywhere, as being anti-children-melting, as a matter of general policy."

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 30 Jul 10 - 07:16 PM

"Foolestroupe, Gaza City is urban and densely populated.
Not all of Gaza is, but that is where the rockets mostly come from"

You are so self brain washed that you cannot see that you may in fact need medical, if not philosophical/rhetorical help.

The films released by the 'freedom fighters' as they call themselves, show them launching these weapons from open fields.

"where the rockets mostly come from"

... but the invisible magic sky fairly who whispers your lines in your ear knows bette, obviously.....

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 30 Jul 10 - 07:25 PM

WP - it does NOT matter HOW (or for what reason you CLAIM) you release the chemical white phosphorous into the air, if it contacts human flesh - or indeed almost any organic substance, it 'melts' it by 'oxidation' - it 'sucks' the chemical oxygen out of the organic material by chemical reaction, thus breaking down the flesh. This usually kills the victim.

It's just a slower form of napalm, really. And just as 'humane', too.

You might as well spray napalm around a battlefield, claiming that you are only using it for illumination purposes, and that the smoke form its burning will form smoke screens.

'shake and bake' - The US has traditionally provided 'military advisors' for certain countries in the Middle East....

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 31 Jul 10 - 02:26 PM

Keith,

Thank you for the apology but I don't think you are getting what is said to you. You imply that you had been open minded all along in the post IMMEDIATELY after admitting that you did not read what I was saying.

THE MOST IMPORTANT PART OF BEING OPEN MINDED is informing ones self in an objective way. YOU NEED TO PAY ATTENTION to what others are saying.

You also need to try to follow the logic of what is being said and try to gather a few basic facts.

>>>Foolestroupe, Gaza City is urban and densely populated.
Not all of Gaza is, but that is where the rockets mostly come from and where Hamas fighters operate from.<<<

All of the Gaza Strip, according to the CIA fact book is 2 times the Area of Washington DC. The population of Gaza is 1.6 million, about 3 times the population of Washington. Any way you cut it Gaza is densely populated. I've never been to Gaza but I've been to Washington, it is very densely populated. Imagining putting 1.5 times as many people into the same area make my head hurt.

But you said this, "but that is where the rockets mostly come from and where Hamas fighters operate from." referring to Gaza City which you are implying is far more more populated than Gaza as a whole. By your logic that makes Gaza City far more heavily populated than Washington.

You claim that the WP was used by the IDF as a smoke screen.

The WP was fired from 155 mm howitzers in airbursts according to the IDF, which until the Attack on Gaza was over refused to admit any use, over positions from which they claim Gaza Militants were firing.

Isn't a smoke screen, meant to hide positions, supposed to be between you and the opposition or over you to hide your troops not over them obscuring them?

The intended use of the WP in the attack on Gaza was clearly to burn buildings and people. It fell on refugee camps, schools, UN compounds and aide. It is a very imprecise and destructive weapon. Using it in a place many times more populated than Washington DC can have only one clear military use, general destruction of civilians and civilian infrastructure. In the context of an occupation, this is clearly a war crime.

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Aug 10 - 05:26 PM

Jack, I should read every word of every post very carefully, but remember I am mostly answering four of you on my own, and there are some very, very long posts being produced. And now Jim has even started producing copies of Emma's very long posts from just a few days ago!
Jack, I thought your post was all about Gaza, which is at least in the subject of this thread. I know Jim had already tried to thread creep it into Lebanon, having already crept it away from the aid convoy, but I missed that you also had added in Lebanon and I said sorry.

My original reply was completely relevant as I pointed out they had never used cluster bombs since. They would have been devastatingly effective in Gaza had they really wanted to kill civilians.

I will respond to the other posts later.

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Aug 10 - 06:14 PM

Any open-minded comment on the air attack on the residential area of a coastal city 7 miles north of Gaza Keith? Miraculously no casualties, just homes damaged, and they don't count I suppose (but neither does human life to Keith), but I'm sure they'll try harder next time.
This thread was about Israel's act of piracy and has developed into a general discussion on its inhumanity - not a thread-creep, just a logical development - it happens on many threads (unless people like you manage to confine it to their narrow band of perceived knowledge).
Sorry about repeating your information Emma - I really didn't notice, there were plenty of other acts of inhumanity I could have chosen - google Chemical Weapon Attacks Keith.
I did request that you left me out of your mind-games.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 01 Aug 10 - 07:43 PM

"I should read every word of every post very carefully" "there are some very, very long posts being produced. And now Jim has even started producing copies of Emma's very long posts from just a few days ago!"

