BS: Palestine

Subject: BS: Palestine
From: Mrrzy
Date: 21 Sep 11 - 01:51 PM

...has been around as the name of a region since before the dawn of history, without actually ever having been a "nation" as defined by the Europeans when they took over in the 1500's. No "white man's papers" ("papier de blanc") as was said.

So, my question for the forum is: Given that Israel was carved out of that region, should it or should it not be up to Israel to determine whether Palestine gets to be a nation now? Or, in a more open form, what do you think of the Palestinians going straight to the UN, which seems to some to be an end run around the US and Israel (I'm not sure who else is on that side of the fence)?

I am curious about the tenor of opinion here. Our views often harmonize, and we can keep our tone civil when differences of opinion become discordant. If uke'n keep to musical metaphor, even better.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 21 Sep 11 - 03:22 PM

The Israelis will never agree to a Palestinian nation.
They will continue to nibble on the west bank, completely occupy Jerusalem, and encroach on former Egyptian territory in Gaza.
Obama's support for talks just prolongs the process of "no decision" and alienates more of the Muslim world. Israel is a dangerous "ally."

There have been several threads on this. I gusee one more won't overload the Mudcat archives.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: akenaton
Date: 21 Sep 11 - 03:29 PM

Obama is finished as a political force, his speech at the UN was hesitant, his voice shaky, he did NOT believe what he was saying and if he had the guts of a real leader he would have refused to say it.

As I said a couple of years ago.....a creature of the system....sorry!

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: GUEST,Bluesman
Date: 21 Sep 11 - 03:30 PM

You mean the 51st state of America ?

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Joe Offer
Date: 21 Sep 11 - 03:47 PM

Isn't Jordan a Palestinian nation? When I visited the area ten years ago, it seemed to me that Bethlehem and Jericho and East Jerusalem were quite distinct from Israel, and Israeli encrosion into Palestinian territory seemed to be mostly limited to a few pockets of right-wing settlers here and there.
Of course, there's been a wall built since then, and that would make a big, big difference. For the most part, the problem with the wall is that it restricts the ability of Palestinians to enter Israel for shopping and employment and other activities.
While there are advantages to having a Palestinian state, Palestinians will be forever impoverished if they have no access to Israel. It's a situation similar to the Mexican-US border cities - the two sides of the border need each other.


-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: robomatic
Date: 21 Sep 11 - 04:39 PM

The push for a Palestinian state at this point in time is a prime example of bad timing, at least for those in favor of it. Along with the attempt to have Israel censured for settlements which came February at the height of the Arab Spring this year.

I have no faith in anything the Palestinians push for because they have not abandoned an unrealistic policy of defeating Israel and taking the place of its current inhabitants. Their 'shoot the moon' policy is continually being encouraged by the local nations who have been at the heart of the Palestinian plight, an uncompromising lack of acceptance of Israel in their midst, and its Jewish inhabitants as, well, Palestinians themselves.

Ultimately, there will be compromise, and there will be shared territory, but we're not there at this point in time.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Sep 11 - 04:45 PM

From The Irish Times this morning.
Now what was the question again!!!
Jim Carroll

BEDOUIN PEOPLE ISRAEL WANTS TO RELOCATE TO FORMER DUMP

As Palestinians prepare to seek UN statehood recognition, Israeli settlers have petitioned for the demolition of a school serving the children of 20 families
WE SET out from Jerusalem on Route One, Israel's fine new West Bank highway, turn off on to the narrow shoulder, plunge down a steep ravine along a slithery, sandy track, duck under a tunnel and climb to the hilltop where 20 Jahaleen Bedouin families have settled. To the right is the school that proudly proclaims itself a "primary mixed school" where 70 boys and girls study through sixth form.
During break, boys in blue T-shirts and jeans wrestle and rush about while girls in grey and white smocks, their hair neatly plaited, stroll round in threes and fours sharing packets of crisps.
The school consists of five one-storey buildings constructed by the men of the community using old tyres and plastered with mud. Here and there they left indented patches where tyre treads are exposed. The sixth and final form holds classes in a shed.
The UN Relief and Works Agency (Unrwa), which looks after Palestinian refugees, paid salaries to the men who worked 24 hours a day for a month to build the school with the help of Italian volunteers, nuns from Bethany, Rabbis for Human Rights, Israel's Peace Now movement and the Israeli Committee against Home Demolitions.
The school walls are thick, which means the rooms are cool in summer and warm in winter. A small generator stands idle near the latrine building: the Bedouin do not have $30 a month to run the motor.
On the other side of the fence marking the boundary of the school yard and just outside the window of the first-form classroom, the Israelis have placed vents for gas emitted by sewage piped to Route One from Kafr Adumim, the expanding Israeli settlement and outposts looming on the crests of hills rising high above Khan al-Ahmar. Israeli settlers have filed a petition for the school to be demolished.
The Jahaleen stopped sending smaller children to schools in Jericho because five of them were killed on the road while waiting for a bus. In any ease, families can no longer afford fares.
After the new school was built in 2010, Israel cancelled work permits for the menfolk who had menial jobs in the settlements, depriving them of their main source of income. Only the shepherd has work these days.
Unemployment is 99.99 per cent. Jahaleen men, women and children are slender and of medium height, and are totally dependent on Unrwa for sustenance. Some children have been stunted by malnutrition.
The tidy, elegant school buildings contrast starkly with the shelters where 160 members of the community live. These are ramshackle dwellings constructed on wooden frames, with walls of press board and cloth, and roofed with plastic in summer and metal sheets in winter. Israel has issued demolition orders for eight shelters, several livestock pens, and the makeshift mosque - built without permits which Israel does not grant.
The community lives in a tight enclave, bordered by the highway and the wadi below where the community's remaining 140 goats and sheep water.
Spokesman Abu Khamis, an accountant who was employed as a bulldozer driver, invites us to his diwan. Slipping off our shoes, we sit on mattresses in the shade of a mulberry tree. Kafr Adumim with its settler houses gleaming white under red tile roofs sits on the horizon. A cool breeze stirs the leaves of the the mulberry, its twin and a pomegranate, heavy with ripening fruit.
As sweet tea is served, Abu Khamis says, "We get water legally from Israel's Makarot company. Ten families have a supply, 10 do not."
Asked about power, he quips, "Is there something called electricity? We use the generator when we have a feast, wedding or funeral... Settlers come any time, day or night. Drive around, walk into the school and our houses. They sing or throw pebbles at our homes, waking us. The children scream and cry. Many wet their beds."
He shrugged when asked if the Palestinian leadership's bid for UN membership and recognition of statehood in East Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza could improve conditions.
"The sulta [the Palestinian Authority] and the Israelis co-operate against us."
The Jahaleen of Khan al-Ahmar are just one of 20 Bedouin communities, totalling 2,300 people, whom the Israelis intend to relocate to Jerusalem's vast rubbish dump at Bethany, the home of Lazarus raised by Jesus from the dead.
On the way back to the holy city, we pause at the dump where bulldozers have already buried the rubbish and levelled the site, which still reeks of toxic fumes.
To the east is the massive Israeli settlement of Maale Adumim, to the west Jerusalem, both forbidden to the Jahaleen. The move will destroy their way of life, force them to sell their livestock and compel traditional tribal antagonists to live together.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: GUEST
Date: 21 Sep 11 - 04:56 PM

"BEDOUIN PEOPLE ISRAEL WANTS TO RELOCATE TO FORMER DUMP"

At least they're not sending suicide bombers to kill them.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Bill D
Date: 21 Sep 11 - 04:58 PM

It should not be "up to" Israel...but obviously, Israel is concerned about the nature of any such state and that state's attitude towards Israel. As I understand it, Israel has all along insisted that any Palestinian state must agree to totally recognize Israel.

Both sides continue to demand conditions that the other will not accept....and that most of each one's supporters will not agree to.

It's a stand-off...and made worse by the fact that any Israeli leader OR Palestinian leader who did offer the wrong concessions would fear for his own safety from his own side!

Sadly, it is almost hopeless... and would not be helped by the UN bestowing membership on a group that IS NOT a recognized state.


Perhaps all these new governments in Egypt, Libya...etc. will help break the impasse...someday.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 21 Sep 11 - 05:06 PM

USA seems to be on a sticky wicket this time - and not before time in this area.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 21 Sep 11 - 06:21 PM

Palestine's future lies with Egypt and Jordan, not Israel and its theocratic government.
The Israelis have cut the west bank area in two.
Bethlehem and Hebron are still under the Palestinian Authority, but may soon be lost as well.
Map here:

http://commons.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Palestine_Map_2007.gif

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Mrrzy
Date: 21 Sep 11 - 06:22 PM

Let's hope that we have to veto a UN decision. That should put us squarely in the wrong.

What does israel have up its butt anyway? Why not, after all this time?

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Teribus
Date: 22 Sep 11 - 12:44 AM

"They will continue to nibble on the west bank, completely occupy Jerusalem, and encroach on former Egyptian territory in Gaza."

Take a good look at the following map:

http://www.passia.org/palestine_facts/MAPS/Palestine_under_British_Mandate_1923_48.htm

You will see quite clearly that Gaza, the city of Jerusalem and the whole of the west bank all lay within and were part of the section of the mandated territory set aside for the establishment of the national homeland for the Jews.

The white lines on the map show the "green line" that came about with the cease-fire brokered by the UN in 1949. It shows the Palestinian territory invaded occupied and annexed by both Egypt and Jordan.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 22 Sep 11 - 01:57 AM

I recognize Palestine as a state, virtual or otherwise. I recognize Palestinians as a people. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: GUEST,number 6
Date: 22 Sep 11 - 02:13 AM

I recognize Palestinians, Israeli's and in fact every human living on this earth as people.

"magine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace...

You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will be as one"

and that's all I have to say in this (already) thread worn thread.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Sep 11 - 02:52 AM

"At least they're not sending suicide bombers to kill them."
Oh - that makes this behaviour ok then, does it?
Take out the "Suicide bombers" out and insert well-armed troops and you have the situation in a nutshell.
"They will continue to nibble on the west bank,"
Yes they certainly will.
Not long ago Israel passed a law restricting the absence from the country of any Arab to three years - failing to return within that period means the loss of citizenship of the 'culprit' - creeping ethnic cleansing.
Israeli policy is to gheotto-ise the Arab people militarily, using any opposition to that ghettoisation as an excuse for the use of extreme and brutal force.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Sep 11 - 02:53 AM

Jim, your long cut and paste tells us that these poor Beduoin expect equally bad treatment from the "Palestinians" as the Israelis.
Not much of an argument for a Palestinian state.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Sep 11 - 02:55 AM

"Take out the "Suicide bombers" out and insert well-armed troops and you have the situation in a nutshell."

Er, you would then have "At least they're not sending well-armed troops to kill them"

Who is doing that?

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: GUEST,livelylass
Date: 22 Sep 11 - 03:17 AM

"Let's hope that we have to veto a UN decision. "

The US and Israel are working overtime lobbying and pressurising those nations that they have any kind of power over or influence with, trying to ensure that this won't be the case.

As well as removing all aid to Palestine, back in February (I believe it was) Susan Rice even made a public statement making a strongly implied threat to withdraw all US monies to the United Nations itself, if the measure is passed - unfortunately I can't find the video where she makes those threats offhand but will try to seek it out.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Sep 11 - 04:41 AM

Livelylass, has aid yet been withdrawn from the Palestinions?
I thought something like $53Bn was allocated this year.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Sep 11 - 04:47 AM

The State Department, however, expressed strong reluctance to threaten the financial aid - totaling 550.4 million dollars in 2011, with 513.4 million requested for 2012 - to the Palestinians as a response to their U.N. initiative. Nuland said on Aug. 22 that, "We have not chosen to use our humanitarian aid in such a fashion. As you know, it is designed to help the Palestinian people and support their humanitarian needs."
http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=105107

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Sep 11 - 04:47 AM

"Who is doing that? "
The Israelis have been doing that for a while - along with chemical weapon bombardments - don't the newspapees reach Hertford
"Not much of an argument for a Palestinian state"
But cetainly an argument for continuing Israeli annexation, ethnic cleansing and brutality
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Sep 11 - 05:16 AM

"But cetainly an argument for continuing Israeli annexation, ethnic cleansing and brutality "
No.
Your big Irish Times paste referred to none of those things.

Chemical bombardment?
No newspaper I have ever seen mentioned Israelis doing that.
That would be an interesting cut and paste Jim.
Do you have one?

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: GUEST,livelylass
Date: 22 Sep 11 - 06:00 AM

Keith, I haven't found the video, but Rice in her capacity as the US ambassador to the UN made her statement 'threatening' the withdrawal of aid to the UN back in June - later her comments were 'clarified' as informal chit chat - but here's an article from The Telegraph:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/palestinianauthority/8597559/US-could-withdraw-funding-from-UN-if-Palestine-state-is-recognised.html

I'm unsure if she's repeated the threats about UN aid, but I believe Rice has made similar threats regards aid to the Palestinians much more recently in a continuing bid to pressure the PA and Arab League to withdraw the bid.

Of course such measures would only be realised if Palestinians and the UN do not accord with the US's wishes and drop the matter of Palestinian statehood, so it would be rather premature I suppose to expect to see any moves severancing the aid, being taken by the US as yet.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 Sep 11 - 06:03 AM

The strange aspect of all this is the fact that Israel, and its agent in this context, the USA, are opposed to this.

Endorsing the existence of a Palestinian state within the boundaries of the West Bank together with Gaza, also implies endorsing the continuing existence of Israel within the very much larger part of what was Palestine. It means drawing a line under the aspirations of those, on both sides, who would prefer to see a unified state. It is in fact wholly in keeping with the interests of the regimes involved.

The only logic for Israel's opposition to this move would seem to be that of "if they want it we won't let them have it". Pre-school thinking.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: GUEST,livelylass
Date: 22 Sep 11 - 06:07 AM

PS - I'll have to look for something more current to confirm or otherwise what Rice has had to say more recently - as I may be in error there.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Sep 11 - 07:37 AM

"Your big Irish Times paste referred to none of those things."
No it didn't - it didn't have to - it is merely a report of the Israelis behaving like the "Master Race" they apparently believe themselves to be.
"No newspaper I have ever seen mentioned Israelis doing that."
You've attempted to argue this before - the Israelis were firing on hospitals, schools and residential area with heavy artillery in Gaza, they were using chemical weapons on built-up areas. Your argument has been that the chemical weapons they were using weren't "chemical" (no longer sustainable as the American agencies now refer to them as such)
There is little to distinguish between the behaviour of Israel towards Gazan non-combatants and that of the SS to say, the response to the assassination of Hiedrich by decimating Lidice.
Massacres of Palastinian villagers were part of the birth-pains of the state of Israel, and those massacres have become a part of its existence.
Obama's "Zioinst" (as described in the Times) speech at the UN and his declared intention to veto the 'Palastinian state' vote seems to have gone down like a led balloon there - lucky for them that they are a super-power and can bully their way through life.
Your defence of extremist behaviour by governments and their agents goes before you - I told you no more of your ultra-right Alice-in-Wonderlad rabbit-holes. I really can't be arsed with trying t cope with your not reading other people's posts and then denying that they haven't said anything.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: bobad
Date: 22 Sep 11 - 07:53 AM

A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices. -- William James

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 22 Sep 11 - 08:08 AM

A little puzzled by that map, Teribus, unless I am imagining it is shows the Jewish state as quite a lot smaller than Israel today. Or do I misread you?

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Sep 11 - 08:10 AM

Smoke screening is not a chemical bombardment.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Bobert
Date: 22 Sep 11 - 10:57 AM

The best argument for having a Nation of Palestine is that it would make Israel safer... Until then Israel will be seen as the aggressor by the Arab nations and, in being seen that way, is less safe...

This is really a no-brainer... I find it interesting that a very large number of Israelis agree... But, like the the US, the right wing has controlled the conversation in Israel so don't expect any change until the Israelis figure out how to wrestle their government back from the hard liners...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Sep 11 - 11:45 AM

"Smoke screening is not a chemical bombardment. "
The CIA says otherwise - their statement was put up on this forum some time ago - try reading what others put up for a change.
Still an apologist for human rights abuses - as ever
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: GUEST,number 6
Date: 22 Sep 11 - 11:55 AM

For those that continue to squabble of who is right and who is wrong I should point out (and Bobert did mention many Israelis agree) there are movements within Israel (connecting with the Palestinians) for a peaceful resolution, all we can do is hope such movements shine through the self interested political quagmire of various world governments .... the link below is one such movement for those who are interested

justvision

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Sep 11 - 12:50 PM

Jim, if that is true it shows that you were too gullible in believing everything said by CIA.
Every military in the world uses smoke, including that of your chosen country of residence.
It is not a weapon, never mind a chemical weapon.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Sep 11 - 01:15 PM

Israel was given to the Jewish people by England as some compensation for the Holocaust, and unfortunately, the country has been surrounded by people trying to destroy the state of Israel ever since. The Palestine people may have the same dilemna as the Native Americans of the USA- but there is little call for the people of the continental US to return their country to the Lenape. The Jewish High Holy days in Israel, and even in the US, are too often observed with terror, as that is the time that those who want to wipe Israel from the face of the earth decide to bomb, maim and kill Jewish people.

I am saddened to see so many people on the left align with Palestine, and other mideast countries, while forgetting the tragic fate from thousands of years of oppression that the people of the Old Testament have endured, and continue to endure.



Scratch the surface, and more often than not (like those who disguise their racial prejudice by raising specious questions about Obama's birth certificate) the cause is anti-Semitism, plain and simple. A long old prejudice.

The miracle of the Jewish people is that they still survive. And love and laugh and contribute to society in ways that are far more magnificent than their numbers.

Tikkon Olam.