1) if you skim/ignore stuff, it affects your ability to consider the whole matter with an open mind...

2) When you start denying/ignoring relevant information, some people may think that repeating it is helpful for you... see also 1) ...

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 01 Aug 10 - 07:49 PM

"would have been devastatingly effective in Gaza had they really wanted to kill civilians."

But trying to do it all at once in a hurry, got a previous nasty man in lots of hot water.... so remember the old saying "just a little every day, gets the job done" ... :-0

Just watching the other day news footage (We Aussies have SBS TV which shows news/current affairs from many overseas countries - with subtitles) of patrolling IDF forces randomly shooting up farmers trying to work their fields next to the 'giant prison fence' circling their country where their family has lived for as many generations as they can remember.... the IDF doesn't even CARE if they can see filming international news media with them...

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Aug 10 - 02:54 AM

So Jim pays even less attention to Emma's long posts than I do!
(I recognised it at once).
Will you all be remonstrating with him about that?

Jim,
"Any open-minded comment on the air attack on the residential area of a coastal city 7 miles north of Gaza Keith? Miraculously no casualties, just homes damaged, and they don't count I suppose (but neither does human life to Keith), but I'm sure they'll try harder next time."
It was a rocket, not air, attack on the Israeli city of Ashkelon Jim.
A shameful unprovoked attack on civilians.

An air attack was in response to that shrapnel packed rocket that landed among family homes.

No rocket, no air attack. Hamas agression to blame again.
BBC said this about it.

The strikes came after a rocket fired from the coastal enclave by militants earlier on Friday hit the Israeli city of Ashkelon on the Mediterranean coast.

That attack caused no casualties but damaged a building and cars in the city, 12km (7 miles) north of Gaza.

Hamas - the Islamist group which controls the territory - named the dead militant as Issa Batran, 42 - a commander of the group's military wing in central Gaza and a rocket maker.

The military wing, the al-Qassam Brigades, said eight other Hamas supporters and three civilians were also injured in air strikes on a Hamas military training camp in Gaza City, smuggling tunnels along the Gaza-Egypt border and a target outside a central Gaza refugee camp.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-10824909

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Aug 10 - 04:17 AM

Thank you for your adaptation of a news report on yet another attack on civilians, which you said were not happening.
The next tottering step on your part will be to admit that the Israelis are deliberately targeting civilians as a terror tactic. Rocket attacks on smugglers tunnels are totally ineffective, so intimidation can be their only motive.
The attacks in Gaza were targeted on a training camp for medical workers, by the way - another peep at Israili humanity.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Aug 10 - 04:42 AM

Jim, you asked me, "Any open-minded comment on the air attack on the residential area of a coastal city 7 miles north of Gaza Keith? "

That was a Hamas attack on ordinary families in Ashkelon.
I gave you my open minded opinion. Can we have yours now?

The Israeli reply was targeted on Hamas fighters.
Who says it was a medical establishment? Hamas? Must be true then, right.
Hamas also announced the loss of a number of fighters, and a rocket maker.

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Aug 10 - 05:03 AM

The Reuter report carried in The Irish Times on Saturday said it was a camp used by trainee medical workers that was attacked.
Again you are equating random attacks by primitive rocket launchers with deliberate targeting of civilian areas by sophisticated weapons as consitently carried out by the Israelis - that is not my opinion of acceptible behaviour - but then again, my attitude isn't that the Palestinians should surrender to Israeli aggression and usurpation of territory, as your has been on this thread.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Aug 10 - 06:00 AM

Here is a Reuter's report on it Jim

An Israeli air strike has killed a Hamas military commander and rocket maker in the Gaza Strip, the Islamist group that rules the Palestinian territory said on Saturday.

Issa Batran was killed by a missile that hit his caravan in the central Gaza Strip. Israel launched air strikes against targets in Gaza on Friday after a rocket fired from the enclave exploded in the city of Ashkelon.