And Happy New Year to those of the faith.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 22 Sep 11 - 02:02 PM

~~~There is little to distinguish between the behaviour of Israel towards Gazan non-combatants and that of the SS to say, the response to the assassination of Hiedrich by decimating Lidice.~~~

I think we have been more-or-less here before, Jim. A sense of proportion, please. And a Hegelian sense of the quantative becoming qualitative in assessing quite how 'little' there might be to distinguish...

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 22 Sep 11 - 02:11 PM

BTW ~~ Lidice was not 'decimated', Jim ~ it was wiped completely off the face of the earth DELIBERATELY AND WITH PURPOSE. The Israelis have done nothing remotely comparable with this. Which is not to say that I am not embarrassed and horrified by what the state of Israel is in danger of turning into; even my sister & her son [who was born there], who maintain their Jewish & Zionist identity which I don't, are having serious reservations. But Lidice was, in every sense, something else. Please don't trivialise your argument which such hyperbolical analogies; it does your case no good.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Teribus
Date: 22 Sep 11 - 03:18 PM

Yep Richard that's right, the deal (proposed by the UN in 1947) that Jews accepted gave the Arabs of Palestine a great deal more than they are asking for now - BUT they turned it down and rejected it out of hand as they along with their Arab neighbours were going to kill all the Jews or drive all the Jews into the sea. Having done that they were then going to parcel out and hopefully profit from everything that Jewish settlers had spent about one hundred years creating.

In 1948 the Arabs of Palestine chose war and lost - Israel got a little bit bigger and so did the Arabs "allies" - Egypt annexed Gaza (originally part of Palestine) - Jordan grabbed the West Bank and half of Jerusalem (originally both parts of Palestine).

Did Egypt and Jordan give the land to the Arabs of Palestine? Did they hell as like they shut the Palestinian Arabs up in refugee camps on their own land and kept them there in poverty.

Ceasefires and armistace agreements have never meant anything to the Arabs of the region - THEY have never honoured any agreement they have made:

- 1948 UN Agreement broken
- 1956 UN Agreement broken
- 1967 UN Agreement broken
- 1973 UN Agreement broken
- 1982 UN Agreement broken
- 2006 UN Agreement broken

They are viewed as a means of providing a breathing space and returning to the start line until they are ready for the next try.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 22 Sep 11 - 03:50 PM

The LAST borders accepted by the Arabs was the partition of the original Mandate Palestine in 1923, with 77% becoming the Arab ( no Jews allowed) country of Transjordan ( Now Jordan). The Brits decided that they could NOT meet the mandate requirements of a single nation with both a Jewish and Arab population, so they gave the Arabs an area proportional to the TOTAL Arab population, and forbid Jews to settle or live there. SO, the remaining 23% was supposed to be the Jewish Homeland as specified by the treaty that ended WW 1 and created Lebanon, Syria, the borders of Turkey, etc.


IF the Arabs had accepted the UN partition, they would have ended up with a large portion of the Jewish Homeland- but they did not.

As for the 640,000 Arabs ( NOT the entire Arab population of the Jewish Homeland area, they chose to leave- and if they are to be compensated with land, I think it might be fair to compensate the estimated 820,000 JEWS driven out of Arab nations. So HOW MUCH ADDITIONAL LAND is Jordan going to give back to Israel, along with the entire West bank???

Israel settled those Jews that wished to live there ( 500,000 +, some went to the US, since they did not trust the Arabs) and the reasonable expectation was that, like with the parallel situation of population transfers in Pakistan and India, the Arab nations would settle those who left Israel.

They did not, creating generation of suffering for those Palestinian Arab refugees and their families.

The suffering of the Palestinian Arab refugees is a product of the actions of the Arab League, and those Arab nations that made no effort to settle them, but kept them in concentration camps and promised them the land of Israel.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Sep 11 - 04:18 PM

Can't be botehred finding the original posting, which came with horrific photos of the effect of white phophorus on children's faces and dealt with the use of such CHEMICALS on the civilians of Falujah by US troops, only to have it ignored - again - by you.
THis will have to suffice for the time being.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-intelligence-classified-white-phosphorus-as-chemical-weapon-516523.html
The US recognised that White phosphorus was a chemical weapon and used it on the civilians of Falujah
Attempting to claim the WEAPONS the Israelis used on hospitals and schools in Gaza are not "chemical" is - once again - defending war crimes - nothing less - no surprise there!
In spite of all your barnstorming demands for sympathy "for the victims" on your "let's prove that all male Pakistanis are "culturally implanted" with a paedophile tendency" thread - you have nowhere expressed either sympathy for the Bedouin victims of Israeli terrorism or condemnation of that terrorism - no surprise there either.
Nor have you chosen to comment on the outrageous removal of citizenship from those who overstay their trips abroad.   
"Lidice was not 'decimated', Jim"
One in ten of the population were taken out and shot - the village was then razed to the ground - that was my reference to "decimation".
"But Lidice was, in every sense, something else"
Only in the matter of degree - and the SS did have the excuse (in some people's eyes - not mine) that there was a war on at the time. The behaviour of Israel is no more than a war against civilians in retaliation for the opposition of others.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: bobad
Date: 22 Sep 11 - 04:29 PM

Comparing Israel's actions to that of Nazis is despicable anti-semitism.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Sep 11 - 04:52 PM

"Comparing Israel's actions to that of Nazis is despicable anti-semitism. "
No it is not - hiding behind - "you can't condemn Israel because it is Jewish" is despicable and ignores the atrocities comitted in the pursuit of a Jewish homeland - or so I am told by my Jewish friends..... but then again - they may be anti semitic!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Sep 11 - 05:32 PM

Jim, you have one old report about Sadaam's use of WP, where the one author erroneously referred to it as a "chemical weapon."
He was wrong.
Against the one, old, erroneous statement by some unknown, desk bound bureaucrat, you have the FACT that the military of all nations, including yours, including all the liberal democracies, including all those nations who have eschewed chemical weapons, all stockpile, train and when needed use it, in the certain knowledge that it is not a chemical weapon.
OK Jim?

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Sep 11 - 05:38 PM

Jim,
"In spite of all your barnstorming demands for sympathy "for the victims" on your "let's prove that all male Pakistanis are "culturally implanted" with a paedophile tendency" thread - you have nowhere expressed either sympathy for the Bedouin victims of Israeli terrorism or condemnation of that terrorism - no surprise there either."

I did express compassion for the child rape victims, and was ridiculed for it by you.
I never, ever, linked any race or culture with paedophilia, and told you repeatedly that there was no link. (so that is a lie.)
I referred to "these poor Bedouin" and pointed out that the "Palestinians" treated them at least as badly as the Israelis.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 Sep 11 - 07:03 PM

I see that a few of us are, going round and round in circles saying the same things that have been said repeatedly by the same people, and which aren't immediately relevant to the topic of the thread...

Recognising Plestine as a state would do nothing to threaten Israel's interests. It wouldn't make Israel's continued occupation and planting of settlements any less illegal, or make it any harder for it to continue in defying existing UN resolutions. The territory of the West Bank and Gaza is not claimed to be part of Israel by the Israeli government, or by any other government.

If anything, recognition of Palestine as a state with full membership status would probably be in Israel's interests. It won't happen at this time, but that's just because of a need in Israel and in Washington to play to the gallery.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Stringsinger
Date: 22 Sep 11 - 07:21 PM

Three little letters, BDS.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 Sep 11 - 07:26 PM

BDS

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 22 Sep 11 - 07:57 PM

I'm still not really following the Zionist argument here. By what right does Israel occupy any land sort of at the East end of the med, in the absence of any valid or agreed disposition of land there?

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Justa Picker
Date: 22 Sep 11 - 08:17 PM

I guess this bears repostng.
It was valid a few years and remains so.
It's (comedian) Dennis Miller's "Brief History of the Middle East"

=============================================

The Palestinians want their own country.

There's just one thing about that: There are no Palestinians.

It's a made up word. Israel was called Palestine for two thousand years. Like "Wiccan," "Palestinian" sounds ancient but is really a modern Invention. Before the Israelis won the land in war, Gaza was owned by Egypt, and there were no "Palestinians" then, and the West Bank Was owned by Jordan, and there were no "Palestinians" then. As soon as the Jews took over and started growing oranges as big as basketballs, what do you know, say hello to the Palestinians," weeping for Their deep bond with their lost "land" and "nation."

So for the sake of honesty, let's not use the word "Palestinian" any more to describe these delightful folks, who dance for joy at our Deaths until someone points out they're being taped. Instead, let's call them what they are: "Other Arabs Who Can't Accomplish Anything In Life And Would Rather Wrap Themselves In The Seductive Melodrama Of Eternal Struggle And Death."

I know that's a bit unwieldy to expect to see on CNN. How about this, then: "Adjacent Jew-Haters." Okay, so the Adjacent Jew-Haters want their own country. Oops, just one more thing. No, they don't.

They could 've had their own country any time in the last thirty years, Especially two years ago at Camp David. But if you have your own country, you have to have traffic lights and garbage trucks and Chambers of Commerce, and, worse, you actually have to Figure out some way to make a living. That's no fun. No, they want what all the other Jew-Haters in the region Want: Israel.

They also want a big pile of dead Jews, of course -- that's where The real fun is -- but mostly they want Israel.

Why? For one thing, trying to destroy Israel - or "The Zionist Entity" as their textbooks call it -- for the last fifty years has allowed the rulers of Arab countries to divert the attention of their own people away from the fact that they're the blue-ribbon most illiterate, poorest, and tribally backward on G-d's Earth, and if you've ever been around G-d's Earth, you know that's really saying something.

It makes me roll my eyes every time one of our pundits waxes poetic about. The great history and culture of the Muslim Mideast. Unless I'm missing something, the Arabs haven't given anything to the world since Algebra, and, By the way, thanks a hell of a lot for that one.

Chew this around and spit it out: Five hundred million Arabs; five Million Jews.
Think of all the Arab countries as a football field, and Israel as a Pack of matches sitting in the middle of it. And now these same folks swear that if Israel gives them half of that pack of matches, Everyone will be pals.

Really? Wow, what neat news. Hey, but what about the string of wars to obliterate the tiny country and the constant din of rabid blood oaths to drive every Jew into the sea? Oh, that? We were just kidding.

My friend Kevin Rooney made a gorgeous point the other day: Just reverse the Numbers. Imagine five hundred million Jews and five million Arabs. I was stunned at the simple brilliance of it.

Can anyone picture the Jews strapping belts of razor blades and dynamite to themselves? Of course not. Or marshaling every fiber and force at their disposal for generations to drive a tiny Arab State into the sea? Nonsense. Or dancing for joy at the murder of innocents? Impossible. Or spreading and believing horrible lies about the Arabs baking their bread with the blood of children? Disgusting. No, as you know, left to themselves in a world of peace, the Worst Jews would ever do to people is debate them to death.

Mr. Bush, God bless him, is walking a tightrope. I understand that with vital operations in Iraq and others, it's in our interest, as Americans, to try to stabilize our Arab allies as much as possible, and, after all, that can't be much harder than stabilizing a Roomful of supermodels who've just had their drugs taken away.

However, in any big-picture strategy, there's always a danger of Losing moral weight.

We've already lost some. After September 11 our president told us and the world he was going to root out all terrorists and the Countries that supported them. Beautiful. Then the Israelis, after months and months of having the equivalent of an Oklahoma City every week (and then every day) start to do the same thing we Did, and we tell them to show restraint.

If America were being attacked with an Oklahoma City every day, we would all very shortly be screaming for the administration to just be done with it and kill everything south of the Mediterranean and East of the Jordan.
==============================================

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: mg
Date: 22 Sep 11 - 09:42 PM

That above comes as close to hate speech as anything I have ever seen or heard. I personally know two former orange growers who had their lands taken from them..both are elderly now (one is alive..I am not sure of the other) and well-known in university circles. Oranges were grown in Palestine quite famously prior to lands being confiscated. And they are called Palestinians. That is what they call themselves; that is what I call them. The term was certainly in use in my lifetime. I really don't think anyone had to make it up. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 23 Sep 11 - 01:41 AM

"That above comes as close to hate speech as anything I have ever seen or heard." ···

Honest, now, mg. Why goodness me, what a sheltered life you must have led. Here's a recent, actually quite mild [it doesn't contain the usual promise to 'drive Israel into the sea' which usually accompanies such: google if you don't believe me] example ~

~Hamas released a statement following the far left president's naive speech.
The terror group will not recognize Israel under any circumstance.
YNet News reported:
Obama's Mideast policy speech Thursday was a "total failure," Hamas said Thursday evening.
"The (Arab) nation does not need a lesson on democracy from Obama," said Hamas spokesman in the Gaza Strip, Sami Abu-Zuhri. "Rather, Obama is the one who needs the lesson given his absolute endorsement of Israel's crimes and his refusal to condemn Israel's occupation."

"We will not recognize the Israeli occupation under any circumstances," the Hamas spokesman said

If that isn't hate-speech to out-hate the instance you take such exception to above, then I guess it will do OK for hate-speech till some hate-speech comes along, eh?

~Michael~

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Sep 11 - 04:36 AM

"Jim, you have one old report about Sadaam's use of WP, "
Which identifies the fact that the US regarded white phosphorus as a "chemical weapon" and only 'de-chemicalised' it when they decided to use it in places like Falujah - not unlike re-identifying 'torture' as 'extreme rendtion' really!
As much as people wanted Israel to work following the sufferings of the Jewish people at the hands of Nazism, it has become the worst of all worlds - a terrorist state ruled by zealots driven by a two thousand year old fairy story, with a nueclear capability
It has shifted from being the victim to becoming the abuser and it is of no surprise that the only support it has at present in its opposition to a Palestinian state is that of another human rights abuser.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Sep 11 - 04:54 AM

"Which identifies the fact that the US regarded white phosphorus as a "chemical weapon""

No Jim.
It identifies that a long time ago one twat once wrongly used the word "chemical" when referring to "incendiary" weapons.

And now another twat keeps making the same mistake here.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 23 Sep 11 - 05:14 AM

But which 'people' do you refer to in your first sentence above, Jim? Not the people immediately around, who fell on the new state as soon as it was proclaimed on the ending of the British mandate in an attempt to strangle it at birth, who outnumbered the population of that fledgling state by I forget what factor, but nevertheless received a black eye for their trouble ~~ and another in merely six days a few years later.

I know all about two wrongs not making a right & all that; but it was that initial hostility, and the concomitant intransigence which has persisted to this day (see my last post above) which has led to the present Israeli attitude which we all (see my penultimate post 02.11 pm) so much regret.

What the answer is I don't know ~~ I am reminded of the traditional yokel who, asked the way somewhere, replied, "Well, you can't start from here" ~ but mere denunciation of Israel for having adopted the present regrettable attitude entirely in response to the hostility of its neighbours, or the inability to fulfil any of the promises made by the one or two whose interests have caused them to become, ostensibly at least, less hostile over the years (see Teribus's excellent post of 3.18 pm), is really going to get nobody anywhere. Denunciation as merely 'an abuser', 'a terrorist state ruled by zealots', 'the worst of all worlds', much as one might be emotionally inclined to accept such animadversions, is surely going to be merely counterproductive.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 23 Sep 11 - 05:19 AM

Sorry ~I meant 'the first sentence of your second paragraph'

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 23 Sep 11 - 06:45 AM

White Phosphorus is not a chemical? C'mon.


And now:

"Britain was entrusted with a League of Nations mandate over Palestine in 1922. This provided an interim resolution to the power vacuum in post World War I Palestine caused by the 1917 defeat of the Turks by British forces and the subsequent collapse of the Ottoman Empire. The British task was to facilitate the partitioning of Palestine to establish a Jewish national home that did not prejudice the civil and religious rights of the Arab majority. Jewish and Arab communities were granted the right to run their internal affairs, but this was not without tensions and outbreaks of violence, which did occur during the 1920s and 1930s.

In April 1947, after failing to reconcile the conflicting demands of both the Jewish and Arab communities, Britain indicated an intention to withdraw from Palestine and requested that a permanent solution be discussed by the United Nations General Assembly. Subsequently, a United Nations Special Committee was established to draft proposals for the future of Palestine.

Under the chairmanship of the Dr HV Evatt, the Australian Minister for External Affairs, the UN Special Committee recommended the establishment of an independent Jewish State in Palestine, together with a neighbouring independent Arab State, and this was endorsed by the United Nations General Assembly in November 1947.

The State of Israel was subsequently proclaimed in Tel Aviv on 14 May 1948."


So, broadly, there was no Jewish state prior to 1948.


From 1922 (ish) to 1948 Britain ruled the relevant area under a "League of Nations mandate".   Now I may be wrong but I think no legitimate authority from that area empowered the League of Nations to award that mandate - because there was no authority from which to derive legitimacy.

Prior to that, from 1299 to 1917, the entire area was part of the Ottoman Empire. After 1917 there was no authority until 1922.

"The Ottoman Empire[dn 4] or Sublime Ottoman State (Ottoman Turkish: دَوْلَتِ عَلِيّهٔ عُثمَانِیّه Devlet-i ʿAliyye-yi ʿOsmâniyye,[7] (also عثمانلى دولتى Osmanlı Devleti),[dn 5] Modern Turkish: Yüce Osmanlı Devleti or Osmanlı İmparatorluğu) was a Turkish empire that lasted from 27 July 1299[8] to 29 October 1923.

At the height of its power, in the 16th and 17th centuries, it controlled territory in southeastern Europe, southwestern Asia, and North Africa (see List of Ottoman Empire dominated territories).[9] The Ottoman Empire contained 29 provinces and numerous vassal states, some of which were later absorbed into the empire, while others were granted various types of autonomy during the course of centuries.[dn 6]

With Constantinople (present-day Istanbul, Ottoman Turkish: استنبول, Istanbul[10] and قسطنطينيه, Kostantiniyye) as its capital city,[11][12] and vast control of lands around the eastern Mediterranean during the reign of Suleiman the Magnificent (ruled 1520 to 1566), the empire was at the center of interactions between the Eastern and Western worlds for six centuries."




So since 1299 if not earlier there had been no Jewish state in the area.



We are surprised that those who lived there objected to the establishment of one without their consent?



Bear in mind that many here celebrate the ejection in 1922 of the UK from most of Ireland, ruled by England for centuries, and that the complete ejection seems likely in the not so distant future, which will no doubt also be celebrated by many here.



I do not yet see the legitimacy of Israel's claim to any east Mediterranean land, much less Gaza or the parts formerly part of Jordan. Nor its razing of infrastructure in Gaza or the Lebanon.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 23 Sep 11 - 07:06 AM

The claim is based, Richard, on that UN resolution of 1947. The state of Israel was recognised on the day of its proclamation by both the US & the Soviet Union: either of whom along with the UK, could have vetoed the resolution in the Security Council; US & the Soviets both voted in favour, however, & the UK, on the plea that as mandatees they might have been perceived as an interested party, chose to abstain.

It was in accordance with that resolution that the state was proclaimed & recognised. The authority of the League of Nations, as you say above, might have been suspect; but I don't see how you can dispute the legal right of the UN to pass the resolution that brought Israel, now for many years a member of the UN, into legal being: a right and legality disputed by no nation other than those belonging to the Arab/Islamist confederacy ~~~

~~~ Which seems to me to be the response to your ~ I suspect perverse, tendentious and intentionally provocative ~ enquiry which seems to me based on exceptionally dubious and probably racist grounds,as to the legal legitimacy of the existence of the state of Israel at the eastern end of the Med.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Sep 11 - 07:15 AM

It most certainly IS a chemical Richard, as is water and salt.
Having a salt pot thrown at you is not best described as a chemical attack, and a water pistol is not covered by any chemical weapons treaty.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: bobad
Date: 23 Sep 11 - 07:29 AM

Following your logic, Richard, the Israelis have as much or as little right to a state in the eastern land of the Mediterranean as do the Europeans in North America.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 23 Sep 11 - 07:43 AM

If that is the whole of the claim, MtheGM, it appears to be wholly illegitimate as neither the US, nor the USSR, nor the UN had any mandate from those of the area. For most of my adult life most of my law partners have been Jewish, so why should I be an antisemite?

Bobad - indeed I am enthused by at least part of that argument. When are the white settlers of the USA moving out and being taken to international courts for their genocide?

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Sep 11 - 07:43 AM

Still veering away from the issue, I see... The rights and wrongs of the ways in which the various people carry on their conflict is interesting, but not immediately relevant. The same goes for the history of how this nightmarish situation came about.

But neither of those bear too much relevance to the question of whether there are any valid reasons why Palestine, which is already recognised as a country (albeit occupied) by two-thirds of the globe, should not have this recognition formally accepted by the United Nations.

The fact that the Israeli government has chosen to oppose this recognition, and that, with an election looming, Barack Obama has elected to fall dutifully into line, should not obscure the fact that many Jewish Israelis have no particular objection. "A recent poll conducted by the Hebrew University found that 70% of Israelis believe that if the UN votes in favour of a Palestinian state, Israel should accept the decision...More than 80 prominent Israeli intellectuals gathered outside Independence Hall on Thursday. They were led by author Sefi Rachlevski, to declare their support for a Palestinian state along the 1967 borders. (That comes from here - Israelis largely support calls for Palestinian state, say protesters

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 23 Sep 11 - 08:19 AM

Your arguments remain perverse and frivolous, Richard, whatever their motivation, which I am happy to accept is in no way racially based. The opposition of "those in the area" lost all standing when they were outvoted in and by the competently authoritative body of which they themselves had membership. There is not the least reason why any "mandate" from those "in the area", apart from their votes in that body, should have been required for the resolution's implementation, or why they should have had any specific say in the matter. They accepted the UN's authority by the fact of their membership of it, and should have abided by its decision rather than attempting, unsuccessfully, to negate or obviate it by force of arms. Indeed, why the UN did not expel them for such a response to one of its legitimate decisions, in which they had full opportunity to make their opinions known and cast their votes, seems to me to be the question that needs answering. And indeed, they would have done well to accept it, as the borders of the state declared in May 1948 extended no further than those resolved by the UN. The subsequent expansion of territory was brought about by successful defence of their very existence, and legitimate conquest of those who attempted to invade what had been declared their sovereign territory, and remaining, by right of conquest and the absolute and essential considerations of security, in the territory thus gained.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 23 Sep 11 - 08:28 AM

"Following your logic, Richard, the Israelis have as much or as little right to a state in the eastern land of the Mediterranean as do the Europeans in North America."


Or Anglo-Saxons any cliam to England, which they stole from the Celts, who stole it from the Beaker peoples...


Richard,

A good summary of the history, EXCEPT you ignore the fact that the Mandate Plestine territory included ALL of what is now Jordan- and in 1923 that 77% of the territroy was split off as the PALESTINIAN ARAB HOMELAND, with Jews NOT allowed, in order to " establish a Jewish national home that did not prejudice the civil and religious rights of the Arab majority". The remaining 23% was declared to be the Jewish Homeland, but there were no restrictions on non-Jews living there or owning property, as in the Arab Homeland of Transjordan.

So there has been an Arab Palestinian state since 1923.

Please check the peace treaty between Jordan and Israel, and see that the borders that Jordan acknowledges put the ENTIRE West bank in Israel (as per the 1923 division). Israel has been offering to give up land for peace, and yet is still being attacked daily.

IF the Palestinians are declared a state, then the rocket firings from Gaza will be acts of war against another nation (Israel) and ANY acts by Israel will continue to be justified , up to and including "razing of infrastructure in Gaza or the Lebanon. " Or are YOU declaring that the bombing of Germany during WW !! was illegal? THERE HAS BEEN NO PEACE TREATY between Israel and the nations it has attacked IN RESPONSE TO BEING ATTACKED FROM.

Are YOU saying that ONLY Jews are not allowed to attack in response to being attacked????

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Sep 11 - 08:37 AM

"Right of conquest" is no right, and has no legal meaning. That is as true in the case of nations as it is of private citizens. "Finders keepers, losers weepers" is the law of the playground - but it's against the school rules and the criminal law.
.................................

The occupation of territory following a war is accepted as a temporary anomaly which needs to be rectified by the withdrawal of the occupiers. The question is how can this be achieved, and whether in 5this case the recognition of Palestine as a country by the United Nations would help or hinder in this process.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 23 Sep 11 - 08:48 AM

So, the illegal occupation of the Jewish Homeland as determined by the LAST treaty the the Arabs agreed to (Since they deny the validity of the UN Partition) in 1948 means that the ORIGINAL MANDATE PALESTINE Jewish Homeland boundries, as stated in 1923 "needs to be rectified by the withdrawal of the occupiers."

So YOU are now stating that the Present state of Israel, ( successor state to the Jewish Homeland portion of Mandate Pletine ) is entitled to the ENTIRE WEST BANK????


Or are you saying that the treaty establishing Mandate Palestine is invalid, so that Lebanon, Syria, et al are illegal states?

Or is it that ONLY the JEWISH state is illegal?


Just want to find out which it is...

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 23 Sep 11 - 08:51 AM

Perhaps not, McGrath: I agree it is a dubious concept. But it can only, surely, be rectified by withdrawal, as you say, after security considerations have been taken into account, and an enforceable guarantee of no further illegitimate incursions delivered; which has manifestly not been the case since the hostilities of 1948 to which my post employing this phrase clearly referred.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Sep 11 - 09:02 AM

And the recognition of Palestine as a state would probably help in that - as it appears most Israelis accept, though their government does not.

("No further illegitimate incursions" would I assume include fresh settlements on occupied territory I take it. That would be an excellent thing - and of course in line with the stated US position, for what it's worth.)

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Sep 11 - 09:03 AM

Right of conquest.
The Golan Heights were used to fire shells into Israel and to launch attacks.
It is purely defensive to take and hold such a position at least until guarantees are in place.

Israel's borders were crossed by invading neighbours so it pushed them back to defensible boundaries.
Defensive.
It did not keep all the land it conquered. It had all the Sinai and beyond Sharm el Sheik.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 23 Sep 11 - 09:24 AM

I see no such competent authority. That's the point.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 23 Sep 11 - 09:41 AM

Not sure what you mean, Richard. You said above that US, USSR, UN had "no warrant from the lands in the area" I pointed out that, yes they did: those lands had recognised ~ i.e. given their 'warrant' to ~ the authority of the UN, including its veto-powered members US & USSR, to allocate the territories, by their acceptance of membership of the organisation and their voluntary participation in its procedures. I reiterate that, when a properly held vote went against them, they did not resign their membership, but attempted to negate its effects by force of arms ~~ for which, I repeat, I cannot imagine why the organisation did not end their membership forthwith.

What other 'competent authority' do you want, for heaven's sake. You are making yourself look ridiculous with this frivolous, pertinacious disingenuousness.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 23 Sep 11 - 10:25 AM

From: Richard Bridge
Date: 23 Sep 11 - 09:24 AM

I see no such competent authority. That's the point.


Are you now saying that the treaty ending WW 1 , and signed by Turkey as the successor state to the Ottoman Empire , which established the multiple Mandates that became Lebanon, Syria, Israel and Jordan, et al is NOT valid???

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Teribus
Date: 23 Sep 11 - 11:01 AM

"There is little to distinguish between the behaviour of Israel towards Gazan non-combatants and that of the SS to say, the response to the assassination of Hiedrich by decimating Lidice." - Jim Carroll

I would say that there was a great deal of difference.

So Lidice was "decimated" was it?

Here is what DID befall the population of that small village:

"On 10th June 1942, members of the German Army field police and SD (Sicherheitsdienst) surrounded the village of Lidice, blocking all avenues of escape.

All men of the village were rounded up and taken to the farmstead of the Horák family on the edge of the village. Mattresses were taken from neighbouring houses where they were stood up against the wall of the Horáks' barn. Shooting of the men commenced at about 7 a.m. At first the men were shot in groups of five, but Böhme thought the executions were proceeding too slowly and ordered that ten men be shot at a time. The dead were left lying where they fell. This continued until the afternoon hours when there were 173 dead.

The next day, seven women, along with nineteen men who had been working in a mine, were sent to Prague, where they were also shot.

All the women and children of the village were taken first to Lidice village school. They were then taken to the nearby town of Kladno where they were detained in the grammar school for three days. The children were separated from their mothers.

Four women were pregnant and were sent to the same hospital where Heydrich died. They were given abortions and then sent to different concentration camps. One hundred and eighty-four women of Lidice were loaded on trucks on June 12, 1942, driven to Kladno railway station and forced into a special passenger train guarded by a large escort. In the morning of June 14, 1942 the train halted on a railway siding at the concentration camp at Ravensbrück. On their arrival the Lidice women were first isolated in a special block. The women were involved in leather processing, road building, textile and ammunition factories. Lack of hygiene, epidemics and contagious diseases spread and took most of the women. Some went mad and others were murdered.

Eighty-eight Lidice children were transported to the area of the former textile factory in Gneisenau Street in £ódŸ. Their arrival was announced by a telegram from Horst Böhme's Prague office which ended with, the children are only bringing what they wear. No special care is desirable. The care was minimal. They suffered from a lack of hygiene and from illnesses. Under commands from the camp management, no medical care was given to the children. Shortly after their arrival in £ódŸ, officials from the Central Race and Settlement branch chose seven children at random for Germanisation.

The furor over Lidice caused some hesitation over the fate of the remaining children, but in late June Adolf Eichmann ordered the massacre of the remainder of the children. On July 2, 1942 all of the remaining 81 Lidice children were handed over to the £ódŸ Gestapo office, who in turn had them transported to the extermination camp at Che³mno 70 kilometres away, where they were gassed to death in Magirus gas vans. It is almost certain they were killed on the day of their arrival. Out of the 105 Lidice children, 82 died in Che³mno, six died in the German Lebensborn orphanages and 17 returned home."

So a bit worse than decimation, the village was also completely razed to the ground - utterly levelled. All-in-all including the populations of other villages some 1,300 people died because of Heydrich's assassination. No such parallel exists in anything connected with Gaza, where according to the UN Hamas terrorists deliberately used the civilian population as "human shields".

WP a chemical weapon?? Hardly, but that would be a simple matter of looking it up, it certainly is not listed as a chemical weapon, but is mentioned under a "Conventional Weapon Protocol". Such facts however will not sit well with Jim

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 23 Sep 11 - 11:23 AM

Turkey, by then, had no valid power over the rest of what had been the Ottoman Empire.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 23 Sep 11 - 11:39 AM

So what, Richard? Still can't see what your point relates to, unless it be to the query raised above about "neighbouring states' 'mandate' being required" [07.43. AM], which I have comprehensively demolished. If not that, then what are you on about in these last few gnomic utterances about "competent authority"?

A rational and comprehensible answer, please.

~Michael~

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Mrrzy
Date: 23 Sep 11 - 12:06 PM

He he he Jon Stewart suggested everyone'd all get along better if they changed the spelling to Palistein... he he he not a bad idea!

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 23 Sep 11 - 12:28 PM

From: Richard Bridge
Date: 23 Sep 11 - 11:23 AM

Turkey, by then, had no valid power over the rest of what had been the Ottoman Empire.

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



So YOU have stated that WW 1 has NEVER ended???

Richard has now stated that the treaty ending WW 1 and creating Lebanon, Syria, the borders of Turkey, Israel and Jordan et al is not valid.


Let me see. You have stated that the UN has no jurisdiction, that the treaties ending WW 1 are not valid, but you want to impose the 1948 truce lines as borders for Israel FOR WHAT REASON?????

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 23 Sep 11 - 12:35 PM

McGrath,

"The occupation of territory following a war is accepted as a temporary anomaly which needs to be rectified by the withdrawal of the occupiers"

Thus the 1948 truce lines cannot be the borders of israel.

The LAST accepted by the Arab nations borders are those of the Mandate Palestine Jewish Homeland ( after removal of 77% of the Mandate by the Mandate Power ( Great Britain) to become the Arab Homeland of Transjordan) from 1923.

Do you agree that THOSE borders are what should be imposed upon Israel???

Yes or No?

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 23 Sep 11 - 01:38 PM

Since it is obvious that some here will not bother to look at anything that migh differ with their opinions, I will post notes on the treaties in question. The following are the ones that Richard has declared not valid, concerning WW 1

"The Treaty of Sèvres (10 August 1920) was the peace treaty between the Ottoman Empire and Allies at the end of World War I. The Treaty of Versailles was signed with Germany before this treaty to annul the German concessions including the economic rights and enterprises. Also, France, Great Britain and Italy signed a secret "Tripartite Agreement" at the same date.[1] The Tripartite Agreement confirmed Britain's oil and commercial concessions and turned the former German enterprises in the Ottoman Empire over to a Tripartite corporation. The open negotiations covered a period of more than fifteen months, beginning at the Paris Peace Conference. The negotiations continued at the Conference of London, and took definite shape only after the premiers′ meeting at the San Remo conference in April 1920. France, Italy, and Great Britain, however, had secretly begun the partitioning of the Ottoman Empire as early as 1915. The delay occurred because the powers could not come to an agreement which, in turn, hinged on the outcome of the Turkish national movement. The Treaty of Sèvres was annulled in the course of the Turkish War of Independence and the parties signed and ratified the superseding Treaty of Lausanne in 1923.
The representatives signed the treaty in an exhibition room at the famous porcelain factory[2] in Sèvres, France.[3]
The treaty had four signatories for the Ottoman Empire: Rıza Tevfik, the grand vizier Damat Ferid Pasha, ambassador Hadi Pasha and the minister of education Reşid Halis who were endorsed by Sultan Mehmed VI.
Of the Principal Allied powers it excluded the United States. Russia was also excluded because it had negotiated the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk with the Ottoman Empire in 1918. In that treaty, at the insistence of the Grand Vizier Talat Pasha, the Ottoman Empire regained the lands Russia had captured in the Russo-Turkish War (1877–1878), specifically Ardahan, Kars, and Batumi. Sir George Dixon Grahame signed for Great Britain, Alexandre Millerand for France and Count Lelio Bonin Longare for Italy.
Among the other Allied powers, Greece did not accept the borders as drawn and never ratified it.[4] Avetis Aharonian, the President of the Delegation of the Democratic Republic of Armenia, which also signed the Treaty of Batum on 4 June 1918, was a signatory of this treaty."

British Mandate of Iraq
The details as reflected to the treaty regarding the British Mandate of Iraq was completed on April 25, 1920, at the San Remo conference.
Oil concession in this region was given to the British-controlled Turkish Petroleum Company (TPC) which had held concessionary rights to the Mosul wilaya (province). With elimination of the Ottoman Empire with this treaty, British and Iraqi negotiators held acrimonious discussions over the new oil concession. The League of Nations vote on the disposition of Mosul, and the Iraqis feared that, without British support, Iraq would lose the area. In March 1925, the TPC renamed to the Iraq Petroleum Company (IPC), was granted a full and complete concession for a period of 75 years.
[edit]British Mandate for Palestine
The three principles of the British Balfour Declaration regarding Palestine were adopted in the Treaty of Sèvres:
ARTICLE 95.
The High Contracting Parties agree to entrust, by application of the provisions of Article 22, the administration of Palestine, within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers, to a Mandatory to be selected by the said Powers. The Mandatory will be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2, 1917, by the British Government, and adopted by the other Allied Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.
Palestine officially fell under the British Mandate.
[edit]French Mandate of Lebanon
The mandate settled to France at the San Remo Conference. Comprising the region between the Euphrates river and the Syrian desert on the east, and the Mediterranean sea on the west, and extending from the Alma Dagh Mountains on the south to Egypt on the south; Area of territory about 60,000 sq mi (160,000 km2) with a population of about 3,000,000. Lebanon and an enlarged Syria, which were later assigned again under League of Nations Mandate. The region was divided under the French into four governments as follows: Government of Aleppo from the Euphrates region to the Mediterranean; Great Lebanon extending from Tripoli to Palestine; Damascus, including Damascus, Hama, Hems, and the Hauran; and the country of Mount Arisarieh.
[edit]French Mandate of Syria
Faisal ibn Husayn, who had been proclaimed king of Syria by a Syrian national congress in Damascus in March 1920, was ejected by the French in July of the same year.
[edit]

The San Remo[1] Conference was an international meeting of the post-World War I Allied Supreme Council, held in Sanremo, Italy, from 19 to 26 April 1920. It was attended by the four Principal Allied Powers of World War I who were represented by the prime ministers of Britain (David Lloyd George), France (Alexandre Millerand) and Italy (Francesco Nitti) and by Japan's Ambassador K. Matsui.
It determined the allocation of Class "A" League of Nations mandates for administration of the former Ottoman-ruled lands of the Middle East.
The precise boundaries of all territories were left unspecified, to "be determined by the Principal Allied Powers"[2] and were not finalized until four years later. The conference's decisions were embodied in the stillborn Treaty of Sèvres (Section VII, Art 94-97). As Turkey rejected this treaty, the conference's decisions were only finally confirmed by the Council of the League of Nations on 24 July 1922, and when Turkey accepted the terms of the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne.