The air strikes also hit a training camp in Gaza City used by Hamas and smuggling tunnels along Gaza's southern border with Egypt. Several people were wounded by debris in Gaza City.

Hamas said Batran was a rocket maker and the head of its military wing in the central Gaza Strip. The militant group has a rocket arsenal of crude, homemade projectiles and longer-range rockets smuggled in through tunnels under the border with Egypt.

Israel carried out the air strikes after militants in Gaza fired a rocket into Ashkelon on Israel's Mediterranean coast, blowing out the windows of an apartment block and damaging parked cars in a residential area.
http://alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/LDE66U00V.htm

A training camp used by Hamas.
Are Hamas training many doctors and nurses? Why in a camp and not the hospital Jim.
You are so gullible.

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Aug 10 - 06:04 AM

Jim,
"Again you are equating random attacks by primitive rocket launchers with deliberate targeting of civilian areas"

Some of the rockets are of advanced Chinese manufacture brought in instead of food and humanitarian supplies through the tunnels.
They are aimed at civilian residential areas.
Deliberately aimed and targeted.
If they stopped, the replies would stop.

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: bobad
Date: 02 Aug 10 - 06:19 AM

Rockets fired towards Israel from Sinai peninsula

Harriet Sherwood in Jerusalem
guardian.co.uk, Monday 2 August 2010 09.11 BST

A salvo of rockets was fired this morning towards the southern Israeli resort city of Eilat from the Sinai peninsula. There were no casualties or damage in Eilat but there were initial reports of four injuries in the nearby Jordanian city Aqaba.

Five rockets were fired shortly before 8am, according to early reports. One reached open ground on the outskirts of Eilat, a seaside resort popular with Israelis. Three landed in the Red Sea and one hit Aqaba, with some reports saying four people were injured.

The Israeli army said it was searching the area around Eilat and co-ordinating with the Jordanian and Egyptian militaries.

A Jordanian interior ministry source told Reuters: "The Grad rocket landed in a public street near a major five star hotel and caused four injuries, with three persons lightly wounded and the other casualty in a serious condition."

The attack follows a series of rocket launches from Gaza into Israel over the past few days. One Katyusha rocket reached the city Ashkelon causing panic among residents. Israel retaliated with air strikes on Gaza City, killing a senior Hamas commander, Issa Batran. Hamas's military wing pledged to avenge his death.

Further Israeli airstrikes destroyed two tunnels and last night the home of a second senior Hamas commander, Alaa al-Danaf, was rocked by an explosion in which more than 20 were injured. Israel denied involvement.

Attacks by militants on and around Eilat are unusual, although two rockets were fired from the Sinai at the Israeli city in April. A suicide bomber killed three people there in January 2007.

According to Israel, Hamas uses the Sinai Peninsula as a smuggling route for weapons into Gaza. The militant organisation has close links with the Muslim Brotherhood, a banned Islamic organisation in Egypt.

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 02 Aug 10 - 07:50 AM

"If they stopped, the replies would stop. "


Wa-a-a-a-a-a-aH!

But he hit me back first!...

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Aug 10 - 07:58 AM

"You are so gullible"
Once again you are claiming neutrality and taking sides, as you did when you distorted the effects of phosphorus on civilians.
The weapons you are describing are new additions to the Palestinians meagre arsenal and are still piss-poor in comarison with what the Israelis have at their disposal. I doubt if it is coincidence that the Israelis have announced that they are willing to re-open negotiations within two weeks - a combination of the effects of their massive own-gaol over the piracy and the fact that Palestinian opposition appears to be increasing and becoming more efficient.
This continues to be a David and Goliath (ironic that) fight with poorly equipped Palestinians faced with a heavily armed enemy using sophisticated weapons, tanks and planes, who are happy to target homes hospitals, schools and civilians in general. The Israelis continue to be the aggressor in this conflict and are recognised as such throughout the world. The reports of Israeli settlers taking over Palestinian homes and property continue, almost on a daily basis. The Palestinians are the victims who are entitled to show resistance.
Compare the casualty figures in this conflict if you have any doubts.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Aug 10 - 08:40 AM

And before you accuse me or anybody of being gullible I suggest you take stock of the support you have got on this issue.
This is now the third thread in which you have found yourself very much in the minority, an indication, to me at least, that your views put you so far to the right as to be pretty well beyond the pale of most reasonable-thinking people.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Aug 10 - 09:19 AM

Jim,
"Once again you are claiming neutrality and taking sides, as you did when you distorted the effects of phosphorus on civilians"

I am quite knowledgeable about this.
I do not believe I have distorted any aspect of it.
I say you have made that up.
Prove me wrong Jim.