"The Treaty of Lausanne was a peace treaty signed in Lausanne, Switzerland on 24 July 1923, that settled the Anatolian and East Thracian parts of the partitioning of the Ottoman Empire.[1] The treaty of Lausanne was ratified by the Greek government on 11 February 1924, by the Turkish government on 31 March, and by the governments of Great Britain, Italy and Japan on 6 August. It was registered in the League of Nations Treaty Series on 5 September 1924.[2] The Treaty of Lausanne superseded the Treaty of Sèvres which was signed by representatives of the Ottoman Empire.
The treaty was the consequence of the Turkish War of Independence between the Allies of World War I and the Ankara-based Grand National Assembly of Turkey (Turkish national movement) led by Mustafa Kemal Atatürk. The treaty also led to the international recognition of the sovereignty of the new Republic of Turkey as the successor state of the defunct Ottoman Empire.[1]"

"The treaty delimited the boundaries of Greece, Bulgaria, and Turkey; formally ceded all Turkish claims on the Dodecanese Islands (Article 15); Cyprus (Article 20); Egypt and Sudan (Article 17); Syria and Iraq (Article 3); and (along with the Treaty of Ankara) settled the boundaries of the latter two nations.[1]
The territories to the south of Syria and Iraq on the Arabian Peninsula which still remained under Turkish control when the Armistice of Mudros was signed on 30 October 1918 were not explicitly identified in the text of the treaty. However, the definition of Turkey's southern border in Article 3 also meant that Turkey officially ceded them. These territories included Yemen, Asir and parts of Hejaz like the city of Medina. They were held by Turkish forces until 23 January 1919.[9][10]
Turkey officially ceded Adakale Island in River Danube to Romania with Articles 25 and 26 of the Treaty of Lausanne; by formally recognizing the related provisions in the Treaty of Trianon of 1920.[1][8]
Turkey also renounced its privileges in Libya which were defined by Article 10 of the Treaty of Ouchy in 1912 (per Article 22 of the Treaty of Lausanne in 1923.)[1]
[edit]"

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 23 Sep 11 - 01:40 PM

Speaking of "The occupation of territory following a war is accepted as a temporary anomaly which needs to be rectified by the withdrawal of the occupiers"


Emir Faisal's brother, Abdullah, led a band of armed men north from the Hedjaz into Transjordan and threatened to attack Syria and vindicate the Hashemites' right to overlordship there. Samuel seized the opportunity to press the case for British control. He succeeded. In March 1921 the Colonial Secretary, Winston Churchill, visited the Middle East and endorsed an arrangement whereby Transjordan would be removed from the original territory of Palestine, with Abdullah as the emir under the authority of the High Commissioner, and with the condition that the Jewish National Home provisions of the (future) Palestine mandate would not apply there. Effectively, this removed about 78% of the original territory of Palestine and left about 22% where the application of the Balfour Declaration calling for a "Jewish" national home could be applied. Transjordan remained under the nominal auspices of the League of Nations and British administration, until its independence in 1928.[2]

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 23 Sep 11 - 01:53 PM

You might, BB, try reading and thinking about what I have said, rather than going of on some rant of your own.

By the dates you give, the "Ottoman Empire" did not exist. There was no effective government in its former possessions. Thus no treaty in its name or under its alleged title could create countries. Nor was there any way for the League of Nations or UN to derive a valid power to do so.

I am not addressing any other of the effects, actual or purported, of the papers you cite.

MtheGM - accordingly nothing validly created the right for Israel to exist within any borders.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 23 Sep 11 - 02:06 PM

Richard,

You might try reading and thinking about what I have posted, rather than going of on some rant of your own.

The treaties show a clear path of national responsibility from the Ottoman Empire through to the Government of Turkey. If YOU chose to invalidate those treaties, you have invalidated the legality of a number of nations. If you accept those nations, but NOT the Jewish Homeland, I have no choice but to state that you are anti-semetic ( as defined in modern usage) as shown by your own statements, at which point further discussion is pointless.


To all: I have YET to hear ANY reason why the 1948 Truce lines being promulgated as the borders of Israel have any (more) validity than those of the 1967 Truce lines. I have presented reason why the circa 1923 borders of the Jewish Homeland are more appropriate according to the reasoning that has been posted here by those supporting a Palestinian state, and have shown the the Arab Palestinian population has already received a portion of the Mandate Palestine in excess of the proportion of population at that time. I will have to presume that there is some measure of religious bigotry here, that a Jewish state is being treated in a manner far more harsh than any other.

If this is not the case, please show me some reason to think so. The comments posted here have not done so.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Sep 11 - 02:10 PM

Any chance of turning the discussion to the circumstances of 2011, and the question of whether there are any valid reasons to oppose Palestine having UN membership as a state?

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 23 Sep 11 - 02:31 PM

McGrath,

My point is that the reasons presented here for Israel to go back to the pre-1967 border lines ( 1948 truce lines) are the same ones that I am using for stating the circa 1923 borders. Yet I have seen NOTHING PRESENTED to justify them- The statement that lands acquired by war must be returned seem only to apply to Israel giving up land, and NOT to going back to the last accepted border of circa 1923.

So if Arabs take land by war, it is OK, but if Jews try to recover it, it is a crime??

Israel has offered a Palestinian state , of Israeli land- and had if refused. The precondition the Israel has asked for is that it's existence be conceded- The one the Palestinians demand it that Israel go back to borders that were the result of Arab warfare. This whole attempt by the Palestinians is an effort to avoid having to negotiate with Israel over the borders.

In addition, the result of a Palestinian nation will be that that nation will be held to account for the actions of those in it's borders- and further rocket attacks, such have been going on for many years, will be acts of war and result in further military action against the Palestinians.

The present fate of the Palestinian people is due far more to the actions of the surrounding Arab nations, and their own choices, than due to Israel. The PLO has already stated that no Jews will be allowed in that future Palestinian state, yet I hear no comments on that.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Sep 11 - 02:46 PM

None of that is relevant to the immediate question of whether there are any grounds for refusing recognition of Palestine as a state.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 23 Sep 11 - 02:50 PM

Bruce, by the dates you specify there was no Ottoman empire and Turkey had no domain at all in the affected territories. You can't give away what you don't own.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 23 Sep 11 - 02:58 PM

Richard,

If you bother to read, you will see that the

The Treaty of Sèvres (10 August 1920) was the peace treaty between the Ottoman Empire and Allies at the end of World War I. The Treaty of Versailles was signed with Germany before this treaty to annul the German concessions including the economic rights and enterprises.
The treaty had four signatories for the Ottoman Empire: Rıza Tevfik, the grand vizier Damat Ferid Pasha, ambassador Hadi Pasha and the minister of education Reşid Halis who were endorsed by Sultan Mehmed VI.
Of the Principal Allied powers it excluded the United States. Russia was also excluded because it had negotiated the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk with the Ottoman Empire in 1918. In that treaty, at the insistence of the Grand Vizier Talat Pasha, the Ottoman Empire regained the lands Russia had captured in the Russo-Turkish War (1877–1878), specifically Ardahan, Kars, and Batumi. Sir George Dixon Grahame signed for Great Britain, Alexandre Millerand for France and Count Lelio Bonin Longare for Italy.

This is a valid treaty. Turkey did not accept it.Thus,

"The Treaty of Lausanne was a peace treaty signed in Lausanne, Switzerland on 24 July 1923, that settled the Anatolian and East Thracian parts of the partitioning of the Ottoman Empire.[1] The treaty of Lausanne was ratified by the Greek government on 11 February 1924, by the Turkish government on 31 March, and by the governments of Great Britain, Italy and Japan on 6 August. It was registered in the League of Nations Treaty Series on 5 September 1924.[2] The Treaty of Lausanne superseded the Treaty of Sèvres which was signed by representatives of the Ottoman Empire.

If the Turks did NOT have standing, the first treaty applies, If they DO have standing, the second applies. IN EITHER CASE, Mandate Palestine was declared to be the Jewish homeland,

"The Mandatory will be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2, 1917, by the British Government, and adopted by the other Allied Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people"

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 23 Sep 11 - 03:04 PM

McGrath,

There already exists a Palestinian Arab state, independent since 1928 or so- Transjordan ( now called Jordan). It was formed from 77+% of the Mandate Palestine territory to be the Arab homeland , since Great Britain did not think it could implement the Mandate terms that "nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."

Of course, the rights and political status of Jews in any other country were also ignored, as the Arab homeland had a prohibition on Jewish property ownership or settlement.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 23 Sep 11 - 03:15 PM

As for the present attempt at anothe Palestinian state,




Friday afternoon, Abbas said he is adamant about not recognizing Israel as the Jewish state.

"They talk to us about the Jewish state, but I respond to them with a final answer: We shall not recognize a Jewish state," Abbas said in a meeting with some 200 senior representatives of the Palestinian community in the US, shortly before taking the podium and delivering a speech at the United Nations General Assembly.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 23 Sep 11 - 03:16 PM

1. There was no Ottoman Empire by then
2. Turkey had no domain in the relevant areas
3. Britain had no valid domain in the relevant areas.

No-one had rightful power to give away the lands of the people who were there.

What is so hard to understand about that?

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 23 Sep 11 - 03:21 PM

Meanwhile, Hamas said Friday Palestinians should liberate their land, not beg for recognition at the United Nations, firmly rejecting President Abbas' quest for statehood. Speaking hours before Abbas was due to ask formally that the UN recognize a Palestinian state, senior Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh said this would not bring independence.

"Our Palestinian people do not beg for a state. ...States are not built upon UN resolutions. States liberate their land and establish their entities," Haniyeh said.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: GUEST,livelylass
Date: 23 Sep 11 - 03:23 PM

"We shall not recognize a Jewish state,"

Honest question, is it appropriate to designate a land mass as belonging to members of a specific single religion and/or race in exclusion of others today?

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 23 Sep 11 - 03:27 PM

Richard,

Please learn to read. YOU have just stated again that the treaties that ended WW1 and established a number of nations are invalid.


If YOU only apply this to Israel, and not to Turkey, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan et al, YOU are a obviously anti-semetic bigot.

In addition, your statements are incorrect.

1. There was no Ottoman Empire by then

Just as there was no Third Reich at the end of WW 2- but there were still valid surrender documents.

2. Turkey had no domain in the relevant areas

MOST of the property that became Mandate Palestine was owned by individuals in Turkey- the people who lived there in general rented property from those owners.

3. Britain had no valid domain in the relevant areas.

Wrong again. By BOTH treaties, Britain was the Mandate Power.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 23 Sep 11 - 03:33 PM

Livelylass,

"Honest question, is it appropriate to designate a land mass as belonging to members of a specific single religion and/or race in exclusion of others today?"




You mean like the Vatican being a Catholic state, or Saudi Arabia , Jordan, Iran, Iraq, Egypt, Libya, Morocco, Algeria, Yemen, Oman, etc being Islamic states???

Israel DOES NOT EXCLUDE Non-Jews from citizenship- can you say the same about the Arab nations ( in regards to non-Islams?)

The fact that you can ask this question, while ignoring the many places where it is prohibited to live if one IS Jewish shows a lack of... humanity?

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Sep 11 - 03:38 PM

There was no government representing the people of Palestine involved in those events 90 years ago. That's just one reason why they have no relevance to the present issue.

The representatives of the people of Palestine today are seeking recognition as a state. What valid grounds are there for denying this, or for thinking that it is not also in the interests of the people of Israel?

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: mg
Date: 23 Sep 11 - 03:45 PM

I do not think all the above are considered exclusively Islamic states..what is Iran? And I do not know where Jews are excluded, and I would hope nowhere...but there are other religions practiced in some of those places...various Christian groups and others as well I am sure. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 23 Sep 11 - 03:55 PM

Richard ~~ One more attempt to get it into your thick skull ~ the relevant date is 1947, by which time the United Nations Organisation was in recognised control of international legislation, with the agreement of its members ~~ WHICH INCLUDED SYRIA, LEBANON, EGYPT, SAUDI ARABIA... all of which had power to vote in its deliberations. A motion came up for the establishment of a Jewish State within borders declared by that authority. This motion was carried, to date from the agreed time of the ending of the British mandate, held from the former League of Nations. This motion was approved, in Security Council & by the General Assembly, despite votes cast against by the above-named; who, as members, were bound by that membership to accept the Organisation's decisions. The continued existence of the Ottoman Empire, the status Turkey had previously enjoyed in the region, were entirely irrelevant to this Resolution, made by international agreement by the body recognised worldwide at that time as competent to make such decisions ~ including the above-named, who thereby provided the 'mandate' for Israel's existence which you demanded above, much as they might have wished otherwise & sought to evade such responsibility.

Now please stop wittering on about Turks, Ottomans, Armchairs, or Baths ~~ & face the facts; as the above-mentioned dissident members of the Organisation, to both their shame & their bane, failed to do.

Otherwise away and play your own games.

(Much Ado About Nothing, Act I, scene 1:~

Beatrice: I wonder you will still be talking, Signor Benedick. Nobody marks you.)

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: GUEST,livelylass
Date: 23 Sep 11 - 03:56 PM

"The fact that you can ask this question, while ignoring the many places where it is prohibited to live if one IS Jewish shows a lack of... humanity?"

So, based on this comment, am I to assume that you believe it is wrong to assign a land mass as belonging to one particular set of individuals based on their race and/or religion?

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Stringsinger
Date: 23 Sep 11 - 04:03 PM

Israel may not exclude non-Jews but many that are not Jewish are second-class citizens.
This is the problem with a theocracy, either the non-believers are excluded or given second class status. This was at one time true under the Ottoman Empire which allowed Jews to be in their society but they were taxed for their trouble.

Jordan, today, is not a Palestinian State. Of course the British Government had control over their mandates regarding the Mid-East and Palestine but these mandates are not accepted now by the Palestinian people.

:
"So if Arabs take land by war, it is OK, but if Jews try to recover it, it is a crime??"

The problem is that Jews also take land by war. They also occupy that land by war.

There is only one solution. A one-state solution whereby Jews and Arabs will have a co-equal form of government in these disputed areas. It probably should be a socialist regime.

As we know, this is not going to happen because of the intransigence of Israel and the animosity of Palestinians.

Netanyahu represents the Likud Party view that is analogous to the Bush W. and Nixon White House views that culminate in a power move that doesn't include the needs of the people in the country.

Israelis are beginning to discover what this reactionary power move means when their economy is tanking for the unemployed and disenfranchised. in their country.

We may have to have a U.S. Spring, and Israeli Spring in addition to the Arab Spring.

In the meantime, Israel will have to become more secular, the Palestinians will have to develop more of a secular state and the underlying division based on religion will have to be removed. This has a historical precedent going back to the Jews and the Philistines (read Palestinians) and the tribal warfare of the time.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Stringsinger
Date: 23 Sep 11 - 04:12 PM

Here is an important article on this topic.
The Occupation That Time Forgot

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 23 Sep 11 - 04:35 PM

Any statements criticizing Israel are regarded as anti-Semitic.

The area was flooded by Zionist elements from Europe and North America, immensely loading the situation against the Palestinians.

Often cited by Israelis is the fact that many Palestinians live in Israel, but they don't mention the restrictions.
Palestinians and other Arabs living in Israel (20 per cent of the population are severely restricted.
Many of fearful of making objections for fear of reprisals.
1. The "law of return" guarantees every Jew automatic Israeli citizenship if desired, at the expense of those who have lived on the land for generations (One additional aspect of this is the attempt to confine Bedouins to specific towns).
2. Non-Jews cannot perform military service, baring them from a broad spectrum of services tied to 'full' citizenship.
3. A Knesset law bars Palestinians married to Israelis from living with their spouses in Israel.
4. Budgets for infrastructure of Palestinian towns in Israel are miniscule, and if the town is not specifically "recoginzed," basic services such as water, sewers and roads are denied.
5. The educational system is biased in favor of Jewish customs.
6. The idea of collective rights and protection of the Palestinian minority are absent from the Laws of Israel.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Sep 11 - 05:45 PM

"the relevant date is 1947"

No - the relevant date is 2011.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 23 Sep 11 - 05:59 PM

One thing I will say is that I have never met a Palestinian person I did not really like. Their level of politeness is amazing..not that I would stereotype. I am sure there are rude ones, but the ones I have met are very charming and humble. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: GUEST,livelylass
Date: 23 Sep 11 - 06:17 PM

As the colonial imposed plantations of Northern Ireland haven't fared too well, my assumption is that the colonially imposed Israel is likely to fare similarly.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 23 Sep 11 - 11:27 PM

Don't pretend to be more stupid than you are, McGrath; it really isn't necessary!

Regards

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 24 Sep 11 - 02:54 AM

It's curious to see who is getting hot under the collar about this.

The UN had (and has) power to admit members. In my view it should admit Palestine as a member and sufficient reason is the need to be even-handed. It does not have the right to give away the land of others. It is not a legitimate world government.

I have not said that the treaties ending WW1 were not valid as between the parties. All I have said is that the parties to them had no right to give away the land of others. They could of course renounce their own claims to lands.

Thus the appointment of the UK to govern the mandated territories conferred no right to do so.

Thus the 1947/8 disposition also conferred no right to give away the land of others. Note "others".

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Sep 11 - 03:56 AM

McGrath has been pleading from the start of this thread that we concern ourselves mainly with the current issue of UN membership and statehood, on the very reasonable grounds that the historical background has been debated before, at some length.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Teribus
Date: 24 Sep 11 - 05:36 AM

As the situation stands today, the following should be all for acceptance of the Palestinian proposal and for the granting of full UN membership and recognition of Palestine as an independent sovereign state:

- Anyone who wishes to do permanent damage to the United Nations;
- Israeli hardline "zionists";
- Iran;
- Syria;
- Turkey.

Oddly enough counted amongst the ranks of those opposed are Hamas and Hezbollah who see the formal creation and recognition of such a Palestinian state as a betrayal.

Some facts with regard to this newly created Palestinian State:

1. It becomes internationally responsible for the activities of its citizens within its borders.

2. It becomes responsible for acts committed by its citizens against other nations and their citizens.

3. Becoming a full member of the United Nations requires that Palestine (new member) FORMALLY RECOGNISE the State of Israel (member since 1949) and acknowledge their right to live in peace free from threat of attack.

So grant Palestine "statehood" and the next rocket, mortar shell or kidnapping attempt initiated from inside Palestine against Israel all of a sudden becomes an attack by one member state on another. The state of Palestine as represented by Mahmoud Abbas cannot throw their hands in the air and claim we're sorry but we cannot control our own citizens - that would no longer be accepted as the government of Palestine you have to control your citizens if they are engaged in attacking another member state.

Palestine could of course acquire allies to aid their cause and by gathering them around her could possibly attempt to deter Israeli retaliation (Which Israel by the terms of the UN Charter would be fully justified in taking). But that takes us back to the situation that existed in 1948 and we all know how that turned out don't we, only this time the game would be seen through to completion and basically I would not give a "rats ass" for the chances of Egyptian; Syrian; Lebanese; Jordanian or Palestinian forces, all of whom for their entire existence have only ever performed one function and exercised one role - that of suppressing their own people in order to keep the ruling cliques in power. The IDF on the other hand for the last 63 years has fought and prepared itself to defend their country - they have learned well and they have become damn good at it.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Sep 11 - 06:42 AM

Thanks for getting the point I have been trying to make, Keith.

Most of Teribus's argument in that last post actually tends to support the case for recognition of Palestinian statehood.

However the suggestion that terrorist actions "initiated" from inside the territory of a state are equivalent to an attack by that state does not stand up to scrutiny. The actions of private individuals or groups are to be distinguished from the actions of the government. The Norwegian government was not responsible for the actions of Anders Breivik, and would not have been responsible if he had chosen to carry them out across the Swedish border instead of within his own country.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: GUEST,HiLo
Date: 24 Sep 11 - 12:10 PM

I do not normally get involved in these Mudcat poliical discussions. However, what I find in this thread is a lot of bad history, poor logic and, in some cases, total ignorance of the the facts. In any case, I believe that the state of Israel has every right to exist...two thousand years of virulent European anti semitism have made it essential that the Jewish people have a safe haven, safe from hate and persecution.
   I also believe that the Palestinian people have a right to a homeland. However, a Palestinian state could not thrive sharing a border with Israel...there would never be any peace for either.
   It would seem to me that all of the Arab states must be involved in any descision to create a Palestinian state and that Israel would be wise to stay out of the negotiations unless a common border were proposed.
   This is a very complicated issue, ignorance and hyperbole wount solve it.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Sep 11 - 02:30 PM

How could there not be a common border?
Where do you see this state being located?

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Teribus
Date: 24 Sep 11 - 02:46 PM

"The Norwegian government was not responsible for the actions of Anders Breivik, and would not have been responsible if he had chosen to carry them out across the Swedish border instead of within his own country."

Kevin I do not think that even with the wildest stretches of imagination can anyone think that you are comparing apples to apples.

But anyway let us play out your rather idiotic comparison:

Had Breivik carried out his attack in Sweden then the Swedish authorities would fully expect Norway to hand over Breivik to answer for his crimes in a Swedish Court.

Now in all honesty please tell me how far the writ of the Palestinian Authority extends in Gaza? I will tell you Kevin - not a whit - Mahmoud Abbas and Fatah can go take a poke at a rolling doughnut as far as Hamas in Gaza go, and therein lies the problem. The United Nations is being asked on the grounds of pure emotion to welcome into it's fold and create a country that seeks the annihilation and total destruction of another member state, which when all said and done is a pretty poor move - downright disastrous in fact - it goes against everything the UN stands for.

Should, after formal recognition of the State of Palestine, there be an attack on Israel from "Palestine" (my guess it would come from Gaza) then the UN Security Council MUST come down on the side of the victim and condemn the aggressor, so shortly after having been accepted as a full member Palestine would find itself on the receiving end of both Israeli retaliatory attacks and UN censure.

So unless the "Palestinian" Government are fully prepared to screw the nut and curb the extremists inside its borders they are on a guaranteed hiding to nothing.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: GUEST,HiLo
Date: 24 Sep 11 - 03:11 PM

So long as there is Palestinian denial of the right of Israel to exist, a common border would doom the entire process. The nations of the middle east, who have most to gain from prolonged peace, should be the ones who resolve the Palestinian Problem. For far too long the West has tried to act as the sole negotiator...this clearly does not work. Where excatly a Palestinian state should be, should be determined by those who will have to provide a physical manifestation of a Palestinian state. Neither Europe or America can do that.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Sep 11 - 03:24 PM

I was making a point about what I perceived as a fault in the logic of what Teribus had said about there being an automatic identity between the actions of a government and an action of individuals or groups living in a country. There is no such automatic identity.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Sep 11 - 04:35 PM

a common border would doom the entire process

It's a bit hard to see what HiLo means here - I don't think he or she can be meaning that a "Palestinian" state could be set up in some part of the world well away from Israel, with the Palestinians being deported there - with Israel continuing to have a common border with other countries, which in the circumstances would hardly be likely to view it as a friendly neighbours.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Sep 11 - 05:10 PM

I think he/she does, and the same person said, "what I find in this thread is a lot of bad history, poor logic and, in some cases, total ignorance of the the facts" !

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Mrrzy
Date: 24 Sep 11 - 07:31 PM

Well, does Israel have a right to exist, just because it was invented after the war in a fit of guilt?

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 25 Sep 11 - 12:32 AM

It wasn't 'invented' then, Mrrzy, or 'just because'. Not saying these were not factors at the time in influencing the UN in its decisions [which it had the best right to determine & carry thru, however much Richard Bridge may bluff & bluster & go on spouting pigshit], but to attribute the entirety of the fact of Israel as an 'invention ... just because of ... in a fit of guilt' is the kind of mindless over-simplfied ¼-or-less-truth that is worse than a lie because it is an attempt to conceal and befog the actual truth. You will have to do a bit better than that.

"Right to exist"? Has the USA? ~ ask the Cree Nations. Has Mexico? Ask the Aztecs. Has Bangladesh? Ask the Pakistanis. Has Pakistan? Ask the Indians ........

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Teribus
Date: 25 Sep 11 - 03:02 AM

"Well, does Israel have a right to exist" - Mrrzy

According to the Charter of the United Nations it does. In fact that Charter guarantees its right to exist. A bi-lateral defence treaty concluded with the United States of America in 1948 guarantees Israel's right to exist - take it from there.

Attacks on a sovereign nation by terrorist groups based in another state, require that the "host" state do all in their power to curb and prevent such attacks. If the "host" state do nothing to curb and prevent the attacks and do not bring those carrying them out to justice, then the "host" country can be viewed as being complicit in those attacks and is open to retaliation.

Examples:
The Republic of Ireland was never held responsible for harbouring and aiding IRA attacks in Northern Ireland or on the mainland. The IRA was a proscribed and illegal organisation in the Republic of Ireland decades before it was proscribed in the UK

Afghanistan under the rule of the Taleban was held responsible for harbouring and aiding Al-Qaeda and was subsequently attacked in order that the "host" regime could be overthrown.

The Lebanon, after the 2006 Israeli invasion, Hezbollah improved it's political "footprint" in the country and became part of the ruling coalition. In December 2008 and January 2009 during Operation "Cast Lead" IIRC there was one single instance of a rocket being fired into northern Israel from South Lebanon - Hezbollah immediately disclaimed responsibility for launching the missile and assured the Israeli's that they would do everything in their power to ensure there would be no repetition - They held good to their promise - there has not been a single instance of a rocket attack on Israel from the Lebanon since.

Once granted statehood if there are any attacks on Israel launched from inside either Gaza (most likely) or from the West Bank then Mahmoud Abbas and his "Government" have to arrest and punish those responsible or hand them over to the Israeli's, if they do neither then they are as complicit as the Taleban were and as such are open to retaliatory strikes by Israel and censure from the UN in the form of sanctions and withdrawal of aid.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: GUEST,livelylass
Date: 25 Sep 11 - 04:21 AM

One of the more concerning elements of this matter, is that if the UN General Assembly do ultimately vote to recognise Palestine as a state, there are moves afoot within Israel and the US to annex the West Bank.

Repuplicans have already drafted a bill in support of such an Israeli action to "explain to the Palestinians that actions have consequences."

I've had a little difficulty finding decent news sources discussing this development this morning (I think the Guardian may have something for anyone inclined to do a more thorough search), but here's something from an anti-war journal - which is perhaps pertinent:

US Republican support for proposed Israeli annexing of West Bank

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: GUEST,livelylass
Date: 25 Sep 11 - 04:25 AM

Oh, and there are a number of related links to various other articles on the web, linked to within that piece also.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 25 Sep 11 - 06:07 AM

Calm down Mr Myers. One cannot lift oneself by the bootstraps.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 25 Sep 11 - 06:38 AM

Annexing the West Bank would have some interesting implications. It would mean that the partition of Palestine dating from 1947/8 was largely reversed. It would mean that there would be over two million more Arabs in the resulting country that there are in Israel at present.