I still claim neutrality.

Were Israel the most advanced civilisation on earth, it can not stop Hamas' rockets killing its people.
No state, however advanced, can allow that to continue.
The crudest of their rockets, with explosive wrapped around with metal fragments, are lethal.
And they are aimed at residential areas to kill civilians.
I find that shocking, and I do not even claim to be a pacifist.

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Aug 10 - 09:24 AM

Jim, here is a picture of one of your army's vehicles.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Irish_Scorpion_Tank.JPG
Those stubby tubes on the turret are for launching white phosphorus smoke munitions.
Will you be starting a campaign any time soon?

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Roberto
Date: 02 Aug 10 - 10:00 AM

Jim to Keith: "you have found yourself very much in the minority".

To be in the minority should not scare anybody, particularly when discussing on the Israel/Palestine question, where in the Left wing political area, to which I think most of us belong, there is an overwhelming majority against Israel and an incredible (to me) support to political movements that despise freedom of thought and speech, critical education, equality between sexes, political and civil rights, division of powers, secularism, economic development.

It is important to weigh the ideas of the others, especially when they express a majority, but conformism should not be our reference.

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 02 Aug 10 - 10:09 AM

"A training camp used by Hamas.
Are Hamas training many doctors and nurses? Why in a camp and not the hospital Jim.
You are so gullible. "

Because the IDF blew the crap out of all the hospitals, they are more rubble than sanitary working places of healing.

By your own logic, since all fit citizens, male and female are IDF reserbvists, then 'Israeli Civilian Areas where off duty IDF reservists may live' are thus valid military targets. You are so gullible.

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Aug 10 - 10:13 AM

"Prove me wrong Jim."
You have been proved wrong by the definitions presented to you which you continue to ignore, by the descriptions of the effects of phosphorus when used on human beings, by the film footage of phoshorus fragments falling on residential areas and by the reports from medical teams treating the injured following the last incursion - if you are 'knowledgeable' about this as you claim, then you have been deliberately distorting what you profess to know.
"I still claim neutrality."
You joke - surely? You have denied, distorted or supported every Israeli war crime and act of brutality put to you, and when you were cornered you paid lip service to 'regretting it'.
"And they are aimed at residential areas to kill civilians."
Up to now the rockets and the circumstances in which they are fired are incapable of being aimed anywhere - read Bobad's description of casualties in his last contribution as compared to the injuries and deaths of Palestinians.
"Jim, here is a picture of one of your army's vehicles."
Sorry, I don't have an army, and I am unaware of any reports of the Irish army using phosphorus on civilians anywhere in the world - enlighten me.
This is again turning into another dialogue which I said I had no intention of being involved in - put up or go and stalk somebody else
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Aug 10 - 11:10 AM

Jim, you said,
"you distorted the effects of phosphorus on civilians."

No I have not and you can not provide an example because there is none.

The Irish army trains with and stockpiles what you say are illegal chemical weapons.
No government on Earth agrees with you Jim.

On gullibility.
At the start of this thread, activists claimed IDF charged aboard with guns blazing and killed 20 passengers.
You and the others lapped it up.
You pronounced it "Israel's Sharpeville."
Then the videos showed Israel's account to be much closer to the truth.
Some activists even resorted to claiming them faked.
The same thing later over the video purported to show a young activist's murder.
The autopsies showed no one died like that.It was just a propagandist lie.

Historical footnote. The word "gullible" was accidently omitted by Dr Sam Johnson from his original dictionary, and to this day it is not found in any printed dictionary out of respect for the great man.

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Aug 10 - 11:51 AM

Foolestoupe, the hospitals were not destroyed.
The damage quickly repaired.
http://www.muslimaid.org/index.php/media-centre/press-releases/475-gaza-hospital