It seems likely that Hamas would welcome this development.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 25 Sep 11 - 08:52 AM

Do you mean me, Mr Bridges? My name is Grosvenor Myer ~~ most singular!

And I am perfectly calm, I thank you... Though must declare self entirely at a loss as to what bootstraps, or any use to which same might be put, have to do with the case. Would you care to elucidate?

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Mrrzy
Date: 25 Sep 11 - 10:01 PM

Hey, we Amurricans killed off the natives fair and square. (Please, please don't take this wrong. It's coming from me, and I have a permanent BG.)

Where Israel was carved out of existing territory, the natives weren't conquered or killed off, so while it is a *fact* that the UN created Israel legally, should that make the displaced homeless?

Or should they all just become Jordanian and Lebanese and other nationalities from areas surrounding Israel and let the Israelis take over more and more that they *weren't* given legally, and forget about Palestine, which has existed since before Judea?

Or should it be realized, some would say decided, that said occupation, while legal, was wrongly accomplished, or wrong to begin with since why base land lines on the Talmud instead of the Koran, or some secular peace negotiation? After all, Prohibition was repealed, despite it having been legally started by constitutional amendment. The UN should be allowed to change its mind if it decides it was wrong then. Then the Israelis could become Jewish citizens of Jordan and Lebanon and etc and give everybody a rest for a while... yeah, right.

What is the "right" thing to do?

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 25 Sep 11 - 11:44 PM

It's very simple really. No-one has yet produced a rational basis to assert that the League of Nations, the UN, or the UK had the power validly to create a state of Israel.

Equally no-one yet that I have seen has produced a rational basis to assert that the UN should not permit Palestine membership (a quite different issue).

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 26 Sep 11 - 01:24 AM

Don't give up, do you dear Richard! Oh well, maunder on. "Much Ado About Nothing" again, in more than one sense. 'Nobody marks you'.

Regards from the other singular one

~M~

Bet you hate it when they call you Bridges, don't you?
                      ~M Gro-Myer~

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Teribus
Date: 26 Sep 11 - 01:24 AM



Yet they did have the power to create:
Poland
Austria
Hungary
Czech Republic
Slovak Republic
Serbia
Slovenia
Bosnia
Syria
Turkey
Iraq
Lebanon
Libya
Algeria
Sudan

But they did not have the power to acknowledge the will of the people of Palestine in 1948 who decided to accept the two-state solution as proposed in the areas defined. How strange.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 26 Sep 11 - 04:07 AM

"the will of the people of Palestine in 1948 who decided to accept the two-state solution"

???????????????????????

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 26 Sep 11 - 04:36 AM

Richard ~ Teribus is right. The country under the Mandate was called Palestine; it only became Israel after the declaration of May 1948. I take it that it was the Jews of the then-Palestine at the time of the UN resolution to whom he was referring. They agreed to the borders stated by the UN, but were prevented from implementing their State within them by the hostile and, as it proved, counterproductive actions of the Arab/Muslim entities all round. Admittedly, mind you, 'two-state solution' is something of a misnomer, Teribus; it was in fact a partition.

Keep digging, Richard ...

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Sep 11 - 05:45 AM

They agreed to the borders stated by the UN,

That's an oversimplification - the borders imposed by the UN were significantly smaller than the borders that were desired and obtained by Israel in the course of the war, which are those of the Green Line.

But that's not particularly relevant to the issue today, which is whether there are any valid reasons why a Palestinian state should not be recognised as a member of the United Nations.

One reason which has been given in media disussion is that this could mean that Israel would be subject to the scrutiny of the International Criminal Court in relation to its actions, including the establishments of illegal settlements in occupied territory. I cannot see how this can be seen as a valid ground for opposing recognition of Palestine.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 26 Sep 11 - 06:14 AM

"the Jews of the then-Palestine"

Anyone else see the omission?

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 26 Sep 11 - 06:14 AM

PS - what then Palestine? See further above...

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 26 Sep 11 - 06:43 AM

McGrath ~~ You weren't listening: I stated explicitly that they agreed to the UN authorised borders up to the time of the May 48 Declaration, but that it was the refusal of the other parties concerned to do so which subsequently led to the 'Green Line' borders; 'in the course of the war', as you rightly say. Who initiated that war?.

Richard ~ re 'then Palestine': that was the name universally recognised prior to May 48 for the territory under consideration. What does one have to do to get the simplest fact into your thick head!

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 26 Sep 11 - 08:13 AM

"From: Mrrzy
Date: 25 Sep 11 - 10:01 PM

...

Where Israel was carved out of existing territory, the natives weren't conquered or killed off, so while it is a *fact* that the UN created Israel legally, should that make the displaced homeless? "


1. The existing territory was the Jewish Homeland of Mandate Palestine, the Arab homeland ( of 77% of the Mandate was Transjordan)

2. If one is to consider the displaced Arab Palestinians ( around 640,000), the LARGER number of Jews ( 820,000) driven out of Arab nations ( and it was the Arab League that attacked the newly formed state of Israel) should ALSO be considered, UNLESS you insist that Jews are not human, and Arabs are. THAT seems to be the implied "fact" in many comments here.





"Or should they all just become Jordanian and Lebanese and other nationalities from areas surrounding Israel and let the Israelis take over more and more that they *weren't* given legally, and forget about Palestine, which has existed since before Judea?"

1. Yes, THEY SHOULD HAVE BEEN, Israel absorbed the Jewish refugees from Arab nations, Pakistan absorbed the Moslem Refugees from India, and India absorbed the Hindu refugees from Pakistan and Bangladesh. When people here start arguing for giving Pakistan BACK to the Hindus who were driven out, THEN I might believe that they are NOT bunch of religious bigots and anti-semites.

2. Palestine was an administrative area of the Ottoman Empire. It was NOT an independent country until the Mandate. Judea was a portion of ancient Israel, which has NOT been brought up.



It seems that if Jews take lands back that had been from them " by force of arms ( 1948) " (Re the Mandate Palestine Jewish homeland boundaries) then they have to give it back, but when the Arabs "Take land by force of arms it means they get to keep it forever.

Anybody note a religious based bias besides me????

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Sep 11 - 08:34 AM

Anyone care to discuss the actual issue? Recognition of Palestine as a state in this present year, 2011.

Since this is evidently the wish of a large majority of people living there, and of a large majority of countries at the UN, there would need to be some pretty good reasons for this not to happen.

Any suggestions as to what these "pretty good reasons" would be?

There is of course the argument that such recognition would mean accepting the continuing partition of what might be called Palestine, Greater Israel or the Holy Land. Supporters of Hamas and of the settlers might share this view, along with those who would prefer to see a united non-sectarian state throughout the whole territory. However it is hard to sustain this as realistic in the light of present circumstances.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 26 Sep 11 - 08:49 AM

Mr Myer: an area without a legally constituted existence or legally constituted rulers because no-one had the proper authority derived from 1917/22 so to constitute.

It might be a good idea if what is now intended to be called Palestine, and what is now called Israel (or a smaller area, like for example the 1947/8 area) were both recognised by the UN and (a separate issue) by each other. I don't offhand see how Palestine could (lawfully) continue its opposition to the existence of a state of Israel if it was a member of the UN (because it WOULD then have "joined the club") - and I don't offhand see how Israel could (lawfully) continue to occupy and oppress the West Bank and Gaza and their occupants.

I suppose they could (like the USA) say "OK, have an International court so long as it has no jurisdiction over me", but I haven't noticed that being said yet.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: EBarnacle
Date: 26 Sep 11 - 08:53 AM

Perhaps if Israel had kept the name Palestine the indigenous Arab peoples would have happily accepted them. Yeah, sure.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: bobad
Date: 26 Sep 11 - 09:04 AM

"Any suggestions as to what these "pretty good reasons" would be?"

As far as Hamas is concerned, their "pretty good reason" is that it would implicitly acknowledge Israel's existence as a state which they do not accept, that is why they are opposed to the Palestinian request.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 26 Sep 11 - 09:05 AM

But 1912/22 'authorities' are irrelevant, Richard, because no-one denied both the de facto & de jure authority of UN to make the decision in 1947. Can't see why you keep dragging the, by then long superseded, Ottoman/Turkish interest, which had by then long ceased to be a factor, into the discussion at all. It seems to be some redcondite, arcane, mnemonic thought-process of your own.

~~~"both recognised by the UN and (a separate issue) by each other." ~~~

But that's the bugbear, Richard. The Palestinian entity wants statehood recognised by membership of UN, without any undertaking to recognise Israel's {a member since 1949} right to existence. They are not, surely, 'separate issue[s]'? You go on to admit so yourself ~
"I don't offhand see how Palestine could (lawfully) continue its opposition to the existence of a state of Israel if it was a member of the UN (because it WOULD then have "joined the club")".

But they [the Palestinians] nevertheless seek membership without any such undertaking.

There's the rub. Do you really not get it?

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Sep 11 - 09:39 AM

But recognition for a diminished state of Palestine within the 1967 borders does imply recognition of the state of Israel within 78% of what had been universally referred to as Palestine prior to 1948.

That is why Hamas is as opposed to this as are supporters of the settlements, including the Israeli government.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: GUEST,livelylass
Date: 26 Sep 11 - 09:46 AM

Good points McGrath

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 26 Sep 11 - 09:46 AM

It might 'imply' it, McG. But has any spokesperson had the bottle to come out & CONFIRM that such recognition would definitely be forthcoming, beyond any of the dubiety suggested by your "imply"?

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 26 Sep 11 - 10:38 AM

McGrath,

Why the pre-1967 borders? Why not the last ones the Arab states accepted ( 1923) or the 1972 truce lines?

Why are truce lines from the 1948 war more valid than accepted borders?

Or why not insist on the UN lines before the Arab attacks. THOSE would leave Israel with indefensible borders, and insure a new war, probably nuclear, within weeks.


And why has no one addressed the issue of the Jewish refugees form the 1948 war??

Shouldn't THEY get a land, carved from the Arab states?

And before you say that they have Israel, the Palestinian Arabs have Jordan and you don't seem to think that enough.

But then, it was 820,000 Jews Vs 640,000 Arabs- so of course you only care about giving the Arabs another state.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Sep 11 - 10:45 AM

The deeds of my house formally define the boundaries of my property with neighbours. They don't say anything over and above that about formally confirming their boundaries with mine. That's implied to be the same. Doesn't need confirming.

For that matter, until the Irish Constitution was amended after the Good Friday Agreement referendum in 1998, Ireland did not accept the lawful existence of a "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland", since the territory of the Irish Republic was defined as the whole island of Ireland, which of course was not accepted by Westminster. That didn't stop the two countries both being members of the United Nations, and rubbing along well enough for the most part.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Sep 11 - 10:59 AM

And here is the Irish Minister of Foreign Affairs in the UN today, making a telling point, while stating Irish support for Palestine's bid: "Some seek to argue that Palestine cannot be recognised as a state because its borders remain to be agreed. But if the borders of Palestine are still a matter for negotiation, then so, by definition, are those of Israel, which is rightly a full member of the UN.â€쳌

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 26 Sep 11 - 11:04 AM

"within 78% of what had been universally referred to as Palestine prior to 1948."

Not sure where this comes from. The nation of Transjordan was 77+% of the original Mandate Palestine, and made into an Arab ONLY homeland, with Jews not allowed ( though lib=vlylass seems to think that ok as long as Jews don't do it.)

The West Bank is more than 22% of the 1923 Jewish Homeland portion of the later Mandate Palestine.

Since it was conquered in 1948, I think IT should be returned to the Jewish homeland. Those Jews there in 1948 were driven ou, along with the Jews from other Arab nations, members of the Arab League whose forces took the West bank. Israel reclaimed it in 1967, after the Arabs attacked again.

AND YOU CLAIM THAT ISRAEL HAS TO RETURN "CONQUERED TERRITORIES"?

Obvious religious bigotry.

And ANY comment about the citizenship rights of non-Jews in Israel needs to address the citizen rights of Jews in the Arab nation. Otherwise, you are stating that Jews are not deserving of the rights that you give others.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Sep 11 - 11:31 AM

The idea that the term Jewish Homeland" implied territory exclusively or even predominantly Jewish is one which has been developed retrospectively. The original understanding of theterm was that it meant a place where Jews would have a right to live and share with other people whose home it was, more especially those other "children of Abraham", the Arabian inhabitants of the territory.
................

But that isn't relevant to what I boringly remind people is the supposed topic of the thread, the rights and wrongs of the Palestinian bid in 2011 to membership of the United Nations.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 26 Sep 11 - 11:41 AM

McGrath,

The original intent was that- THEN the Arabs were given 77+% of the Mandate Palestine territory ( Transjordan) to be prohibited to Jews. The obvious conclusion was that the remainder was for the Jews.

As for the present, you have not addressed the points I brought up.

WHY SHOULD THE PALESTINIAN REFUGEES GET A STATE, when YOU have denied that the greater number of Jewish refugees should get one???

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Greg F.
Date: 26 Sep 11 - 11:52 AM

Obvious religious bigotry.

Hardly. Just facts, logic, fairness and common sense

Nope, BB - the (pro-Zionist at all costs) bigotry is entirely on your side.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 26 Sep 11 - 12:13 PM

Greg F.


Care to give a reason that Arab Palestinians get what you won't give Jews?

You have presented NO facts, no logic, no fairness and no common sense, just stated that Jews are not entitled to be treated the way you would have them treat Arab Moslem Palestinians.

If you don't like my statements, try to argue them, and not make attacks on me. Unless you have nothing to refute my arguments- then go ahead and attack me and prove you are both biased and wrong.

I have asked questions, and get back statements that do not state any reason that Arabs get special treatment, and ONLY Jews have to

1. give up conquered territory, while Arabs do not.
2. recompense Refugees, while Arabs do not.
3. Have to share their homeland, which Arabs do not.
4. Are supposed to accept being killed, which Arabs are not required to do.
5 recognize an Arab Palestine, while Arabs are not required ( and have stated they will NOT) to recognize Israel.


So take YOUR anti Jewish bigotry and got to hell.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Sep 11 - 12:21 PM

Irrelevant at this point and in this particular thread. (There are many others which have explored these issues exhaustively, if not too constructively).
..................

As of September 2011, 127 (65.8%) of the 193 member states of the United Nations have recognised the State of Palestine. Their total population is over 5.2 billion people, equalling 75 percent of the world's population.

So what arguments can be advanced for the position of the minority who are seeking to block UN membership for Palestine?

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 26 Sep 11 - 12:30 PM

McGrath,

Since the UN requires that other member nations be recognized by , and accorded the rights of nations, and the Palestinian leadership has stated that they will NOT recognize Israel, a member of the UN, , and a state of war still exists between the state of Israel and those groups making up the proposed Palestinian state, I think that the question should be rather

what arguments can be advanced for the position that Palestine SHOULD become a member of the UN, when it has declared itself unwilling to abide by the UN charter?

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Sep 11 - 12:48 PM

At last we're on topic, maybe.

None of those points, even if accepted, are reasons why Palestine should be denied the membership the overwhelming majority of UN members wish to accord it.

As I pointed out, neither Ireland nor United Kingdom recognised each others borders as legally valid until 1998.

"States of War" only apply between states.

Denying United Nations resolutions has never interfered with membership of the United Nations, as for example by Saddam Hussein's Iraq, or by Israel.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 26 Sep 11 - 02:17 PM

I was asked what should we do. First and foremost, stand up and be counted and perhaps explain your reasoning..or not.

Ask that the "right to exist" be replaced with "de facto existance"..there is a country that acts as a country, that conducts business etc...and that can be acknowledged without admitting to rights, wrongs, etc. This should be standard for other countries too.

Insist on proper water rights.

Insist on borders.

If there must be a "no man/woman's land" insist that it not be filled with settlers, but with orchards, common grounds, parks, community colleges, mutually used theaters etc.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 26 Sep 11 - 02:23 PM

Ah, if only ~~~

Or, as J Lennon might say, "Imagine!"

Sigh!

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Teribus
Date: 26 Sep 11 - 03:02 PM

"As of September 2011, 127 (65.8%) of the 193 member states of the United Nations have recognised the State of Palestine. Their total population is over 5.2 billion people, equalling 75 percent of the world's population." - MGOH

Point 1: Listing the number of countries who have "recognised" the State of Palestine does not in any way, shape or form indicate that the entire population of all those countries are in favour of that recognition, or indicate that those people were ever even consulted on the matter

Point 2: The member states of the United Nations are notorious for their willingness to vote for things provided they are given sufficient enough an inducement to do so. The ultra-cynical might suggest that in some way they hope to profit from the disaster when it happens.

Point 3: Most of those countries could not in effect care a toss, out of your 193 member states, five are neighbouring states, about fifteen could be described as being in and belonging to "the region", which leaves the balance of 178 who could not care less about the general carnage and mayhem that this will cause because it will not happen anywhere near them and they will not be affected by it.

Will there be carnage and mayhem should the State of Palestine be recognised? Of course there will, the clowns that are "all for this" are visiting upon the United Nations the nightmare where you have one member state that has voiced its avowed intention to eradicate another member state and have voiced their declaration that will never alter that view - Congratulations, pick up your Nobel Peace prize as you go out the door. The case might be marginally altered if there was any way on God's earth if Mahmoud Abbas or any Palestinian Arab Leader could actually control their population but the truth is they cannot, because in the eyes of Hamas and Hezbollah the Government of this so-called Palestine as represented by Mahmoud Abbas is seen as selling them out.

To Richard Bridge, who seems to think that throughout the work done by both the members of the Peel Commission in 1937, and that undertaken by the UN between 1946 and 1948, that the opinions of both Arab and Jewish Palestinians were ignored, I can only advise him to actually do some reading, there is more than enough material covering all sides of the matter.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Teribus
Date: 26 Sep 11 - 03:11 PM

""States of War" only apply between states.

EXACTLY - create the State of Palestine and you will definitely have a WAR - If so then for goodness sake this time let them fight it out to the finish.

Look at the complete and utter irrelevant idiotic bullshit and the players involved who plunged Europe into that fiasco known as the First World War - I look at Israel and Palestine and can see the same damn thing happening again.

One sliver of silver lining on the cloud is that because GWB and USA went into Iraq in 2003 we do not have:

1: Iran with a secret nuclear weapon
2: Syria with a secret nuclear weapon
3: Libya with a secret nuclear weapon

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 26 Sep 11 - 03:33 PM

Teri - your point 1, if right, demolishes any claim that Israel was created witht he consent of the people of the region.

McGrath - your house deeds will proceed (with the interface of land registration principles) from a "good root of title". That is exactly what there isn't for Israel.

Teri - 1937 - too late. The UK had no title, as of 1917/22, to take any decision for the region.

BB - (1) if the UN so reguires, where and how is it stated and binding and why did that not apply (as McGrath states) to Southern Ireland or the rest of the UK. (incidentally, sidewind thought I have not checked out, how about the USA and Cuba?)
(2) what Arab (and as appears above, both sides are "Children of Abraham") conquered territory are you saying should be given up to whom and why?
(3) where are those statements about compensating refugee?
(4) what is that about a "homeland" again? The whole of Israel is in what was an Arab homeland since 1299 and before.
(5) I thought that UN membership implied such recognition - which is why some arabists oppose it.

I'm not really up on Jewish religious belief, but does Judaism recognise Hell?

I'm sorry BB but you and MtheGM are looking as if you are asserting the Zionist case for a religious homeland the size Israel wants, coupled with the right to starve and oppress others in the region. Israel did the deal for its borders (a deal with the occupying powers, not the local peoples) in 1947/8 and now it wants a better deal - a bit like Southern Ireland in 1922 although they, like the Palestinians, could argue - maybe - that they never agreed a deal before that). I am reminded of some old transactions with Miramax and Cannon in my professional life (although, to be fair, one of my old clients of Lebanese extraction but US citizenship was somewhat similar, and I remember an old friend of mine who practised in Paris saying of an Armenian film producer that after a whole week of non-stop meetings he understood why the Turks massacred the Armenians - maybe it's just film producers who should be massacred).


IMHO recognition of Palestine is likely to be a step productive of a step on the route to peace.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 26 Sep 11 - 03:37 PM

PS - and if Palestine agreed that it would square the circle of the illegitimacy of previous gifts of territory not lawfully governed.

Teri - while I was composing, you have been posting. All I think I need to say is

(1) You hope
(2) But Israel has.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 26 Sep 11 - 04:01 PM

I don't want a 'religious homeland' of any dimensions or within any specific borders, Richard, and have said nothing anywhere, on this thread or anywhere else, to suggest I do. I take it you can only be confusing me with some other poster coincidentally called MtheGM, who is a complete stranger to me.

I still can't make out what your constant obsession with dates in the 1920s have to do with anything to do with the topic at hand.

And what has the hell has Hell to do with it?

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: GUEST,999
Date: 26 Sep 11 - 04:10 PM

Hell is what will remain if no peace is found.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 26 Sep 11 - 04:32 PM

Mr Myer: do you not repeatedly assert that Israel is validly created and is entitled to wider borders, without, as far as I can see, any rational basis? That leaves religion as your inspiration.

The relevance of 1917/22 and 1947/8 is that they determine whether Israel is an invader or a rightful occupier of territory.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 26 Sep 11 - 04:38 PM

You do know what a non sequitur is, I take it?

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 26 Sep 11 - 04:47 PM

FWIW ~~ I have no religion. I was born nearly 80 years ago into a Jewish family; have been an atheist for as long as I can remember, except for a period in early middle-age when I was baptised & confirmed into the CofE, for reasons I can't quite remember now. But, as my [non-Jewish] first wife put it, "it didn't take", and I reverted to my default position, atheism, many years ago now. I genuinely can't see where you imagine 'religion' can come into any of the opinions I hold.

Still; play your games, my dear fellow. You are obviously enjoying pontificating irrelevantly on topics beyond your knowledge & comprehension ~~ or anyone else's for that matter, so far as I can see.

To answer, as a courtesy, your only direct and sensible question in your last post: yes, I have asserted that Israel was validly created; and no, I have said absolutely nothing as to what the extent of its territory should be: quote back to me where you imagine me to have advocated 'wider borders', if you would be so kind.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 26 Sep 11 - 05:07 PM

"The subsequent expansion of territory was brought about by successful defence of their very existence, and legitimate conquest of those who attempted to invade what had been declared their sovereign territory, and remaining, by right of conquest and the absolute and essential considerations of security, in the territory thus gained." 23 Sept 0819 Mudcat time

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 26 Sep 11 - 05:14 PM

That was an accurate statement of the situation that obtained at the time I referred to. I have nowhere said that these borders will, or should, be permanent or form part of any settlement which might ultimately be achieved; or that Israel has any 'entitlement' [the word which you accuse me of having employed] to their being retained as part of any such negotiated settlement...

Try again.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 26 Sep 11 - 05:23 PM

And let me repeat here something I said in a previous post ~~

"I am embarrassed and horrified by what the state of Israel is in danger of turning into; even my sister & her son [who was born there], who maintain their Jewish & Zionist identity which I don't, are having serious reservations" ~~

I hold no brief for the actions or attitudes of the present government of Israel, find many of their actions and policies entirely unacceptable and culpable, and dissociate myself unreservedly from them.

But I do expect accuracy in statements that are made: and ones which question the right of Israel to exist legally are so manifestly absurd as to cast much doubt as to the motivations, intelligence, and general bona fides of those uttering them.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: GUEST,Mrr
Date: 26 Sep 11 - 05:41 PM

I still like the Jon Stewart approach. Tongue in cheek.

I think the UN mandate that created Israel should be repealed.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Sep 11 - 05:41 PM

What's this got to do with blocking UN membership for Palestine? No one is proposing to expel Israel, so the matter of its legal status doesn't arise.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Greg F.
Date: 26 Sep 11 - 06:19 PM

So take YOUR anti Jewish bigotry and got to hell.

I think that would come as quite a surprise to my Jewish grandmother and Jewish father, BeeBee.

The anti-Jewish bigotry part, I mean; not necessarily the going to hell part.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Greg F.
Date: 26 Sep 11 - 06:22 PM

By the by, Beardie: do you consider the Israeli Jews who oppose most of this Zionist nonsense to be "anti-Jewish bigots" as well?

Just curious.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 26 Sep 11 - 09:16 PM

I think we need to at least ask ourselves why we are for or against statehood. Security fears are a very important consideration, and need to be dealt with. My hunch is that security will be improved but you never know. One condition could be that many Palestinians immigrate to relieve the population pressure there and to quickly educate young people. It has to be understood that there can be a homeland, but not everyone can live in it..due to the land's carrying capacity, the infrastructure that exists etc. So there might have to be colonies here and there, as there are with other immigrant and exiled groups. Countries in this day and age also can not extend an open invitation to millions of people, crowding out those with legitimate claims to particular parcels of land-- particular houses and farms and orchards. It is just not right. So I can't go back to Ireland, regardless of what was done to my family and others can't go back to Russia or Ghana or wherever. But there still should be a homeland that people feel a part of and visit when they can etc. Just knowing that it exists officially is extremely important. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 27 Sep 11 - 12:03 AM

Mr Myer, may I lend you a shovel?

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Sep 11 - 12:39 AM

"Teri - your point 1, if right, demolishes any claim that Israel was created witht he consent of the people of the region." - Richard Bridge

Now what was my Point 1 again:

"Point 1: Listing the number of countries who have "recognised" the State of Palestine does not in any way, shape or form indicate that the entire population of all those countries are in favour of that recognition, or indicate that those people were ever even consulted on the matter,"

This point was made because you trotted out some completely bogus statistics by which you hoped to demonstrate the support amongst the "world's population" for the creation of a Palestinian State.

Did the Peel Commission of 1937 consult the people and the leaders inside Palestine during the course of their work? Of course they did and what they found led them to advocate a "Two-State" solution to the perceived problems in the area.

Did the United Nations Committee consult the people and their leaders during the course of their work between 1946 and 1948? Of course they did, and some died whilst doing it. Like the Peel Commission they too advocated a "Two-State" Solution which the Jews of Palestine accepted and the Arabs of Palestine along with their Arab neighbours rejected (The both rejected the 1947 UN proposal for entirely different reasons - doubt that? Then take a look at what Jordan was looking for and what the Arabs of Palestine were looking for in 1947 - different as chalk and cheese)

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: GUEST,livelylass
Date: 27 Sep 11 - 02:37 AM

Terribus: "Point 2: The member states of the United Nations are notorious for their willingness to vote for things provided they are given sufficient enough an inducement to do so. "

Yes, poor countries can unfortunately be wooed with cash, or indeed the threat of it's removal of it - as the US well knows, support can be bought:

US to sever aid to all pro Palestinian Nationhood voting nations

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: GUEST,livelylass
Date: 27 Sep 11 - 03:05 AM

Sorry, make that 'proposed' severance of aid - the bill is yet to be passed.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 27 Sep 11 - 04:42 AM

"Mr Myer, may I lend you a shovel? "
.,.,.,.,
Sorry, Mr Bridge ~~ not the least idea of what you are on about. But that's par for the course.

Out of interest: can anyone on here make heads or tails as to what points Richard thinks himself to be making, with all his witter & gabble about 1912 & 1922 and approval of states in the region & UN having no authority for this & that. It all sounds simply like the desperate maunderings of a - ah - somewhat confused individual to me. But perhaps I am being uncharitable.

What do others think? Have these irrational idiocies of his [as they appear to me] any supporters? Or even anyone who can make anything of the points he is purporting to make?

Genuinely exercised & puzzled ~~

~Michael~

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 27 Sep 11 - 04:46 AM

No Teri, I trotted out no statistics. Maybe you need the shovel, not Mr Myer.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Sep 11 - 05:28 AM

"So take YOUR anti Jewish bigotry and got to hell. "
It really is time some people learned to distinguish between "anti-Jewish" and "anti- Zionism"
Israel came into being partly because of a long and indescriminate terrorist campaign - the actions of groups like Haganah and the Stern Gang made the Hamas activities appear rank amaturish in comparison.
The British left Palestine to the sound of the grenades and gunfire of the massacres of several thousand Arab non-combatats being slaughtered to make way for the "Promised Land". The technique was to throw a grenade into an Arab home then rake the survivors with gunfire - taking out men, women, children, old, young - you name it.....
Mike took issue with my comparing the behaviour of the Israelis to that of the Nazis - there were many, many more non-combatants systematically slaughtered immediately following British departure from Palastine than there were at Lidice.
Since then the expansionist policy of driving out Arab families tomake way for Jewish ones has continued; this has included at least two major massacres of men, women and children at Shatila and Sabra refugee camps.
It has been virtually impossible to distinguish between the behaviour of the Nazis and that of successive Israeli governments in the matter of crimes against humanity, other than the scale of same.
This continues to be the case with the Gaza incursions; chemical weapons on built-up areas, heavy artillery on homes schools and hospitals, the razing of whole streets where any resistance is shown They've even se-sited the Berlin wall to the Middle East, this time cutting off Arabs from their work and means of sustenance - not to mention the attempts to starve the Palastinians into submisshion and the killing of aid-bringers.
When I lived in Manchester I counted among my friends a large number of Jews, some of them holocaust survivers and their families; a few of them ex-kibbutz volunteers. Virtually all of them had totally disowned the behaviour of Israel - I think this is the firt time I heard the phrase "Jewish reich". Many of these had taken a sharp left turn in their outlook and joined the Labour and Communist parties - I suppose all of these would fit neatly into Bruce's "anti-Jewish" catergory?
Before Israeli mouthpieces and apologists start listing conditions for Palastine statehood perhaps they might take a quick look at the behaviour of those they are supporting - and their supporters in the UN whose hands are by no means clean as far as human rights abuses are concerned.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 27 Sep 11 - 05:45 AM

No, Jim: Haganah were a respectable official militia to an extent even recognised, at least de facto, by the mandate authorities. The other terrorist group beside the Stern Gang were called the Irgun [Zvai Leumi].

I still think your comparison at fault, not so much because it overstates the Israeli actions [see my post above 26 Sep, 0523 pm] as because it gravely understates the nazi ones.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: GUEST,livelylass
Date: 27 Sep 11 - 06:35 AM

"It really is time some people learned to distinguish between "anti-Jewish" and "anti- Zionism""

I believe that most people accusing others of 'anti-Semitism' mean no such thing and abuse the term as a fully cynical means to stifle open discussion of actions of the Israeli govt.

Many Jewish people, particularly those who do not wish to have their Jewish identity subsumed into and conflated with the actions of a government of a country they may not even have any personal interest in or relationship with, find the routine invoking of "anti-Semitism" in such discussions, both offensive and harmful.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: GUEST,livelylass
Date: 27 Sep 11 - 06:47 AM

"Many Jewish people, particularly those who do not wish to have their Jewish identity subsumed into and conflated with the actions of a government of a country they may not even have any personal interest in or relationship with, find the routine invoking of "anti-Semitism" in such discussions, both offensive and harmful."

I should probably add, that this type of feeling, is increasingly common in younger Jewish people (a Google for articles on "young Jews Israel" should yield relevent results on this)- personally I don't know any older Jews, so my own experience of this is excluded to younger Jewish people likewise.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 27 Sep 11 - 06:51 AM

Take your point, lively lass; that is up to a point my position ~~ see my post above just pointed out to Jim, 26 sep 0523 pm. But I think it is also a fact that anti-Zionism can be conflated with, or used as a cover for, straight antisemitism by some ill-wishers. Not always easy to distinguish between these motivations, alas.

~Michael~

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 27 Sep 11 - 06:52 AM

... and FYI, I am nearly 80...

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: GUEST,livelylass
Date: 27 Sep 11 - 06:56 AM

"But I think it is also a fact that anti-Zionism can be conflated with, or used as a cover for, straight antisemitism by some ill-wishers. Not always easy to distinguish between these motivations, alas."

That is a fair point also M. And I think both are good reasons we should, ideally, all attempt to conduct ourselves in such discussions, with integrity and respect for our fellow posters. Difficult though that may be, when emotions run high!

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Sep 11 - 07:08 AM

Jim, you spoil your case with wild exagerations.

No chemical weapons were used in Gaza, and,
"expansionist policy of driving out Arab families tomake way for Jewish ones has continued; this has included at least two major massacres of men, women and children at Shatila and Sabra refugee camps."

Those camps were not in Israel.
It happened in Lebanon and it was not carried out by Israelis.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Sep 11 - 08:35 AM

"wild exagerations."
No wild exaggeration whatever - everything I claimed to have happened, happened as I described and is a matter of record.
"No chemical weapons were used in Gaza"
White phosphorus (chemical weapons according to the US agency who oversaw its use in Fallujah) was used in Gaza on civilain targets AS WEAPONS - not illumination
"It happened in Lebanon and it was not carried out by Israelis."
The refugees were under the care of Israelis - the enquiry found that they colluded with the killers fully in allowing them access to the camps - the Israeli in charge was expected to resign, but was appointed to high political office instead - it was an Israeli massacre and fully recognised as such
There has never been any doubt whatever that the massacres were Israel's responsibility - except in your mind apparently - surprise, surprise!!
Your apologist attitude and open support for racist atrocities seem to know no bounds.
Mike:
"as because it gravely understates the nazi ones."
As I said, only in scope - Everest and Sliebh Callan are both mountains.
Thanks for the correction on Haganah - I am confusing it with one of other Jewish "freedom fighters"!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Sep 11 - 08:44 AM

No US "agencies" classify WP as a chemical weapon Jim.
Chemical weapons inflict casualties by their toxicity.
Phosphorus is not that toxic.

In Gaza smoke munitions were used to create smoke.

All that stuff about the massacres is disputed, and I am only refuting your claim that it was part of "expansionist policy of driving out Arab families to make way for Jewish ones "

Any Jewish families settled in Lebanon Jim?

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Sep 11 - 10:03 AM

Jim,
"Your apologist attitude and open support for racist atrocities seem to know no bounds"

Not true Jim.
You will find no example, in any post of mine, of any support for any atrocity, racists or otherwise.

If you can not produce an example, a decent person would withdraw the charge.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Stringsinger
Date: 27 Sep 11 - 10:13 AM

The nature of the preceding agreements by the UN or other "official" organizations which mandated what is or isn't Israel have been invalidated by changes not only by the parties involved but by the realities of the people who have decided what the position should "officially" be.

These arbitrary conclusions can never come at the point of a gun, bull dozer, cluster bomb, white phosphorous, suicide bombings, occupations or violence and the denial of basic human rights.

They can't be brokered by religious adherence either. The justification for the State of Israel is as flimsy as the accusation about the validity of the State of Palestine. There may not be even a justification for what constitutes a Jew other than a religious adherence.

Jordan has it's own autonomy and is not a Palestinian State but an attempt to push Palestinians back to a mythical Jordanian homeland suggested for them is specious.

The only solution for Israel and Palestine is to accept a secular state which may not be based on Judaism or Islam. It also may have to be a "one state solution" with equal power sharing of it's inhabitants. It could be hoped for that it would be a social democracy, a system that seems alien in this part of the world.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: GUEST,999
Date: 27 Sep 11 - 10:33 AM

Hell musta froze over, Stringsinger. Well said.

"When President Lyndon Johnson turned over the presidency to Richard Nixon eight months into the talks [Paris Peace Talks in '68], the only thing the two sides had agreed on was the shape of the conference table."

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Sep 11 - 10:33 AM

"Any Jewish families settled in Lebanon Jim? "
No Keith - it's called ethnic cleansing - the culling of inferior races..
AND IT REMAINS AN ISRAELI ATROCITY.
The use of phosphorus on civilians in Gaza - in some cases in hospitals and schools, was fully covered by a BBC documentary on the last incursion into Gaza - eye witness acounts by doctors who saw it usedand who had to treat the victims - including a number of children with horrific burns.
Examples of the effects of this weapon on humans is freely accessible on the net, should you care to seek it out.
"You will find no example, in any post of mine, of any support for any atrocity, "
You have your own racist agenda to select from - but here, as in the past, you are supporting the racist agendas of others.
I have said I am not going to make this an argument between you and I - that remains the case
If you have any evidence to show that Israel has not been massacring Arabs, did not massacre the residents of the villages in Palestine, did not facilitate and probably instigate the massacre of refugees, did not use White phosphorus as a weapon against civilians in Gaza, did not make Arabs stateless by passing a "three year" rule removing their citizenship, did not evict families from their home to build a tourist centre, has not erected a Berlin Wall..... as I described, please produce it.
Otherwise take your racism and stick it.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Sep 11 - 11:00 AM

No shovel required Richard, my apologies to you, it was Kevin (MGOH) who was trotting out the bogus statistics not you.

I am also in debt to Jim Carroll who has explained to me why there are no Jewish people settled in Lebanon, it was because they were all ethnically cleansed by the Israelis, although I am damned if I can find out when.

White Phosphorus is NOT a Chemical Weapon if it were it would appear in the appropriate protocal of the Geneva Convention and it does not.

The use of white phosphorus is constrained according to a Protocol on conventional weapons. It should not be used in areas considered to be centres of population. Something else that should not occur in areas considered to be centres of civilian population is the deliberate use of civilians as "Human Shields". This is not just a case of two wrongs not making a right but you cannot have one without the other and the use by Hamas of the civilians of Gaza as "human shields" must have occurred first for them to come under fire by the IDF - Unless of course Jim you are trying to sell us on the idea that the israeli Forces started shelling a bunch of Palestinian civilians and a whole rake of heroic Hamas "Freedom Fighters" decided to race over there to see what was going on. Personally I would find that scenario to be highly unlikely.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Sep 11 - 11:15 AM

I saw all that stuff about Gaza Jim.
I deplored the use of WP smoke there.
I said its use was reckless.
I said it may have been illegal (see Terribus' post).
I did not support any atrocity.
To say I did is a lie.

I deplored those 30 year old massacres.
I said it shamed the IDF that it failed to stop it.
I did not support any atrocity.
To say I did is a lie.

(A few years later, Muslim militias killed a greater number of Palestinians in those camps.
I deplore that as well.
Do You?)

As for your "take your racism and stick it." we are back to groundless personal attacks again.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 27 Sep 11 - 12:35 PM

~~~"as because it gravely understates the nazi ones."
As I said, only in scope - Everest and Sliebh Callan are both mountains. ~~~
.,.,.,
Yes, yes, I know Jim, We have been here before.

I refer you yet again to Hegel's belief in the critical point where quantative difference becomes qualitative difference. I'm afraid your 'only in scope' here disgusts me profoundly, and I should have though better of you than to offer any sort of 'only in scope' defence [a word I use advisedly] of the Holocaust, an enormity unique in its quantity & hence its quality of evil.

I suppose you will tell me that the cancer which killed my mother at the age of 57 differed 'only in scope' from the irritating cold in the nose she had had a couple of years before.

You disappoint me profoundly, Jim, in not being able to see this. Your 'scope' comparisons are an absolute disgrace. You should be ashamed of yourself ~~ but I don't suppose you are...

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Sep 11 - 01:05 PM

"I said its use was reckless."
No Keith - it was deliberate and eye-witnesses who say it being used (both in Falujah by the Americans (by a US soldier) and by the Israelis in Gaza described it as deliberate).
Whatever you and your pratt gun-nut of a soulmate claim, the US admitted it was a weapon publicly - in the case of Gaza it was used on a hospital, the excuse offered was that Hamas were there.
As I said, go and look it up and see the photographs of the effects on childrens' faces.   
"I said it shamed the IDF that it failed to stop it."
They didn't - they deliberately facilitated it.
"You disappoint me profoundly, Jim,"
Then we have something we can agree on - sadly.
As far as I am concerned, the deliberate removel of groups, cultures, people - whatever, who happen to stand in the way of national aspiration and economic and political interests is the same no matter what scale it is carried out on.
I grew up batered and appalled by images of the holocaust - my father felt compelled to go and fight in Spain because of what was happening in pre-war Germany, his family took part in the anti-Mosely protests, my grandmother was jailed for her part in it.
I am both saddened and sickened that the victimes of those atrocities should become the perpetrators of similar ones - as I said, many of my Jewish acquaintences and friends feel the same as I do - do they also disppoint you?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Sep 11 - 01:33 PM

"Reckless" does not deny it was deliberate.
Of course it was.
They deliberately used smoke to screen their people from enemy fire.
I said that the commander on the ground was reckless of the consequences.
Most blame must go to Hamas for placing their fighters in civilian areas near hospitals and schools.

You should not say I have supported atrocities when I have not.
You should not again accuse me of racism when I have never shown it.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Sep 11 - 01:45 PM

Just in case there is anyt doubt what you pair of apologist shits are up to here's the relevant bit and also the link, in case you think I'm getting up to Keith's trick of editing cut-'n-pastes
"You should not again accuse me of racism when I have never shown it"
There you go, parefect example above of racicism by excusing atrocities by presenting them as incompetence.
Take your heads out of your arses and you'll find horrific photographic evidence of children maimed by your "illumination flares" (not unlike Terrytoon's describing agent Orange as "weed-killer" and napalm as petrol) used deliberately on them AS WEAPONS
Jim Carroll

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabra_and_Shatila_massacre

Israeli forces enabled the entrance of the angry Kataeb Party group to the refugee camps, by providing them transportation[from outside Beirut and firing illuminating flares over the camps. The Phalangists were under the direct command of Elie Hobeika, who later became a long-serving Member of the Parliament of Lebanon and, in the 1990s, a Lebanese cabinet minister.
In 1982, an independent commission chaired by Sean MacBride concluded that the Israeli authorities or forces were, directly or indirectly, responsible. The Israeli government established the Kahan Commission to investigate, and in early 1983 it found that Israeli military personnel were aware that a massacre was in progress without taking serious steps to stop it. It therefore regarded Israel as having indirect responsibility. The commission held Ariel Sharon personally responsible for having disregarded the prospect of acts of bloodshed by the Phalangists against the population of the refugee camps and not preventing their entry.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Mrrzy
Date: 27 Sep 11 - 02:16 PM

Take one of those implicit attitudes tests - I found out that I like Islam better than Christianity better than Judaism, when I would have sworn that I disliked Christianity more than either of the above.

Very interesting stuff, thread creep notwithstanding.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 27 Sep 11 - 02:21 PM

This is off topic, but it\clears up a point raised: US intelligence classified white phosphorus as 'chemical weapon'

The assessment was published in a declassified report on the American Department of Defence website. The file was headed: "Possible use of phosphorous chemical weapons by Iraq in Kurdish areas along the Iraqi-Turkish-Iranian borders."

In late February 1991, an intelligence source reported, during the Iraqi crackdown on the Kurdish uprising that followed the coalition victory against Iraq, "Iraqi forces loyal to President Saddam may have possibly used white phosphorous chemical weapons against Kurdish rebels and the populace in Erbil and Dohuk. The WP chemical was delivered by artillery rounds and helicopter gunships."

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 27 Sep 11 - 02:26 PM

Germany, his family took part in the anti-Mosely protests, my grandmother was jailed for her part in it.
I am both saddened and sickened that the victimes of those atrocities should become the perpetrators of similar ones - as I said, many of my Jewish acquaintences and friends feel the same as I do - do they also disppoint you?
Jim Carroll ...
,.,.
No Jim. I am with them; I refer you yet again to mine of 26 sep 0523 pm.: but I doubt if they feel quite 'the same as you do'; try asking them if they would put Sabra & Shatila & Deir Yassim on the same scale of iniquity as the entire Holocaust. And I STILL FEEL DISAPPOINTED IN your immovability on a vital distinction that needs drawing. They are not 'similar ones', tho there may be certain passing resemblance ~ like my mother's cancer to her cold. But if you won't see it you won't...

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 27 Sep 11 - 02:39 PM

It's true enough that if the Nazis are used as a measure it means virtually every sadistic regime around comes off as relatively mild by comparison. That's why it's best to avoid doing that - but that shouldn't be used as a way of underestimating the viciousness of what is done.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Sep 11 - 02:43 PM

McGrath, thanks but that report was the one Jim keeps on about.
It is wrong.
The author made a mistake.
That mistake was made many years ago and has never been repeated.

Jim, the massacres.
"Israeli military personnel were aware that a massacre was in progress without taking serious steps to stop it. "

I knew this.
I said that their failure to stop it shamed them.
How is that "supporting racist atrocities?"

Smoke rounds are not weapons Jim.
Only a direct hit or very near miss will cause injuries.
That is why there were so few and no deaths.
Actual weapons will kill and maim over much greater distances.
Smoke is not a weapon.
It would normally be considered illegal to use it near civilians.
That is why I said it might be.
The war crime of Hamas in fighting from civilian areas makes it less clear cut.
It is a lie to say I supported any of it.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Sep 11 - 02:52 PM

Jim, you did make a cut and paste edit error.
You deleted the acknowledgement that there was no evidence to support some of the claims.

"providing them transportation[citation needed] from outside Beirut and firing illuminating flares over the camps.[citation needed]"

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: pdq
Date: 27 Sep 11 - 02:53 PM

Palestine = Canaan = Judea = The Holy Land = Israel.

Claiming that Arabs (who moved into the area after the establishment of Islam) are a separate ethnic group called "palestinians" is a public relations ploy.

Arab countries have sent their most radical Islamists to Gaza and the sane moderate Muslims (those with the means) have largely left the area.

The Israeli Arabs live better than their Arab brothers anywhere else and do not want to join a militant violent Islamic state. The Gaza militants do not speak for the Islamic citizens of Israel.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Sep 11 - 03:27 PM

"I said that their failure to stop it shamed them."
Because the evidence exposed the fact that not only were the killers driven to the site by the Israelis and given illumination in order to carry out the massacre - no "failure" but total complicity   
I didn't comment on your making it a "thirty year old" massacre - do we have a moratorium on Massacres - and shouldn't someone have told Simon Wiesenthal.
You really do scrape the bottom of the barrel to defend atrocities
"there was no evidence to support some of the claims. "
and yet there was enough for the Israeli enquiry to find themselves half-guilty and even name names, but they did manage to boot the guilty party upstairs before he had to face the consequences of his guilt.
You have the facts on the matter and you have the "expert" judgement that made up the enquiry (or aren't they "expert" enough for you?
"You deleted the acknowledgement"
I deleted nothing - I took the reference to the Israeli role in the massacre as a block and carefully pointed out that this was what I had done, giving your past behaviour as a reason for my doing so - a little different from erasing whole sentences to turn the article on its head - as you have done.
"That mistake was made many years ago and has never been repeated."
Then you'll be able to show us where it was retracted or disproved - won't you?
White phosphorus was used as an anti-personell weapon in both Fallujah and Gaza and you wand two-gun Terri have had this pointed out to you on numerous occasions - though characteristically you both choose to ignore it.
Mike,
I am in no way suggesting that Israeli behaviour was as serious as the holocaust - I would be as agenda-driven as Keith were I to do so.
I am suggesting that the mindsets that fueled both came out of the same stable - race murded is race murder as far as I'm concerned
Incidentally - someone here has been kind enough to point out that I have acquired a fake facebook entry - I'm pretty sure I know who did it and I'm inclined to leave it where it is - I was never one for medals and prizes, but I tend to treasure this one as an example of a sewer-rat trying to bite back.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 27 Sep 11 - 03:28 PM

Not so fast. First of all, who claims that Palestinans are a separate ethnic group? Only DNA testing would tell. Who says they are all Arabic? Who equates The Holy Land with only Israel? Not me, not my Irish nun teachers back in the 1950s. We were told to call both Palestine and Israel the Holy Land as it was under dispute. We are not to say either Palestine or Israel, but only the Holy Land. If I now say Israel I say Palestine. Otherwise I revert to calling it all the Holy Land and let God sort it out. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Sep 11 - 03:38 PM

Jim, you carefully deleted the "citation needed" statements from your paste.
You accidentally left one bracket in the text.
You are caught lying again.

It is also a lie that I ever did such a thing.
I once left out something that I had already posted and was not in dispute.
I keep my posts short and to the point.
I have explained all this to you before but you repeat the lie.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 27 Sep 11 - 03:48 PM

"I am in no way suggesting that Israeli behaviour was as serious as the holocaust"
. . . .
"the same no matter what scale it is carried out on."
,.,.,.

"same"?Jim "SAME"?

"NO MATTER [!!!] what scale" !!! ???
, , , ,

If that is not 'suggesting it is as serious' ... then it seems to me it will do quite well until some 'suggesting it is as serious' comes along...

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Mrrzy
Date: 27 Sep 11 - 03:56 PM

Palestine predates Judea, and should be the land of the semites (arabs & jews) if you want to delineate it by race.

But since we now have a de jure Judea, there ought to be a de jure Palestine, but it shouldn't be Arab, it should be geographic. As, frankly, should be Israel. And they can rename it Judea if they want.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 27 Sep 11 - 04:05 PM

I don't think this is in any way relevant to the issue of Palestinian statehood, and I prefer not to contribute to thread drift in this way, but here goes. From The Times in 2008: Israel rains fire on Gaza with phosphorus shells

White phosphorus: the smoke-screen chemical that can burn to the bone

— White phosphorus bursts into a deep-yellow flame when it is exposed to oxygen, producing a thick white smoke

— It is used as a smokescreen or for incendiary devices, but can also be deployed as an anti-personnel flame compound capable of causing potentially fatal burns

— Phosphorus burns are almost always second or third-degree because the particles do not stop burning on contact with skin until they have entirely disappeared — it is not unknown for them to reach the bone

— Geneva conventions ban the use of phosphorus as an offensive weapon against civilians, but its use as a smokescreen is not prohibited by international law

— Israel previously used white phosphorus during its war with Lebanon in 2006

— It has been used frequently by British and US forces in recent wars, notably during the invasion of Iraq in 2003. Its use was criticised widely

— White phosphorus has the slang name "Willy Pete", which dates from the First World War. It was commonly used in the Vietnam era.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 27 Sep 11 - 04:22 PM

I think that counts as a chemical weapon.

It also appears that both the Palestinian and Israeli positions are at least matters of ethnic cleansing or genocide - it you accept that Palestinians and Israelis are different races (whereas they are in fact both Semites divided by politics and religion).

The fact remains that no-one had the right to give part of the Eastern Mediterranean area to a distinct population defined by religion.

The question remains of how to solve the problem.

I am of the view that UN membership for "Palestine" might well assist.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: C. Ham
Date: 27 Sep 11 - 04:27 PM

Even though I'm not American, President Obama spoke for me when he spoke last week at the U.N.

His exact words:


Peace is hard work. Peace will not come through statements and resolutions at the United Nations -- if it were that easy, it would have been accomplished by now. Ultimately, it is the Israelis and the Palestinians who must live side by side. Ultimately, it is the Israelis and the Palestinians -- not us –- who must reach agreement on the issues that divide them: on borders and on security, on refugees and Jerusalem.

Ultimately, peace depends upon compromise among people who must live together long after our speeches are over, long after our votes have been tallied. That's the lesson of Northern Ireland, where ancient antagonists bridged their differences. That's the lesson of Sudan, where a negotiated settlement led to an independent state. And that is and will be the path to a Palestinian state -- negotiations between the parties.

We seek a future where Palestinians live in a sovereign state of their own, with no limit to what they can achieve. There's no question that the Palestinians have seen that vision delayed for too long. It is precisely because we believe so strongly in the aspirations of the Palestinian people that America has invested so much time and so much effort in the building of a Palestinian state, and the negotiations that can deliver a Palestinian state.

But understand this as well: America's commitment to Israel's security is unshakeable. Our friendship with Israel is deep and enduring. And so we believe that any lasting peace must acknowledge the very real security concerns that Israel faces every single day.
Let us be honest with ourselves: Israel is surrounded by neighbors that have waged repeated wars against it. Israel's citizens have been killed by rockets fired at their houses and suicide bombs on their buses. Israel's children come of age knowing that throughout the region, other children are taught to hate them. Israel, a small country of less than eight million people, look out at a world where leaders of much larger nations threaten to wipe it off of the map. The Jewish people carry the burden of centuries of exile and persecution, and fresh memories of knowing that six million people were killed simply because of who they are. Those are facts. They cannot be denied.

The Jewish people have forged a successful state in their historic homeland. Israel deserves recognition. It deserves normal relations with its neighbors. And friends of the Palestinians do them no favors by ignoring this truth, just as friends of Israel must recognize the need to pursue a two-state solution with a secure Israel next to an independent Palestine.

That is the truth -- each side has legitimate aspirations -- and that's part of what makes peace so hard. And the deadlock will only be broken when each side learns to stand in the other's shoes; each side can see the world through the other's eyes. That's what we should be encouraging. That's what we should be promoting.

This body -- founded, as it was, out of the ashes of war and genocide, dedicated, as it is, to the dignity of every single person -- must recognize the reality that is lived by both the Palestinians and the Israelis. The measure of our actions must always be whether they advance the right of Israeli and Palestinian children to live lives of peace and security and dignity and opportunity. And we will only succeed in that effort if we can encourage the parties to sit down, to listen to each other, and to understand each other's hopes and each other's fears. That is the project to which America is committed. There are no shortcuts. And that is what the United Nations should be focused on in the weeks and months to come.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 27 Sep 11 - 04:44 PM

1100 new housing units to be built by Israel in East Jerusalem, despite complaints by the EU and the U.S.
It is obvious that Israel will never stop in their takeover of Palestine.
The support of Israel by the United States serves no purpose except to exacerbate relations with the Arab world.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 27 Sep 11 - 04:48 PM

Pedantic note: "Ethnic group" doesn't mean the same as "race". The term primarily refers to culture. "Race" is such a confusing and misleading term it should be pensioned off.
...............

I can't see anything in Obama's rhetoric there which actually justifies the American intention to veto Palestine's full membership if the United Nations.

Negotiations have stalled, primarily because of continuing building of illegal settlements on occupied land, in defiance of the United Nations and international law, and against the stated policy of the United States This is being done as an attempt to establish "facts on the ground" which preempt the outcome of any negotiations.

The bid for United Nations membership is an attempt to break this deadlock, and could help towards getting negotiations under way on a new basis. In particular, the bid has provided a way in which implicit recognition of Israel can be presented as an advance of the Palestinian cause, rather than what it is, a tactical retreat.

Israel ought logically to welcome it, and the USA|should be exerting influence on them to do so.

Of course it is always possible that something along those lines may actually be happening in the back rooms... We'll see.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 27 Sep 11 - 05:29 PM

The rhetoric is worse, McGrath, than that. If you do not abandon your "historic homeland" by leaving it in 1299 and not trying to return until 1947, when do you?

Negotiations may be in train but at present it looks as if Obama is possessed by the Zionist US vote.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 27 Sep 11 - 06:07 PM

Jim ~~

I would draw your attention to the following exchange a little upthread between lively lass & me ~~

LL:" I believe that most people accusing others of 'anti-Semitism' mean no such thing and abuse the term as a fully cynical means to stifle open discussion of actions of the Israeli govt.
Many Jewish people, particularly those who do not wish to have their Jewish identity subsumed into and conflated with the actions of a government of a country they may not even have any personal interest in or relationship with, find the routine invoking of "anti-Semitism" in such discussions, both offensive and harmful."'

M: 'Take your point, lively lass; that is up to a point my position ~~ see my post above just pointed out to Jim, 26 sep 0523 pm. But I think it is also a fact that anti-Zionism can be conflated with, or used as a cover for, straight antisemitism by some ill-wishers. Not always easy to distinguish between these motivations, alas."

LL: "That is a fair point also M" ~~~

One of the preferred techniques for achieving this conflation is to compare the actions of Israel to those of the Nazis: a rhetorical trope for obvious reasons peculiarly offensive to Jews {even, I suspect, Jim, to these Jewish friends of yours you have mentioned more than once}.

Let me emphasise that I know well that you yourself are no racist or antisemite; but I feel you should be made aware of the danger that your pertinacity in making what several of us have pointed out to you we regard as exaggerated and invidious comparisons might make you appear so to many; and of the extremely undesirable nature of the company with whose views you might well appear to some to be aligning yourself by such statements.

You have informed me before now of your opinion that my defence of another poster's position, which you have perceived as racist while I have not, might have the effect in some minds of tarring me with the same brush. So I trust you will not mind my pointing out to you that I consider you to be putting yourself at something of a similar risk in the present instance.

~Michael~

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 27 Sep 11 - 06:25 PM

RICHARD

"Not trying to return till 1947"?

~you are an ignorant fellow. The desire to return has never gone away, from the Spanish-Sephardic poetry of longing for return to the traditional homeland by Yehudah Halevi in the 12th century to the traditional desire for the rite to be held 'next year in Jerusalem' which has concluded the Passover service throughout all the years of exile. The actual return in any numbers began late C19, motivated much by Herzl's publication The Jewish State (1895) which followed the scandal of the Captain Dreyfus mistrial by French court-martial, coincidental in the Zeitgeist with movements for return from about 1880s onwards throughout the Jewish Diaspora. Where do you imagine all the kibbutzim, along with full cites like Tel-Aviv and Safed, which filled the land by the time the settlement of 1947 occurred, can have come from, if, as you assert above, no desire for return had been expressed between the Diaspora and that date? Before making such reckless and fatuous accusations, it would be well to check such facts. I thought you claimed a legal training. If your clients' affairs are conducted with the same degree of scrupulous attention to the facts of the case, I can't imagine you can make a very fat living.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 27 Sep 11 - 07:09 PM

Oh, forgive me - over 500 years away with a verbal ritual only as a reminder. And as a basis for an invasion of settlements - repeated today?

And I said "trying to return". If for example I said "I fancy Princess Anne" that is not attempted rape (although it might be improbable).

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Sep 11 - 07:23 PM

Richard,
"I think that counts as a chemical weapon."

You are entitled to your opinion but it is diametrically opposed to the understanding of every government in the world, every military in the world and every treaty, protocol and agreement that has ever been stated.
It does not act by toxicity, so it is not a chemical weapon according to the universally accepted definition of a chemical weapon.

McGrath, your information is correct.
WP smoke munitions are designed to contain the WP so as to minimise casualties.
WP anti personnel weapons blast it over a wide area.
British forces do not use such things.
They do use smoke WP munitions as does every military in the world.
The munitions used in Gaza were smoke not anti personnel.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 28 Sep 11 - 03:51 AM

Richard ~ Think I have contrived to make a little sense of your last somewhat convoluted & elliptical reply; tho don't see where Princess Anne comes into it, or contrive to raise any interest in your Royalty-based fantasies.

But your "trying" ~~ they had been , not 'trying', but succeeding in large numbers, in returning for 70 years before 1947, networking the whole country with several hundred farming settlements and co-operatives of various kinds, + at least three or four major cities with Jewish-settlement majority populations ~ apart fom Jerusalem which has been recognised throughout as a special case. During these years had occurred Herzl's publication, the Balfour Declaration... What can you possibly mean by "trying to return in 1947", as if this was a sudden opportunistic whim growing spontaneously out of a UN resolution - other than that you are pontificating away in complete & blissful ignorance as to what situation actually obtained in 1947?

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Sep 11 - 03:54 AM

Mike,
"So I trust you will not mind my pointing out to you that I consider you to be putting yourself at something of a similar risk in the present instance."
If anybody here has used anti -Zionism as an attack on Jews, please point it out.
All the arguments I have read here and on similar threads have been aimed at the actions of the Israelis, and have not gone beyond that - if they had I would have been among the first to point it out.
The logic of your suggestion is that we cannot criticise any ethnic group for fear it will be used by racists.
By giving Keith his blanket character reference you supported his view that "All male Pakistanis have a cultural implant towards the sexual abuse of under-age girls".
Where has anything I, or anybody here has said, come anywhere near that profoundly racist statement?
"but it is diametrically opposed to the understanding of every government in the world"
I ask again Keith; if the artical containing the US statement describing WP as chemical weapon is "WRONG" - where is your proof; where is the retraction, where has it been shown to be "WRONG"?
This is yet another case of your claiming to have quoted something from and "expert" (like the "culturally implanted" tendency in all male Pakistanis" to paedophelia - which nobody said but you) - and you have yet to produce that quote.
The Wiki entry on this shitty weapon (that is exactly what it is) is more than adequate to show what it is, how it has been used and the effects of its use on human beings - children included.
In the long run it is a matter of semantics whether or not white phosphorus is "chemical" - it is an apalling weapon, it has been used by the Israelis and the Americans as an anti-personel weapon and its use as such in civilian areas is a clear indication of how low humanity is prepared to go in pursuit of political and economic ambition
From The Guardian Jan 2009 and there's plenty more where that came from.
Jim Carroll

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/16/phosphorus-bombs-video-israel-gaza

A doctor shows phosphorus bomb injuries in Gaza. Warning: contains graphic footage of war injuries
Video showing injuries consistent with the use of white phosphorus shells has been filmed inside hospitals treating Palestinian wounded in Gaza City.
Contact with the shell remnants causes severe burns, sometimes burning the skin to the bone, consistent with descriptions by Ahmed Almi, an Egyptian doctor at the al-Nasser hospital in Khan Younis.
Almi said the entire body of one victim was burned within an hour. It was the first time he had seen the effects of what he called a "chemical weapon".
The Israeli military has denied using white phosphorus during the assault on Gaza, but aid agencies say they have no doubt it has been used.
"It is an absolute certainty," said Marc Garlasco, a senior military analyst at Human Rights Watch. He had seen Israeli artillery fire white phosphorus shells at Gaza City, Garlasco said.
The shells burst in the air, billowing white smoke before dropping the phosphorus shell.
Garlasco said each shell contains more than 100 incendiary rounds, which ignite and pump out smoke for about 10 minutes.
Severe respiratory problems can result in anyone exposed to the smoke and burning chemical particles that rain down over an area the size of a football pitch.
According to the International Solidarity Movement, many patients at the hospital near Khan Younis were suffering from serious breathing difficulties after inhaling smoke.
Human Rights Watch compares the use of white phosphorus shells over Gaza to the impact of cluster munitions, which scatter "bomblets" over a wide area. Children may kick and play with a lump of phosphorus, stirring up the embers and producing more fire and smoke.
The use of white phosphorus as a weapon – as opposed to its use as an obscurant and infrared blocking smoke screen – is banned by the UN's third convention on conventional weapons, which covers the use of incendiary devices. Though Israel is not a signatory to the convention, its military manuals reflect the convention's restrictions on using white phosphorus.
Israel initially claimed that it was not using white phosphorus. It later explained that shells being loaded for a howitzer, identified from photographs as phosphorus rounds, were empty "quiet" shells used for target marking. However, images of exploding shells and showering burning fragments are now acknowledged by independent observers as having been phosphorus.
At the centre of the controversy is the way white phosphorus air burst shells have been used in heavily built-up urban areas, with an overwhelmingly civilian population.
The M825A1 rounds, which are the kind identified as being fired by Israeli forces, are made primarily for use as a smokescreen in a way that limits their effect as an incendiary weapon, experts say.
Neil Gibson, a technical adviser to Jane's Missiles and Rockets magazine, said the shells did not produce high-velocity burning fragments like conventional white phosphorus weapons once did.
Instead, he said, they produced a "series of large slower burning wedges which fall from the sky". The wedges would then ignite spontaneously in the air and fall to the ground, burning for five or 10 minutes, he said.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 28 Sep 11 - 04:14 AM

Jim ~ I do not disagree with you re WP. I wish the Israelis didn't do such things; or destroy Arab lands and agricultural resources as they do in disproportionate retaliations against attacks. It was not for such that I marched and collected in my youth in support of the establishment of the entity which has turned out in its present governmental avatar to be such a grave disappointment. I really do see where you are coming from re Israeli intransigence & worse ~ I refer you again to that previous credo of mine of a couple of days ago.

But I nevertheless persist in my animadversions against the inappropriate overstated comparisons you continue to make; which are bound to lead to, and to an extent to justify, the sort of accusations of ill-faith against which I caution you. I know you don't intend to conflate anti-Israeli attitudes with outright antisemitism; but you do not do yourself any favours in avoiding such accusations by persisting in your thoroughly evasive pleas of mere 'difference of scale' in two manifestations of atrocity, as far apart, I still urge, as cold & cancer.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Teribus
Date: 28 Sep 11 - 04:34 AM

Q tell us all again how East Jerusalem came into being.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Teribus
Date: 28 Sep 11 - 04:48 AM

I rather liked this from Kevin (absolutelyu hilarious):

(White Phosphorus) - It is used as a smokescreen or for incendiary devices, but can also be deployed as an anti-personnel flame compound capable of causing potentially fatal burns

So there you are Kevin, Jim, Richard in action and under sustained fire from enemy positions covering ground that you have to traverse. Your Sergeant or your Officer recce's the situation and then turns round and orders you to abandon your weapons capable of killing (Note that - capable of killing) at 600 metres in order that you can use munitions against the enemy that is firing at you that could POTENTIALLY prove fatal to him

I know what I would call that - Absolutely f**king ridiculous.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 28 Sep 11 - 04:56 AM

"The logic of your suggestion is that we cannot criticise any ethnic group for fear it will be used by racists."
.,.,
No, Jim. The logic of my suggestion is that by making your criticisms, justified as they may be, so entirely disproportionate to their actual triggers, you lay yourself open to charges of being one of those racists.

Can you really not see that? And it's no good getting over this by saying to yourself, "I know I'm not a racist, and for that matter Michael knows it too; so it doesn't matter how much anybody else may misinterpret". Mud will stick; and it is not the sort of mud you will want sticking to you. And you are IMO foolish in the extreme provocatively to make yourself liable, by your hyperbole and over-emphatic over-inflated criticisms & denunciations, to have it flung at you. I repeat that word, Jim: you are being provocative. As the observant character in the Shaw play keeps saying, "You might think you are not, but you are".

With all good wishes ~ genuinely:

~Michael~

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 28 Sep 11 - 05:08 AM

I am trying to explain - and you are not listening - that by and large those who would later want to be called Israelis left what would later be called Israel about the year 1300 and had abandoned that land.

Giving them a "right" to return in 1922, or 1947, or later, dispossessed those by then on that land, and it was imposed by no government having the right to do so. It is an invasion, it is based on theocratic arguments and it is not justified.

It is however, there, so the only thing to be done now is (like in Ireland) surrender in part and try to reach an agreement. You cannot do that without understanding why the displaced population feel aggrieved, and displacing them further will not help that feeling go away.

If the UN recognises the state of Palestine it might be the first step towards peace, and towards Palestine and Israel accepting the existence of each other.


You based your argument solely on a form of words - and when I pointed out that words were not actions, you then based a fresh argument on actions - actions that no government validly countenanced and from 1917/22 onwards no ruler had valid power to countenance.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 28 Sep 11 - 05:09 AM

Teri - white phosphorus injures and may kill because of its chemical behaviour.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 28 Sep 11 - 05:32 AM

~~~that no government validly countenanced and from 1917/22 onwards no ruler had valid power to countenance.~~~
,.,.,
Sorry, Richard,just not right. The Balfour Declaration of 1917, later incorporated into the Sèvres peace treaty with Turkey and the Mandate for Palestine [google it], contains the words "His Majesty's Government", who became the valid authority under mandate from The League Of Nations". This ratification was later incorporated into the resolution of 1947 by the UN, which had by then become the valid, universally recognised, authority. Much as you personally may dislike them, those are the facts; and you merely make yourself look idiotic by retreating further & further into this own little bubble of yours where the facts of the outside world don't matter and only the misapprehensions of one Richard Bridge have any validity.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Sep 11 - 06:01 AM

Jim, I am not surprised you do not want to discuss your attempted deception by editing.

Jim, what you describe as a "profoundly racists statement" was never made by me.
I just said that I believed the people who did say it because they are known anti-racists from the Pakistani community.
I accepted it as I would a weather forecast or a medical diagnosis.
I am not qualified to form such an opinion.

The proof you asked for is simply that it was never again, before or since, ever described as a chemical weapon and is outside the definition of a chemical weapon.
It is not a chemical weapon.

From your last cut and paste,
"The M825A1 rounds, which are the kind identified as being fired by Israeli forces, are made primarily for use as a smokescreen in a way that limits their effect as an incendiary weapon, experts say."

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Sep 11 - 06:07 AM

Richard,
"Teri - white phosphorus injures and may kill because of its chemical behaviour. "

That is true.
It is also true of napalm, and all explosives.
That does not make them chemical weapons, it makes them explosive or incendiary weapons.

Chlorine is a chemical weapon.
It poisons its victims.
Its effect comes from its toxicity.
That makes it a chemical weapon.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Teribus
Date: 28 Sep 11 - 07:58 AM

"that by and large those who would later want to be called Israelis left what would later be called Israel about the year 1300 and had abandoned that land." - Richard Bridge

What about the ones who didn't leave? Who did thery dispossess

What about the ones who from 1847 to 1920 arrived and legally purchased land? Who did they dispossess? The land they were sold was generally considered to be worthless, but the immigrant Jews knew how to alter that and where land could not be turned to cultivation it was developed and turned to industry and commerce.

In May 1948 when the Arabs of Palestine and their allies from Egypt and Jordan attacked the Jews with the intention of annihilating them and drive them into the sea - are you attempting to tell us that there was no intent to disposses?

Are you attempting to tell us that because the Jews left in around 1300 they have no right of return because they were forced to leave and abandoned their land, yet Palestinian Arabs who were ordered to leave their land by their fellow Arabs who were intent in killing all in their path did not abandon their land?

A perfectly workable solution was tabled by the United Nations in 1947 prior to the withdrawal of the British. The Jews accepted it and the Arabs did not, the latter hoping to benefit from the spoils of a war they were about to start. They lost, and they must learn to live with that reality. Having lost, Arab nations almost universally took revenge on Jews living in their midst by killing them, assaulting them, robbing them of the homes, their businesses their property and their savings. No outcry for them Richard I notice, how selective of you.

Did Egypt gain from the war of 1948? Of course it did it annexed Gaza and imprisoned the Arab Jews of Palestine in camps set up on Palestinian soil, the corrupt bastards then ripped the people off by stealing aid genuinely given by others to alleviate the plight od those "refugees" care to explain how you can be a refugee on your own land?? This state of affairs lasted until 1967 when Israel liberated Gaza and evicted the Egyptians from Palestinian soil. The Israelis having formerly been Palestinians themselves had a damn sight more right to hold Gaza than any damn Egyptian

Same thing with Jordan they occupied the West Bank and half of Jerusalem - (Pssst Q - that is how there came to be an EAST JERUSALEM - Jordanian spoils of WAR - I know I'd have to wait until hell froze over before I would get that admission from you)

White Phosphorus - The Richard Bridge terror weapon of choice - because, irrespective of how unlikely, it might kill you. I on the other hand Richard, would prefer to use as a weapon something that was actually designed to kill as it's principal purpose.

Back to Gaza and the West Bank - Billions received in aid over the last 63 years - What have the "Palestinians" done with it all??

I know that Mrs Arafat is a very wealthy widow and that Hamas could give two figs for the people who were foolish enough to elect them to power. Their next election is when Richard? Oh yes that's right, they aren't having any more elections in Gaza are they - I wonder why? The Arab citizens of Israel vote quite regularly though don't they.

The Jews of Palestine took wasteland and made it productive. The Arabs of Palestine made it into a hellhole.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Teribus
Date: 28 Sep 11 - 08:03 AM

"The Arab Jews of Palestine" for God's sake my temperature must higher than I thought.

That should of course read "The Arabs of Palestine" my apologies.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 28 Sep 11 - 09:08 AM

If it was a wasteland, how could they have had their olive orchards, famous orange groves, herds? Sounds like good adaptation to an arid land to me..sort of like things were in Greece perhaps. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Sep 11 - 09:18 AM

From wiki

Ottoman Palestine was a harsh environment. The Galilee was swampy, the Judean Hills rocky, and the south of the country, the Negev, was a desert. To make things more challenging, most of the settlers had no prior farming experience. The sanitary conditions were also poor. Malaria, typhus and cholera were rampant. Nomadic Bedouins would raid farms and settled areas. Sabotage of irrigation canals and burning of crops were also common. Living collectively was simply the most logical way to be secure in an unwelcoming land. On top of safety considerations, establishing a farm was a capital-intensive project; collectively the founders of the kibbutzim had the resources to establish something lasting, while independently they did not.

Finally, the land had been purchased by the greater Jewish community. From around the world, Jews dropped coins into JNF "Blue Boxes" for land purchases in Palestine. In 1909, Baratz, nine other men, and two women established themselves at the southern end of the Sea of Galilee near the Arab village of Umm Juni. These teenagers had hitherto worked as day laborers draining swamps, as masons, or as hands at the older Jewish settlements. Their dream was now to work for themselves, building up the land. They called their community "Kvutzat Degania" (lit. "wheat of God").

The founders of Degania endured backbreaking labor: "The body is crushed, the legs fail, the head hurts, the sun burns and weakens," wrote one of the pioneers. At times half of the kibbutz members could not report for work and many left. Despite the difficulties, by 1914, Degania had fifty members. Other kibbutzim were founded around the Sea of Galilee and the nearby Jezreel Valley.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Sep 11 - 09:46 AM

I don't know if this satelite image link will work.
If not take a look at an image of where Israel, Gaza and Egypt meet.
Compare the land use.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Sep 11 - 09:50 AM

Sorry, this works.
http://www.theodora.com/maps/new9/gaza_strip_satellite_image.jpg

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Sep 11 - 09:55 AM

http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?q=satellite+gaza&hl=en&safe=active&gbv=2&tbm=isch&tbnid=uOF2yI2WABxCoM:&imgrefurl=http://bokertov

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 28 Sep 11 - 10:43 AM

What on earth has differences in land use across the border with Egypt got to do with the question of Palestinian statehood, Keith?

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: GUEST,Jonathan Cristol
Date: 28 Sep 11 - 11:00 AM

The only way that Palestine will achieve a viable independent state is through direct negotiation with Israel. The pursuit of Palestinian statehood at the United Nations is a bad strategy for the Palestinians and is a testament to their continued poor leadership. Being seated in the General Assembly will not mean that Israel will grant Palestinians overflight rights, trade agreements, open borders, work permits or other privileges that the Palestinians presumably desire. The only way to achieve these privileges is through bi-or trilateral negotiation with Israel and the United States.

Being seated in the General Assembly does not force Israel, or any other state, to recognize Palestine. But even if it did, it would strengthen Israel's hand to close the borders to all goods, continue its blockade of Gaza, deny over-flights and to retaliate to rocket attacks with overwhelming force (legally, the standard is retaliation to the point at which the enemy can no longer launch attacks against you).

Right now Israel is in a legally murky relationship with the Palestinians and an argument can be made that they enjoy some responsibility for their well-being. Once Palestine is an independent state, the legal distinction is clear. Palestine is responsible for the Palestinians and Israel for the Israelis. Israel, like any other state, is under no obligation to allow foreign nationals the right to work or even visit its territory. There will be no obligation to share water, to share energy, or medical care. The Palestinian patients who enjoy outstanding health care in hospitals in Tel Aviv will have to take their chances at Ramallah Hospital. It can even build a massive wall along the border (and shoot people trying to cross it). The maritime boundary will remain disputed for some time and Israel's naval superiority will ensure that no ships will reach Gaza.

Perhaps the worst outcome for the Palestinians will be donor fatigue. Right now, the Palestinians are the largest percapita recipients of international aid in the world. Some of that aid surely comes from the perceived hardship of living "under occupation." Once statehood is achieved it is certainly possible that the international donor community will turn its attention elsewhere and the Palestinians' aid based economy will dry up.

The world has seen this happen in Haiti, Pakistan, and elsewhere. And the Palestinians' Arab brethren have never been particularly forthcoming with anything more than rhetorical support for the Palestinians. Statehood via the United Nations will grant the Palestinians nothing more than a seat and a vote in the General Assembly, and those are worth exactly nothing. General Assembly resolutions do not carry the weight of law; and surely Israel has nothing to fear from one more anti-Israel vote in the already Israel-obsessed General Assembly.

Perhaps the Palestinian strategy is that general recognition, even if not from Israel or the United States, would make the settlements illegal and force the settlers to leave. But this ignores the fact that most states already consider the settlements illegal and have done nothing to stop continued Israeli settlement. In part this is because they know that the major settlements will end up part of Israel, and in part because it is not in their interest to do anything.

There will never be sanctions put on Israel, not just because of the obvious American veto (and likely veto by China, who purchase sophisticated weaponry from Israel), but because Israel supplies many goods that the world wants, computer chips in particular. The current failing strategy of isolating Israel through "boycott, divestment, and sanctions" is a fools' errand for the Palestinians, whose economy is so deeply intertwined with Israel that a true sanctions regime would likely devastate both states.

And what territory are we even talking about? A necessary condition of statehood is "effective control." Fatah has effective control over most of the West Bank, but none of Gaza; and Hamas has effective control over Gaza, but none of the West Bank. Would there be a threestate solution? Would Fatah be recognized as sovereign over Gaza when it clearly is not? There is no current example of a state with two separate governments, recognized by the same set of states.
The only way that Palestine will achieve a viable independent state is through direct negotiation with Israel. Israel must agree to allow over-flights, to allow cross-border trade, to share resources, to exchange diplomats (and grant them immunity) and to negotiate final borders. The United Nations does not have the legal right to do most of those things and does not have the political will or ability to do the others. This latest Palestinian gambit serves only to raise hopes, when what is really needed is a lowering of expectations.

a reminder: guests, even if they are members, need to be consistent with whatever name they use. Thank you. Moderator

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Sep 11 - 11:12 AM

"entirely disproportionate to their actual triggers,"
I don't really think we are that far apart on this - we are talking about the thousands of Arabs that were slaughtered by Jewish "freedom Fighters" and Israeli collusion in the deaths of "700–800 to 3,500 (depending on the source)" refugees at Shatila and Sabra, compared to the millions who were exterminated by the Nazis (it's often forgotten that the final figure includes Gypsies, Trades Unionists, and "mental and physical deficiants")
For me, these are significant enough figures for a comparison to be drawn, but I really am open to argument. I am more than aware of my tendency to overstate, but am not sure this is the case here
"Jim, I am not surprised you do not want to discuss your attempted deception by editing"
Your attempts to implicate others in your own behaviour only serve to underline your dishonesty.
Unlike your editing (removing sentences from the middle of the piece which totally changed the purpose of the statement), I edited nothing; what I included changed nothing - I pointed out what I had done and why I did it and gave the link to the whole piece.
In your panic when you were first caught out, you attempted to something similar but quickly abandoned the idea when you realised you were getting nowhere - you would have done well to stick with your first instincts.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 28 Sep 11 - 11:25 AM

Those arguments that Jonathan Cristol raises might be relevant reasons against Palestine seeking UN membership, to be balanced against other arguments tending the other way.

But that's a matter for the Palestinians, and while there are those among them who oppose this move (notably Hamas, who see it, justifiably, as involving a fuller recognition by Palestine of Israel's sovereignty over most of what Hamas sees as Palestine), the bid appears to have widespread support among most Palestinians.

But these arguments are not relevant to the question whether it is justifiable for a small minority of states - basically the USA - to block this membership application.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 28 Sep 11 - 11:36 AM

No, indeed, Jim: I don't think we are that far apart either. I am simply genuinely concerned that some of your more extreme comparisons could lay you open to some very disagreeable accusations which you might be hard-put to refute. I have pointed out to you that accusations of Nazi-like behaviour, however deeply you may feel them deserved by some of the more extreme Israeli actions, are a red-rag to antisemitism seekers ~ NOT ONLY to those of bad faith who use such accusations as a sort of defence-mechanism against criticism of israel, BUT ALSO [& this is the important point], those of good faith who genuinely, and in many cases justifiably, see such accusations as antisemitic because they frequently are. I honestly think some of your more extreme statements, of the sort which you admit to occasionally making, might lay you open to some of the latter sort of accusation by making you appear to be keeping some most undesirable intellectual company, which would be seen by your accusers, and possibly by others whose good opinion you would not wish to lose, as justifiable.

That is a situation I and your other friends would not wish to see you make yourself vulnerable to; and I think you would do well to consider all your animadversions against Israeli actions & intransigence, and all the comparisons you might make based on these, and employ some circumspection in approaching this question if you do not want to find yourself in an invidious position of your own making.

I don't want to sound like Nanny; but please believe I perceive myself as saying these things for your own good.

~Michael~

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Sep 11 - 02:44 PM

Mike
Then we have no real argument - not on this anyway.
But that bloody Thatcher woman.....!!
Best
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 28 Sep 11 - 03:39 PM

Oh, don't worry about her ~ she's a bit yesterday's now, anyhow. LoL!

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Sep 11 - 04:04 PM

McGrath, the question had been asked about Israel's achievements in agriculture.
The last link I gave show neat fields on Israel's side of the border, and wasteland on the Gazan and Egyptian sides.

Jim, you said you copied text as a block without deletions.
That was not true.
You deleted the flags that showed the claims to be unsubstantiated.
You hoped to achieve a deception.

That which you accuse me of deleting had already been posted, and acknowledged as true, by me.
Do you deny that?
No point in putting it back up again, was there?

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Greg F.
Date: 28 Sep 11 - 05:14 PM

The last link I gave show neat fields on Israel's side of the border, and wasteland on the Gazan and Egyptian sides.

Same argument that was used by the U.S. of A. to steal the land of the Native Americans & herd them onto reservations.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 28 Sep 11 - 05:21 PM

But what's that got to do with the question of statehood for Palestine?

Is the suggestion something along the lines "These Arabs don't know how to look after a country, just aren't up to the job"? I've heard that kind of suggestion, and I despise it. I'm not accusing you of endorsing it it, but I'm puzzled by how you see this map as relevant in this context.

In any case Egypt has plenty of intensively cultivated land over by the Nile. The effort and expense involved in irrigating way out by the border in the Sinai isn't seen as justifiable. As for the Gaza, which is relatively intensely cultivated, as the map indicates, cultivation is reduced by various factors, including the availability of water, where effectively Israel controls things.   And of course it was devastated by the last Israeli blitz. Plus of course if you try farming near the border with Israel you are liable to get shot.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 28 Sep 11 - 05:54 PM

I think one of the main questions is fundamentally do we wish the Palestinians well, whether or not we can see statehood right now. Or do we see them as ants to be gotten rid of? mg

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Sep 11 - 08:02 PM

"You deleted the flags that showed the claims to be unsubstantiated."
No I deleted nothing
There as no need to - there is no dispute whatever that the Israelis both facilitated and co-operated in both of the massacres.
An independant enquiry found that "In 1982, an independent commission chaired by Sean MacBride concluded that the Israeli authorities or forces were, directly or indirectly, responsible."
Even "The Israeli government established the Kahan Commission to investigate, and in early 1983 it found that Israeli military personnel were aware that a massacre was in progress without taking serious steps to stop it."
To make doubly sure you didn't accuse me of doctoring the text I carefully wrote.
"Just in case there is any doubt what you pair of apologist shits are up to here's the relevant bit and also the link, in case you think I'm getting up to Keith's trick of editing cut-'n-pastes"
Yet you still have the dishonesty to accuse me of what you did.
You really are a dishonest little shit.
"No point in putting it back up again, was there?"
You, on the other hand cut-'n-pasted Jack Straw's statement to prove that there was a racial/cultural connection to paedophelia - having already made your claim that "All male Pakistanis have a cultural implant" that inclines them to the abuse of underage girls - and removed Straw's comment that there was no racial conclusions to be drawn from the fact that a handful of Pakistanis were involved in procuring underage girls for sex.
People can draw their own conclusions from your behaviour both then and now.
"Or do we see them as ants to be gotten rid of?"
The Israelis appear to have made up their mind on that one in 1948 when the Brits pulled out of Palestine - to their eternal shame , the British Military authorities did nothing to stop the massacres of thousands of Arabs.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Sep 11 - 11:32 PM

Original text.
providing them transportation[citation needed] from outside Beirut and firing illuminating flares over the camps.[citation needed] The

Your text.
providing them transportation[from outside Beirut and firing illuminating flares over the camps. The

You deleted both of the "citation needed" warnings, leaving behind one of the brackets.
"No I deleted nothing" is therefor not true, or are you accusing someone else of making those deletions?

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Sep 11 - 11:40 PM

I had already accepted and acknowledged there was no racial element.
Deny that?
I had already posted Straw's statement that most sex offenders were white, and agreed with it.
Deny that?
Then as now you were wanting to discuss why I said I believed the cultural explanation.
Deny that?
I posted the relevant part of Straw's words only.
The part where he said they went after young white girls because, in their culture, their own girls are off limits.

(I had already pointed out his error of thinking only white girls were victims.)

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Teribus
Date: 29 Sep 11 - 12:47 AM

""Or do we see them as ants to be gotten rid of?"
The Israelis appear to have made up their mind on that one in 1948 when the Brits pulled out of Palestine - to their eternal shame , the British Military authorities did nothing to stop the massacres of thousands of Arabs."

In May 1948 the term of the League of Nations Mandated expired and the British left - there was no element of "choice" in the decision and no question of the United Nations extending the Mandate. That being the case I would dearly like to hear;

1: What Britain could have done

2: What massacres of thousands of Arabs? If memory and historical record are correct it was the Arabs who elected to fight and it was the Arabs who attacked the newly declared State of Israel.

"Is the suggestion something along the lines "These Arabs don't know how to look after a country, just aren't up to the job"?"

Nope, but I asked Richard Bridge a question related to Jews who had legally purchased land and asked him to explain how they had dispossessed anyone - I still wait for his answer. I also brought to his attention that the Turkish governors generally sold the Jews land that they considered worthless, yet the Jewish settlers drained swamps and where required dug irrigation channels and they by their efforts made the land productive. Where they could not they set up industries and created employment. Now if that is what the Jews did with land that was considered to be worthless what have the Arabs done with the land that they have sat on for the same time in Palestine? What have they done with the billions given them in aid?

How much does it cost to smuggle Grad Rockets into Gaza?

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Sep 11 - 03:57 AM

"What massacres of thousands of Arabs?"
http://guardian.150m.com/palestine/israeli-massacres.htm
http://www.revisionisthistory.org/palestine52.html
http://www.soundofegypt.com/palestinian/adult/massacres.htm
It seems your "memory" is as seleective as Keith's
"Original text."
Oh - come on Keith - you can do better than that - the 'citation needed' had nothing to do with the points being made, which were all in the article the link of which I put up and pointed out
I repeat - there has never been any question of the Israeli participation in the Sabra and Shatila massacres - it has been declared to have been the case by two committees, one independant and one Israeli (who are not noted for finding themselves guilty of crimes against humanity) that the Israelis facilitated and participated in them
Your whole point in the aptly named 'Muslim Prejudice' thread was that ALL male Pakistanis were not to be trusted because the had "CULTURAL IMPLANTS" that made them ALL POTENTIAL PERVERTS -
how feckin' racial/racist can you get"?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Sep 11 - 04:04 AM

You deleted those warnings because they weakened your case.

" there has never been any question of the Israeli participation in the Sabra and Shatila massacres"

Yes there has.
It is disputed.
It is accepted that they did not prevent it.
That I deplore and said so when we first discussed this.
I said it shamed them.

Your months old accusation against me is false.
We argued it out at the time.
You have brought it into every thread we have been on since.
Why?
I absolutely deny any deception.
If you want to continue, put up evidence.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Sep 11 - 04:07 AM

"Your whole point in the aptly named 'Muslim Prejudice' thread was that ALL male Pakistanis were not to be trusted because the had "CULTURAL IMPLANTS" that made them ALL POTENTIAL PERVERTS -"

Not true.
I kept telling you, over and over, my case was just the over-representation.
I know nothing about their culture.
I was prepared to accept what was said by people who have deep knowledge of it, but it was not my explanation.
I did not offer one.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: GUEST,livelylass
Date: 29 Sep 11 - 04:45 AM

A poster below (I can't recall who) recently made the assertion that China as a member of UNSC, was likely to veto the Palestinian bid for statehood, at the time I thought this assertion wasn't likely to be correct as I tend to follow quite a bit of international coverage of such stories but failed to counter it at that time. Just for the sake of accuracy in these matters here is an article (from a what 'I think is a Chinese news source in English) which shows that to be so:

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/world/2011-09/27/c_131161229.htm

"China backs Palestine's UN membership

UNITED NATIONS, Sept. 26 (Xinhua) -- Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi on Monday voiced China's support to the Palestinian UN membership and the efforts to achieve the "two-state solution" through political negotiation.

Yang made the statement as he was speaking at the general debate of the 66th session of the General Assembly.

"China consistently supports the just cause of establishing an independent Palestinian state and supports Palestine's membership in the United Nations," he said.

"We support efforts to achieve the 'two-state solution' through political negotiation so as to establish, on the basis of the 1967 borders, an independent Palestinian state that enjoys full sovereignty with East Jerusalem as its capital," said the foreign minister.

The "two-state solution," extensively supported by the international community, means an independent Palestinian state to live in peace with a secure Israel.

"We believe that progress should be made in parallel in the peace talks between Syria and Israel and between Lebanon and Israel with a view to eventually achieving comprehensive, just and durable peace in the Middle East and peaceful coexistence between the Arab countries and Israel," Yang said.

"We hope that the international community and parties concerned will make unremitting efforts toward this end and sustain the Middle East peace process," he said."

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Sep 11 - 08:06 AM

"You deleted those warnings because they weakened your case."
You really are going to try and make this one stick - good luck!!!
"Yes there has. It is disputed."
Only by the perps - and you of course, who continue to defend racist atrocites and persecutions - unsurrprisingly!!
"I kept telling you, over and over, my case was just the over-representation."
"Don I do now " believe that all male Pakistani Muslims have a culturally implanted tendency"
"UNITED NATIONS,"
Although the US has declard its intention to veto statehood - (and to think I went and got drunk on the strength of Obama being elected!) it has also said that it will defend ALL it's interests in The Middle East - now that should be an interesting attempt to square a circle!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: GUEST,keith A
Date: 29 Sep 11 - 08:19 AM

"You really are going to try and make this one stick "
No. It is done.

"Only by the perps"
The militia?
IDF denies any involvement, and there is no evidence.
Or do you have some Jim?
If you do I will join you in condemnation.
I do condemn their failure to intervene.

"Don I do now " believe"
He asked me.
I was not making a case.
There rest of the sentence makes clear I only believe because those who said it have deep knowledge, are anti-racist and are Pakistanis themselves.
My case was only the over-representation

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Sep 11 - 08:27 AM

Confirming my post.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Sep 11 - 09:34 AM

On Google Earth you can toggle between 2010 and 2003 views of Gaza.
There was more cultivation then.
Some pics here of the settlers' greenhouses in Gaza, and what became of them.http://www.tomgrossmedia.com/ExodusFromGaza.html

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Sep 11 - 09:53 AM

"Jewish children at a greenhouse in the Gadid settlement the week before the handover. The Jewish settlers in Gaza had built some of the most state-of-the-art agricultural facilities in the world, exporting flowers, fruit and vegetables to Europe and elsewhere, and employing thousands of Palestinians, Israelis, and others.

Wealthy Jewish philanthropists in the U.S. (as well as a couple of prominent non-Jewish ones such as Bill Gates) bought the Gush Katif hothouses for $14 million and donated them to the Palestinian Authority. The hothouses had taken years to build, but as PA police looked on, Palestinian mobs ransacked them within hours of the Israeli exit. They stripped them of their glass, wiring, computer and electronic equipment and irrigation pipes and timers, destroying a vital source of employment for Gaza Palestinians in the process."

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 29 Sep 11 - 10:18 AM

Looting happens in situations like this. There was also of course a lot of destruction by settlers of property left behind in their expulsion. That kind of thing happens in situations like this. It's sad, but nothing to do with whether people are Jewish, Muslim, Christian or Hindu. It's a human flaw

As for Gaza, it's a war zone, with widespread destruction. It's hardly surprising agriculture and horticulture has been hit. ( Google search - Farmers shot in Gaza )

So is the point of all this to suggest that Arabs are not fit to rule themselves, or to look after a country? I can't see how it is relevant otherwise.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Mrrzy
Date: 29 Sep 11 - 11:10 AM

Finding happens too, LOL.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Stringsinger
Date: 29 Sep 11 - 04:00 PM

The problem will not be solved by Jewish Settlements, AIPAC or Alan Dershowitz.
BDS might have some effect.

Any mandates delivered in the past have no validity today since the boundaries have become arbitrarily fluid depending on whose mandates are accepted.

Negotiations with Netanyahu are impossible, a reactionary politician who hides behind a false Judaism, a Zionism that is only now defined by demagogues.

The Palestinians are forced into a reactionary position and are denied economic parity with Israel.

At the root is a many-epoch battle of two religions. Secularization for both countries is the only answer, though the U.S. is offering no such model with their faith-based initiatives and Christian biases, resulting in Muslim denigration.

Obama is not the president to solve these problems because of his own personal bias, religious, pro-war, and Wall Street connections.

A coalition of a secular non-violent revolution in the US, Israel and Palestine is the only solution by the grass roots people of these countries.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Teribus
Date: 29 Sep 11 - 05:34 PM

So ploughing through highly biased links that record only attacks made by one side and ignore the atrocities carried out by the Arabs of Palestine is not being "selective"? And "thousands" of Arabs massacred?? Hardly.

Haganah - Jewish self defence group set up in the 1920's to protect themselves from attacks by Arabs. This organisation ONLY EVER DEFENDED.

Irgun - More militant members of Haganah who broke away. During the Arab revolt (1936 - 1939) Irgun mounted RETALIATORY RAIDS in response to Arab attacks. As the days of the mandate were drawing to a close the "Convoy of 35" attack by the Arabs prompted Irgun to review its strategy and tactics and the gloves finally came off.

The UN had ordered the ending of the Mandate and the end of a British presence in Palestine, while the UN might have been able to do something (but I strongly doubt it) Britain most certainly could not.

Still silence from our lawyer Mr. Bridge on how people who had legitimately purchased land managed to dispossess people at one and the same time.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 29 Sep 11 - 07:03 PM

how people who had legitimately purchased land managed to dispossess people at one and the same time.

When the place you and your family have been living in perhaps for generations is sold by an absentee landlord and the new owner evicts you, that feels very like dispossession... Whether in 19th century Ireland or 20th century Palestine, for example.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 29 Sep 11 - 07:13 PM

What are steps that should be taken to insure the security of Israelis, while moving towards a state for Palestinians?

Removal of settlements, with a DMZ I would imagine. No smashing of greenhouses or property. The Palestinian youth in particular have to be told in no uncertain terms what they are not to even think of...that the world will come down heavily on them. At the same time, there need to be opportunities for training and work. Groups such as Heifer could probably help restock herds. There has to be watchdogging of water..oops the aquifer went dry...oops dead animals ended up in the well..the Israelis need to be told that they are going to lose whatever infra or extrastructure they put into those settlements, so kiss them goodbye. The Palestinians need to be told here are your future schools, barns, houses, so treat them with respect. There has to be a financial as well as international outrage consideration to those settlements..you have just spent millions of dollars providing for the future of people you wish would just go away. There need to be noise limits and pollutant limits lest anyone think they can bribe new Palestinian officials to put in an arsenic factory to bring in cash...There need to be international watchdogs as to what is taught in the schools. There need to be access to cities and to ports..not blocked off. Religious sites for either and other groups need to be maintained by an international police force if necessary.

Water is the key I think. I do not think this is a religious dispute. It is a land and water dispute and should be treated that way.

Also, the world needs to examine why it let this go on so long. I think one reason is we subconsciously equate the Palestinians with the Nazis and the Holocaust. They were not responsible for it. Put the blame where it belongs and don't confuse totally innocent people with others who got tangled up in monstrous behavior. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 29 Sep 11 - 11:36 PM

Not sure when the greenhouse story, or stories took place. But the good news is that many greenhouses were apparently repaired..hopefully the probably foolish young men who looted them and sold scrap metal etc. have been suitably but not horribly punished. Remember what Chief Joseph said...he lost everything because he could not control the young men. That is true in so many circumstances..we really do not know what to do with young men, in U.A. and elsewhere, especially where there are not enough jobs.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/28/world/africa/28iht-gaza.html

This was in 2005. They said they employed thousands of people and did $20 million in business. I just read I think a recent report about delays in border crossings and $6 million of vegetables is being held up. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Teribus
Date: 30 Sep 11 - 12:24 AM

"When the place you and your family have been living in perhaps for generations is sold by an absentee landlord and the new owner evicts you, that feels very like dispossession"

And this happened where Kevin?

I say again just in case you missed it before. The Turks sold the Jews land that they considered to be worthless - gardens of rocks - swamps - Nobody lived ON IT OR FROM IT.

Tell us what industries were "native" to the area. I can list the towns and cities that sprang up due the industries and businesses the Jews created. They created employment and the most numerous source of a workforce were Arabs, but most of them were drawn into the area - they did not "live there".

"The Palestinian youth in particular have to be told in no uncertain terms what they are not to even think of...that the world will come down heavily on them." - mg

And exactly how is the "world going to come down heavily on them"?? Kill them?? Give them a good stern talking to?? It is not the Palestinian youth that are the problem it is the thiefing leadership of the likes of Hamas, Fatah and Hezbollah THEIR view has to change.

A DMZ in Palestine?? Have you had a look at a map of the place?? No room that is why there is a wall. And the Wall worked - no Israeli's getting shot from inside the West Bank - now far far harder for suicide bombers to sneak into Israel - no rockets fired from the West Bank into Israel because Fatah are not as idiotic as Hamas, Fatah has seen what happens when you fire rockets into Israel - The Israelis hit back a damn sight harder.

Interesting mg in your list of things that MUST HAPPEN there is no wringing from the Arabs of this Palestine of yours that they must recognise the right of Israel to exist and the right of Israelis to live free from threat of attack.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 30 Sep 11 - 12:55 AM

I will instantly put in the right of everyone to live free from the threat of attack. I would not ask an oppressed people to humiliate themselves by having to say a country has the right to exist. I would put it in more businesslike terms that I have explained before..that it does exist and it is not going away and civilities will be practiced..but why insist on something that will stick so in their craw? The objective is to have security and safety for all.

Did I say a DMZ in Palestine? No, I did not. I would assume it would be shared by both countries from their lands where settlers are now settling. Obviously disputed territory.

Yes..there are times when people have to be killed if they are intruders, terrorists, etc. and are endangering others severely and there is no other way to subdue them.

Sometimes walls are the only way to control a situation. But they have to have little openings, securely guarded, where people have ingress and egress and vegetables from the destroyed but hopefully now rebuilt greenhouses can get through. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 30 Sep 11 - 05:40 AM

An example of "how people who had legitimately purchased land managed to dispossess people at one and the same time": From Haaretz - UN, U.K. slam Israel's eviction of Arab families from East Jerusalem

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 30 Sep 11 - 06:14 AM

McGrath ~ Not really a relevant news item. The points made above were not about the purchase of houses in towns & cities, which was the question at issue in the Haaretz piece, but of barren and unproductive areas of land ~ desert, in fact ~ which were purchased by bodies like the JNF {Jewish National Fund}, and developed to productivity & fertility by pioneer groups by irrigation and agriculture. Previously these had been uninhabited, so nobody was 'displaced' or 'dispossessed' by the purchase.

Not the same thing at all.

Try again ~ if you feel inclined and can find any material to support such an endeavour.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Teribus
Date: 30 Sep 11 - 11:21 AM

"I will instantly put in the right of everyone to live free from the threat of attack. I would not ask an oppressed people to humiliate themselves by having to say a country has the right to exist. I would put it in more businesslike terms that I have explained before..that it does exist and it is not going away and civilities will be practiced..but why insist on something that will stick so in their craw? The objective is to have security and safety for all."

1: It does not affect the price of rice in China one jot what YOU say is a right. What is important is that both sides IN THE CONFLICT have to acknowledge the right each has to live free from threat of attack. Had not one attack been mounted from inside Gaza or from the West Bank THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN NO ATTACKS BY THE ISRAELIS.

2: I most definitely ask the side in the conflict that has continually demonstrated their preferrence for violence over peace over 63 years to publicly acknowledge Israel's right to exist because until they do that Israel will always be under threat and will act accordingly. There should also be severe penalties should the Arabs of Palestine ever renege on this point - Their track record is that they have never lived up to or honoured a single agreement they have made with regard to Israel and the peace process.

3: If you wish "to have security and safety for all" then the side that contiually reaches for the gun and talks about annihilation of the Jews had best either be brought to book or be left to face their fate.

Plain fact of the matter is Israel can live very well without Palestine - Palestine cannot live a day without Israel - Yet from your posts it is Israel that must do this and Israel must do that. The Arabs of Palestine and their thieving and corrupt leaders have squandered opportunity after opportunity over a period of 63 years, high time they learned from their mistakes, as far I am concerned, the next time they attack, let them fight it out to the finish, once and for all and let's be done with it.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: mg
Date: 30 Sep 11 - 01:30 PM

I think part of the problem can be traced to Chernobyl...tragic consequences all the way around there...rich farmlands and dairylands destroyed..which puts economic pressure on people, which leads to discrimination which might have waned otherwise...which leads to immigration if people can immigrate..forced immigration combined with religious fervor combined with a practice of using them in settlements as human barricades...leads to all sorts of problems. I have not seen this brought up..maybe I am wrong on all counts..just a thought. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 30 Sep 11 - 01:59 PM

That was an example of how "a legitimate purchase" can mean people being dispossessed, in response to suggestion that this could never happen.

This is something that has happened, and continues to happen in many places at many times, when landlords, especially absentee landlords, sell property, and the purchasers have plans that don't include the residents staying on.

There is no doubt that friction between evicted peasants and immigrants taking over purchased land was a major factor in civil unrest between the wars in Palestine.

But in any case all this is totally irrelevant to the issue of Palestinian membership of the UN.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 30 Sep 11 - 02:10 PM

Listen, MccGrath, please ~~ I will say it again···

The points you are making about purchase & dispossession do not apply at all to the empty barren desert territory purchased & developed and made fertile by the pioneers of the first 4 decades of C20 in Palestine: your point that

"friction between evicted peasants and immigrants taking over purchased land was a major factor in civil unrest"

is nonsensical in the context of the land purchases we are discussing, because there were NO peasants there to BE evicted.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 30 Sep 11 - 02:21 PM

Talking past each other aren't we?

Palestine has applied for membership of the UN, most UN members favour this. That's what I'm trying to talk about here.

It's very very easy to start a thread to talk about other stuff that isn't relevant.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 30 Sep 11 - 02:53 PM

Do we know for sure that in the first 40 years..which can we say exactly what those 40 years are? I presume before end of WWI.

I am always leary when someone says there were no peasants. Sounds sort of like the Highland Clearances. Well, there were some but the Lord HIgh Muckety Muck actually owned the land and blah blah...

Were there accurate censi done then and there? A lot of times peasants can be hidden among the bracken so to speak. A lot of times they are wanderers..oh dear..like travelers..or Beduoin perhaps..

Are we really and truly convinced that in a particular place and time there were no peasants there and the land was really and truly worthless? In which case why was it bought by anyone? WHo would buy worthless land? Unless they thought there were diamonds hidden in the rocks or something.

But whilst this might have been the beginnings of change in the Holy Land, it was not the the last...arid but profitable lands were acquired and families were displaced. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 30 Sep 11 - 05:11 PM

The topic of this thread, McGrath, is "Palestine", as you will observe if you simply raise your eyes approx ½". I see no indication or compulsion in that designation to suggest that it should be confined purely to the question of that territory's present ambitions regarding UN membership. It is a part of the world with a history relevant to consideration of that ambition, which is what many of us have been pursuing. If you think a thread is required which considers, purely & in isolation, "The present question re Palestine's UM membership", then there is nothing to prevent YOU from starting a thread with that title, & having a great deal of entertainment communing with YOURSELF within it. But if you look back throughout the present one, you will observe that that is not the interpretation most have chosen to place upon its topic.

So, please, please, pretty-pretty-pretty-please, will you be so good as to stop being so insufferably prescriptive as to what the rest of us wish to include within this one.

There's a dear fellow...

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 30 Sep 11 - 05:22 PM

"why was it bought by anyone? WHo would buy worthless land?"
,.,.,
Well there's a silly question! Haven't you been listening?

TO DEVELOP & RELEASE ITS POTENTIAL FOR FERTILITY FOR USE AS AGRICULTURAL LAND BY DILIGENT LABOUR AND THE USE OF AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY, so that it was no longer worthless. That is what happened to land in Negev, Golan ... So with real dog-in-mangerdom, some of those who had let it degenerate to that state would now like to get it back ~~ presumably to let it go back to the state it was in before: see those informative aerial maps posted above showing the meeting point of lands around Gaza currently being farmed by the Israelis, Egyptians, Palestinians. Someone asked truculently whether that was supposed to show that Arabs couldn't use land, then. No comment. Just look at the evidence for yourself, mg.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 30 Sep 11 - 06:03 PM

We've had umpteen threads about the ins and outs and the historical events behind this whole conflict.

Right now there's a fresh development that hasn't been there before, and which hasn't been discussed before. Hence Mrrzy's opening post in this thread:

So, my question for the forum is: Given that Israel was carved out of that region, should it or should it not be up to Israel to determine whether Palestine gets to be a nation now? Or, in a more open form, what do you think of the Palestinians going straight to the UN, which seems to some to be an end run around the US and Israel (I'm not sure who else is on that side of the fence)?

I am curious about the tenor of opinion here. Our views often harmonize, and we can keep our tone civil when differences of opinion become discordant. If you can keep to musical metaphor, even better.

That seems a good idea to me. Plenty of threads about the historical background are there waiting to be reopened, or a new one started.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: GUEST,999
Date: 30 Sep 11 - 06:11 PM

"If you can keep to musical metaphor, even better."

A duet will sound like shit unless they are in tune, no matter that someone mandates everyone who hears it to also enjoy it.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 30 Sep 11 - 09:43 PM

Oh dear. Then it was not truly worthless..sort of like kinetic energy. Or speculation perhaps. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 01 Oct 11 - 01:42 AM

"Hence Mrrzy's opening post in this thread:" ~~

of which, McGrath, you omit the opening, setting-in-context, sentence; which is the one which all the background info, which you have been so vociferously objecting to as it doesn't fit your agenda on the matter, spells out as a preamble to Mrrzy's main question.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 01 Oct 11 - 05:21 AM

"...main question."

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 01 Oct 11 - 06:00 AM

But not the ONLY one.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Mrrzy
Date: 01 Oct 11 - 11:34 AM

My question was, do you think that recognition of Palestein's existence be up to Israel, or were the Palesteins (new word, thank you Jon Stewart) correct in going straight to the UN?

Not sure what y'all are interpreting my "main" and "secondary" questions weto be.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: GUEST,livelylass
Date: 01 Oct 11 - 12:23 PM

Mrrzy, you could request that a Mod split the thread into two, one continuing the discussion of your opening question and the second generic thread-drift around it?

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Oct 11 - 12:24 PM

MGof H, perhaps if you had said something when one person started all the thread creep on day 2.

They brought up the incursion into Gaza and much older stuff, making claims they knew from previous arguments were so contentious that they would not go unchallenged.

Or when that same person resumed the discussion of a closed thread so that child abuse in N England was discussed on this thread!

I was the only person who questioned the relevance.
You let him get on with it unchallenged.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Oct 11 - 02:16 PM

Kevin, on day 2 you referred to people flogging old disputes.
Why did you not challenge the instigator?

It is natural to challenge posts that you consider to be wrong, even though it adds to thread creep.
You yourself were drawn into discussing captured lands, chemical weapons, etc.

It is the instigator who should be taken to task, as you did with me when I answered a question about agriculture.
But never a word to the arch creep.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: mg
Date: 01 Oct 11 - 03:25 PM

aren't conversations supposed to creep and take interesting turns? mg

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: GUEST,keith.
Date: 01 Oct 11 - 03:57 PM

Yes, but the suggestion is that a creep back to old, worn out, thread bare arguments is less not more interesting.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Mrrzy
Date: 01 Oct 11 - 04:32 PM

Does anyone else find it entertaining that, after my question was restated, nobody has tried to answer it again, preferring to digress into whether prior digressions were thread creep?

But then, I take a lot of things as part of life's floor show.

My suggestion, and I think I get to make one, is that if you feel that you rather than your arguments are being attacked that you point out the ad hominem fallacy and go back to the argument.

Alternatively, if you don't like someone's argument, say why rather than saying so, and say nothing about the arguER.

Feel free to creep wherever as long as you aren't being a creep about it, quoi!

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 01 Oct 11 - 05:35 PM

Mrrzy ~~ IMO your question has been dealt with adequately in the answers above, however much RELEVANT background has {according to viewpoint} obtruded or been adduced in evidence.

No definitive answer has been forthcoming, but what do you expect? Mudcat is not, after all, the undisputed World Government.

Yet!

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Stringsinger
Date: 01 Oct 11 - 07:52 PM

Dennis Miller might chew on the fact that there is no Jewish Race. It is a religion and rather disjointed one at that where Jews in one nation don't understand the habits of those in another nation.

You might have heard of Shlomo Sand from Tel Aviv U.
Here's what he has to say.

Invention of the Jewish people

Sand's provactive book

Naturally what he is saying is being discredited vehemently by Zionists. It calls into question as to who are not only Palestinians but who are the Zionists and what right do they have to be in Israel?

Are we dealing with two sets of peoples who base their feud on mythical concepts?

One group is occupying and subjugating another for religious ideological reasons.
The other is being occupied and subjugated for religious ideological reasons.

The defenders of the occupation of Gaza turn out to be proportionately Christian, who rationalize their position based on "scripture".

In the meantime, innocents are dying in a bantustan. All efforts of peace are being thwarted by the US whose negotiations rely on supporting Israel over an incipient nation of Palestine.

Houston, we have a problem.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: mg
Date: 01 Oct 11 - 08:02 PM

My question was, do you think that recognition of Palestein's existence be up to Israel, or were the Palesteins (new word, thank you Jon Stewart) correct in going straight to the UN?


---

Here is the definitive answer then.

Israel should not have to recognize Palestine and Palestine should not have to recognize Israel. They should not hurt each other, they should not impose settlements, they should not throw rocks, they should not cut off supply lines or appropriate water.

This mess was created by others and will have to be somewhat patched up and fixed by others. Why should someone with the upper hand want to negotiate over land and water it has gotten? It is not human nature. Of course third parties, in fact most of the world, has to be involved and there have to be borders and boundaries on all sides..perhaps with walls and checkpoints and certainly with all sorts of security for all. Improvements can be made..no one will be totally happy but the world is a world of woe and we just have to do the best for all that we can. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Mrrzy
Date: 01 Oct 11 - 08:15 PM

S- Israel should not have to recognize Palestine and Palestine should not have to recognize Israel. What you propose is certainly fair, but, since Israel exists, shouldn't they both have to recognize each other?

Either way, I agree with the part where They should not hurt each other, they should not impose settlements, they should not throw rocks, they should not cut off supply lines or appropriate water.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: mg
Date: 01 Oct 11 - 08:40 PM

Why are we stuck on countries recognizing each other? If the majority of the world recognizes each and both, why impose that sticking point on the disputing countries? What is gained exactly? They are competitors..I just don't understand why anyone has to recognize anybody..business people are going to do business with each other; laws have to be just; there have to be security measures in place..so why make them swallow their pride? What is the point?

And don't bother telling me than if they don't recognize each other they will attack each other. One doesn't seem to have much to do with the other. You can have good security without imposed recognition..but the world has to watch. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: mg
Date: 01 Oct 11 - 09:25 PM

I am wondering something else..are we prejudiced against people who were born on rocky soils? Do we think they do not make good farmers? Or perhaps are they adapting to what they are given? Sustainability perhaps? I know anything said here about the farmers of Palestine could be said about my ancestors..they were rock farmers who had to build up the soil by dragging baskets of seaweed up..surely someone with outside capital could have improved productivity..but should we sneer when people do the best they can with what they have at the time? mg

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 02 Oct 11 - 03:28 AM

"Why are we stuck on countries recognizing each other? If the majority of the world recognizes each and both, why impose that sticking point on the disputing countries? What is gained exactly? They are competitors..I just don't understand why anyone has to recognize anybody..business people are going to do business with each other; laws have to be just; there have to be security measures in place..so why make them swallow their pride? What is the point?

And don't bother telling me than if they don't recognize each other they will attack each other. One doesn't seem to have much to do with the other. You can have good security without imposed recognition..but the world has to watch." - mg

This is without doubt the most idiotic thing I think I have ever read in my life.

To answer the various points put:

1: "Why are we stuck on countries recognizing each other?"

Because that recognition allows countries to be governed, that recognition allows nations to be separate but yet allows them to co-operate and peacefully co-exist pursuing what are perceived to be their national interests and protecting their cultures and way of life. If there was no recognition of countries the world would be a massive lawless free for all.

2: "If the majority of the world recognizes each and both, why impose that sticking point on the disputing countries?"

Ah, but the majority of the world does not recognize "each" and "both". All member states of the UN recognize Israel and did so formally in 1949. All states that have subsequently been created on joining the UN have had to formally recognize the existing member states. In 1949 the Arabs of Palestine had the opportunity to create their own state and rejected the proposal, they did so for greed in the hope of personal gain from the anticipated destruction of Israel and the eradication of her people.

The UN cannot in all honesty, out of respect to its own founding charter, give official recognition to and welcome into its membership a state (Palestine) whose declared aim is the destruction and annihilation of a long standing member of the United Nations (Israel). You are basically inviting the fox into the hen house and hoping for eggs for breakfast tomorrow morning as usual - utterly idiotic.

3: "What is gained exactly?"

In recognizing Israel and settling their differences?? For Palestine?? Any hope at all of survival. As previously stated any Palestinian State and the people who live within it borders rely on Israel in order to survive. They rely on Israeli services, the rely on the Israeli economy. Why haven't Jordan and Egypt over the last 63 years taken up the slack and developed trade and industry with the people of the West Bank and Gaza to provide them with alternative markets for their produce and for their labour? Oh that's right they couldn't because both Egypt and Jordan were too busy feeding the Palestinians a load of bullshit about how everything would be perfect for them once they had killed off all the Jews and destroyed Israel.

4: "They are competitors..I just don't understand why anyone has to recognize anybody..business people are going to do business with each other; laws have to be just; there have to be security measures in place..so why make them swallow their pride? What is the point?"

As stated above - survival for Palestine. Israel can function and is economically viable as a state without having to rely upon a single Palestinian. Why make them swallow their pride?? Because for 63 years they have been wrong, for 63 years they have consistently chosen violence over peace, they have to admit to themselves that they have been wrong in order that they can move forwards.

5: "And don't bother telling me than if they don't recognize each other they will attack each other. One doesn't seem to have much to do with the other. You can have good security without imposed recognition..but the world has to watch."

A tale of two Palestines - Gaza and the West Bank:

What happened? The Israelis leave Gaza completely and for their gesture are rewarded with a constant stream of missiles, rockets and mortar bombs raining down on their citizens. From the West Bank, Iranian and Iraqi backers sponsor suicide bombers to cross the porous borders to kill indiscriminately in Israeli cities, snipers from inside the West Bank randomly kill Israelis going about their daily lives. As far as the West Bank goes all this stops when Israel closes the border and builds a wall - What has happened to the intent to attack from the Arab side of that Wall? There is no doubt at all that both regimes in Gaza and in the West Bank would attack Israel - they have said so, they have stated it in their founding charters.

The only thing is while things remain as they are (i.e. Palestine not being a "State") the leaders of those regimes in Gaza and in the West Bank can deny responsibility and claim that those carrying out the attacks are a renegade few. Once Palestine becomes a "State" the regimes in charge become responsible for controlling their renegades, they are responsible for either delivering or bringing them to justice. If they do not and the attacks continue (as they undoubtedly would) then Israel would be perfectly justified in declaring war and attacking the newly recognized state of Palestine.

By the bye we, the world, have been watching for 63 years - what good has that done?

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 02 Oct 11 - 09:29 AM

I took it that mg was talking about a process of formal recognition. I suspect that most countries may well never get round to formally recognising each other, any more than individual people formally recognise each other or families formally recognise one another.

In fact formal recognition feels like something you'd do because the process of informal recognition had broken down.
.........................
Mrrzy ~~ IMO your question has been dealt with adequately in the answers above wrote MtheGM. I can't see it myself. There've been people saying they are for or against recognition, and lots of stuff about events long ago - but I haven't seen much if anything directly about why recognition is something that should be opposed. I may have missed something - it's a long thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 02 Oct 11 - 09:34 AM

McG ~ Have a look at Teribus' answer, just before your last post. What else do you want by way of answer?

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: GUEST,keith A
Date: 02 Oct 11 - 09:38 AM

" I suspect that most countries may well never get round to formally recognising each other, "

I am no expert but I think that is wrong.
WIthout recognition can you have diplomatic contact, consular representation, trade or even visitors with an unrecognised passport?

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: mg
Date: 02 Oct 11 - 10:57 AM

I am not talking about recognizing that a country exists and going through various protocols..I am talking about making them admit that the country that is occupying them (in general, theoretically speaking) has a right to exist. Why add that bit of humiliation and case for future bitterness? That is different than admitting that they do exist and we will grit out teeth and bear it and follow standard international practices. of course it does not mean as long as you refuse to admit of a "right to exist" you get to attack them, etc. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: GUEST,keith A
Date: 02 Oct 11 - 11:15 AM

So you would admit that they exist, but deny that they had a right to exist?

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: mg
Date: 02 Oct 11 - 11:35 AM

Yes.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: mg
Date: 02 Oct 11 - 11:38 AM

No.to clarify...I would not deny anyone had a right to exist.. I just would not insist on an occupied people or people in any dispute having to state that the other entity had a right to exist. It is a hurdle of humiliation that they should not have to endure and brings out the stubbornness in everyone.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 02 Oct 11 - 11:58 AM

I think you are a bit confused, mg. If they were declared a state, in what sense would they be occupied, please?

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: mg
Date: 02 Oct 11 - 12:48 PM

well gee...guess I am a bit confused. We need to concentrate on security measures and water and hopefully reducing the population pressure on Palestine through immigration etc. I think steps have to be taken obviously before the Good Fairy declares any place a state. And there will have to be martial law I presume for some time...no one is going to be happy with any decisions. Other countries that are discriminating against Jews need to be watched carefully and pressure put on them, so the need to immigrate is not as strong. This all needs to be tied into foreign aid.

We also need to look carefully at campaign money in US..where it has gone, what pressure has been applied etc. What has been done out of a feeling that this is absolutely the right thing to do and what has been done out of oh dear I won't win election if I don't vote certain ways. And people do realize that our lives are at stake here, do they not? This is a flash point. The more we can do to ensure security for all, and justice where we can..the safer we are. I am sure that for a while it will be through walls and checkpoint charlies and martial law and boring courts settling water disputes and poring ?? over old treaties and maps but it ahs to be done. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 02 Oct 11 - 12:55 PM

Those are two different things, occupation and recognition - Kuwait did not cease to be a recognised state, and a member of the United Nations while it was occupied.

Moreover, while Palestine does not have United Nations membership at present, it is recognised as a state by a large majority of countries, despite the occupation.

As for the repeated claims that a refusal of the Palestine Authority to recognise the state of Israelis a barrier to statehood for Palestine, it's worth pointing out that in 1983 the PLO did recognise "the right of the state of Israel to exist in peace and security", and in his speech to the UN Mahmoud Abbas reiterated a commitment to "cooperative relations based on parity and equity between two neighbouring states - Palestine and Israel."

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 02 Oct 11 - 01:01 PM

THat 1983 should have been 1993...

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 02 Oct 11 - 01:36 PM

MG:   well gee...***guess I am a bit confused***. We need to concentrate on security measures and water and hopefully reducing the population pressure on Palestine through immigration etc. I think steps have to be taken obviously before the Good Fairy declares any place a state. And there will have to be martial law I presume for some time...no one is going to be happy with any decisions. Other countries that are discriminating against Jews need to be watched carefully and pressure put on them, so the need to immigrate is not as strong~~~
.,.,
*** Yay; I guess you are. Don't really know where to begin ~~

I mean, do you really think that Israel still exists solely as a refuge for Jews who are being persecuted in other countries? And, I mean, martial law policed by whom? and is Israel, a sovereign state, to be subject to it? ··· And I mean···

Oh, the hell with it> Teribus, maybe you can return and take over to try and make some sort of concord of this discord.

It's way beyond me!

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Mrrzy
Date: 02 Oct 11 - 01:57 PM

Yes, the basic idea is they should be able to travel on Palestinian passports, which right now aren't "recognized" so you might be able to get OUT of Palestein on one but you wouldn't be able to ARRIVE anywhere. Like that guy whose country dissolved before he cleared customs and suddenly he's stuck in the transit lounge.
Which, funny story now decades later, happened to a friend of mine's mom who died in transit and the country she'd left wouldn't let her back in as she was dead and the airline certainly wasn't going to put her on the plane...

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Oct 11 - 02:05 PM

Can you arrive in Arab countries on an Israeli passport now?

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 02 Oct 11 - 02:15 PM

Whether you could or couldn't have any relation to whether the country involved recognised Israel.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 02 Oct 11 - 02:25 PM

Whether you could or couldn't use an Israeli passport wouldn't have any relation to whether the country involved recognised Israel.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Mrrzy
Date: 02 Oct 11 - 02:29 PM

Actually, there are places where if you have stamps from them in your passport you can't get into Israel on a US passport.

I'm pretty sure those places wouldn't let you in on an Israeli passport, is why.

But this part needs data. I'll ask Mom, she had to use her other passport for travel to Israel because of that.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: mg
Date: 02 Oct 11 - 03:48 PM

I do not think solely but I think persecution or discrimination is the strongest argument and certainly the strongest argument for inviting people in to stay, thus putting more population pressure on land and water. If there were no persecution and had been none in the recent past, what would be the justification for displacing indigenous..as in living there right now..people. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: ollaimh
Date: 02 Oct 11 - 09:58 PM

to correct some historical inaccuracies the name palestine was added y the romans after the philistines as a new name for the land after they had smashed the last jewish revolt and wanted all things jewish destroyed and forgotten. so the name and people of israel perdate any palestinians name. however a lot of modern palestinian people are the direct descendants of the "cannanites" who were the ancestors of many jews as well.   judaisim is a religious distinction not a racial one and many modern jews are descendants of converts.

or course none of this really settles the present issues and when people refer to their historical calims they are usually saying they have no legal or moral claim and all should recognize that.

i have major problems with the state of israel in its settlement program, however i equally find the leadership of the palestinians unsupportable. i do not understand the need for so many to take sides. if we all get out of the issue and let things take their course a solution is more probable. i am especially bothered by the new left getting on board to censure israel . as a long time socialist i see no reason to suport fascists of nay kind. the palestinian leadership has repeatedly shown fascist leanings. they have experienced violations of rights but i ain't fighting for them untill they stop such idiocy as electing people who support the protocols of the elders of zion as fact--as hamass does, and abbas wrote his phd thesis accepting those writings as fact(he apologized for being a holocoust denialist but sorry--no holocoust denialist will ever get my support--get democratic progressive leaders and principles and i will support you but not before)

i am also disturbed by the persecution of the christian minority in palestinian territopries. they once made up aproximately forty per cent of the population but after repeated abuse they are now half that. there is also open and violent persecutuion of gays and lesbians and women.

untill the palestinian people start to meet basic human and civil rights standards i am not taking sides. israel at least has human and civil rights protections. most palestinian homesexuals get refugee status in israel for instance.

i really would like to see the left stop taking sides. it servrs no constructive purpose and diverts energy from l;ocal pressing issues

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Ringer
Date: 03 Oct 11 - 12:54 PM

"... Palestine ... is recognised as a state by a large majority of countries, despite the occupation."

What occupation?

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Mrrzy
Date: 03 Oct 11 - 02:26 PM

Palestine as a regional name predates the Romans, I'm pretty sure...

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Mrrzy
Date: 03 Oct 11 - 02:30 PM

In fact, the name Palestine (Greek Παλαιστίνη Palaistinē) appears as far back as the 5th century BC in the famous historical writings of Herodotus, who says that its inhabitants were circumcised.

from a website somewhere. I think that the Romans were not around that long ago...

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 03 Oct 11 - 04:17 PM

Things can not take their course because the Palestinians will be compressed further and further and their reproduction is unfortunatley very high..there will be too much bloodshed.

The reason the mess has gotten as bad is because people have not spoken out enough. People were so overwhelmed after WWII and sickened by the Holocost that the whole issue is confused in their minds. Palestinians equals Nazis. I think they were just sort of sitting around minding their own business and got caught up in all of this..not all at once but it might have been tolerable up to a point. They have been grossly insulted and this has become almost the truth by now...that they did not exist, that they did not love their children, that others had to come and show them how to farm when they were famous farmers in the fertile areas at least. So it has to be untangled by each and every one of us. It does not mean giving anyone the right to terrorism or violence of any sort...our pen is the sword and our voice is the cannon. There need to be borders and treaties and water rights and eggress rights and a massive move of Palestinians to other countries ..I think to wine-growing and olive-growing regions which might need farm workers and families..(which I believe they refused in the past, and I do not think that was good).

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 04 Oct 11 - 11:58 AM

Quit picking on Mary. Teribus is an Israel apologist who will hear no wrong spoken against the country. We all know that Israel has colonized and occupied large areas of Palestinian territory for decades and has created sub-classes of people who may (at times) enter Israel for work. Who are held virtually hostage when Israel closes the borders.

The colonizer/colonized positions are not aided by the way Israel approaches "peace talks" - they get close to an agreement, then Israeli zealots start moving in to Palestinian territory and putting up more settlements. Or something comparable, such as the building of a wall that encroaches on Palestinian communities, inconveniences them by blocking access roads in their own territory, and by simply being where it is, takes in more prime land. Much as the stupid border fence in the US at the border with Mexico is doing. The Wikipedia article is a starting point for more info.

The fighting is nasty, but Israel is largely responsible for whether there is peace in the region or not, and it seems to suit them to not have peace in the region. As long as they are the "victims" they get more support from the US government and from bleeding heart fundamentalist christian groups in the US who have literal readings of their preferred version of the Bible and who think that Israel must be situated just so before xtian end times can proceed. I think American Jews are beginning to catch on to the nonsense and are watching and waiting.

There is fighting and bad blood from anti-Israel states in the region, but Israel is, at this point, it's own worst enemy.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Mrrzy
Date: 04 Oct 11 - 02:57 PM

Pedantically, its worst enemy, might as well throw a lit match on this fuel... (OK, is everybody more relaxed now?)

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 Oct 11 - 11:52 AM

No, not "it's", "its"...

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: C. Ham
Date: 05 Oct 11 - 04:41 PM

Here is an excellent article by UCLA Professor Judea Pearl.

You may remember the story of his son, journalist Daniel Pearl, who was kidnapped and decapitated by Islamic terrorists in Pakistan for the crime of being Jewish.

Moral dimension of Palestinian statehood by Judea Pearl

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: GUEST,mgI
Date: 05 Oct 11 - 05:24 PM

I was reading I think in Adrew Sullivan that the US was withholding funds for Palestine because they had asked the UN for statehood. Now, that seems crazy to me. I can see withholding for violent acts, but going to the UN in a legalistic, stateswomanshipway seems totally the opposite and what you would want disputed countries to do. I don't know all the facts but perhaps when I know them I will be ashamed of my country. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: ollaimh
Date: 06 Oct 11 - 11:24 AM

again the name was allpied as the legal name by the romans, they based it on the philistines, the greeks knew of the philistines as well, but only a millenium after there were jewish cultures in "palestine". the name israel predates any name of palestine.but this is just trying to claim we were here first. if that was the arguement then the english should give their land back to the welsh and north americans should give it back to natives--not bad ideas but impracticle.

i remind people that there have always been jews in "palestine" from the beginning of history, to deny this is falling into an ideolocial and racist trap. settlement isn't going to come by demonizing any side. palestinians are baddly treated and should have a recognized state. however that doen't mean any right thinking socialist or other progressive should support the policies of that state if they ignore the most basis human rights. this is a part of the world ethniclly cleansed many times, including by palestinians in the past, and they are now doing it to their own bedouin and christian population.

to leave things alone means to me for america to stop funding israel and every body else stop funding palestine and they would then stop being a political football and would probablyb reach accomidations with each other. i believe that process starts with progressives geting off the palestinian band wagon. they shouldn't support israel either.

and really stop the dumb arguements about who was nere first. no one is leaving because they weren't there irst no matter who you think was there first, however they do have to live together in war or peace. if you support peace then demonizing one side with "historical" arguements is supporting fascists thinking

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Mrrzy
Date: 06 Oct 11 - 11:37 AM

There can't have been Jews in Palestine from the beginning of history for the very simple reason that they only invented themselves *after* being freed from bondage and deciding to dedicate their lives to the god that they thought freed them, around 3000 years ago. *While* they were in bondage, they were Hebrews. And before *that* even *they* don't know where they were from but assume, quite reasonably, that they were from the same part of the world where the other semites are from - those we now think of as Arabs. So yes, there were semites in Palestine forever, and one tribe, or something, probably called itself Hebrew; but basically, some semites grew up to be Arabs and some of them grew up to be Jews. But to claim the jews were anywhere, let alone in Palestine, more than 3000 years ago is not to know very much about history.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: pdq
Date: 06 Oct 11 - 12:15 PM

We are in year 5772 of the Jewish Calendar.

That should tell people something about the length of time that Jews have been in the Holy Land.

Arabs started an organized effort to send their people, by then followers of Islam, into the traditional Jewish homeland about 1000 years ago.

Jordan, Lebanon and part of Syria are Arab states built partly or entirely from land that was traditionally owned by Jews. The Romans called it Palestine as an affront to the Jews who consider it Isarel, The Promised Land, Canaan or the Holy Land.

Gaza was traditionally part of Israel as were Judea and Jerusalem. Gaza is now about 99% Muslim and almost entirely of Arab extraction. It was conquest largely by out reproducing the original residents. Albanians did the same thing in their Islamic conquest of Albania, which is being cleansed of all its minority groups including the very productive Macedonians.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Oct 11 - 01:42 PM

If we're talking ancient history, Abraham came from Iraq, and he's supposed to the ancestors of both Arabs and Jews. Any "biblical covenant promise" of the Holy Land would apply just as much to Palestinians as to non-Palestinian Jews.

None of which is relevant. Let's talk modern history instead.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: GUEST,livelylass
Date: 06 Oct 11 - 02:08 PM

"PARIS — Palestine has won a first diplomatic victory in its quest for statehood as UNESCO's executive committee backed its bid to become a member, a move deemed "inexplicable" by the United States.
Palestine's Arab allies braved intense US and French diplomatic pressure to bring the motion before the committee's member states, which passed it by 40 votes in favour to four against, with 14 abstentions.
The Palestinian bid will now be submitted to the general assembly of the UN cultural body at the end of the month for final approval."

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5grZVT4cJapJ7wf9Nb2Bl46gzyUbA?docId=CNG.9bb330c01b7c10539cb08e6138de44ea.11

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Mrrzy
Date: 06 Oct 11 - 03:55 PM

Dig it! Thanks for the fact!

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Oct 11 - 04:19 PM

Interesting. The USA doesn't have a veto in the UNESCO General Assembly.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 06 Oct 11 - 06:19 PM

How can something be inexplicable if the vote is 40 to 4. Even a 50/50 vote would indicate lots of countries found the request reasonable. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: GUEST,999
Date: 07 Oct 11 - 02:14 AM

"But to claim the jews were anywhere, let alone in Palestine, more than 3000 years ago is not to know very much about history."

That should read 3500 years. Posted without comment.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: GUEST,livelylass
Date: 07 Oct 11 - 03:12 AM

"Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Oct 11 - 04:19 PM

Interesting. The USA doesn't have a veto in the UNESCO General Assembly."


Quite so..
No doubt that fact led to poor Hilary's umm expressed 'confusion' let's say.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 07 Oct 11 - 04:11 AM

What is meant by 'the UNESCO General Assembly', pray?

Unesco is merely one of the agencies of the United Nations, {UN}, which is the body which has a 'General Assembly'. Surely referring to the 'General Assembly of UNESCO' is merely ill-informed & confusing ~~ perhaps pointing to some such attributes & woolly-mindedness of those who are urging so nonsensical a proviso.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Oct 11 - 04:34 AM

There is an automatic Arab majority in both UNESCO and the General Assembly.
No vote ever goes in Israel's favour in either.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: GUEST,livelylass
Date: 07 Oct 11 - 05:05 AM

Evidently Palestine is attempting to circumvent US blocks to the main goal, by going around them in small ways. Also, this is nothing new, Palestine has been seeking recognition at UNESCO for two years now.

Anyway further to the Palestinian strategy of approaching smaller subsidiary bodies, this news just in:

http://newsthump.com/2011/10/06/us-attacks-palestine-bid-to-join-eurovision-song-contest/

"US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton today described as 'inexplicable' Eurovision's decision to allow Palestine to put forward an entry for the qualifying stages of next year's Song Contest. "This is an outrageous attempt to derail the peace process," claimed Clinton this morning. "How can we expect Israel to return to the negotiating table when the Palestinians continue this campaign of musical aggression?"

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Oct 11 - 05:12 AM

Oh dear, not everyone will see the joke livelylass.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: GUEST,Don Wise
Date: 07 Oct 11 - 07:10 AM

A sideline for starters: if I am living in an area under the military occupation of a foreign state am I justified in trying to resist this, and how far can I go. And does it not follow that any foreign occupying power which, in contrary to the Geneva Conventions, actively condones and supports land-grabbing on the part of its own citizens is provoking any violent resistance that may come its way?

Negotiations have to be based on trust on both sides. When one party to negotiations persistently moves the goalposts, reneges on what has already been agreed etc, in what way does this behaviour help to build mutual trust?
The Palestinians deserve their own state, and if applying for UNO membership helps drag all parties involved, kicking and screaming if necessary, into a realistic assessment of the situation, the advantages, the disadvantages, the concessions necessary on both sides, a general shedding of the ideological blinkers on both sides, then so be it.
We also need to remember that, as in many other problem regions, much of the rhetoric heard in this region in this context is intended primarily for domestic consumption and that, in private and off the record, other, less strident,pragmatic views are the order of the day.This also includes the US veto, although when it comes to foreign relations, US Administrations have never exactly been blessed with a delicate touch...............(and that's without recourse to Wikileaks)

Lights blue touch paper and retires.............

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Oct 11 - 07:36 AM

No need to retire Don.
It is unlikely to go off.
All you have done is restate the Palestinaian case one more time, and not well enough to provoke a reply.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 07 Oct 11 - 09:45 AM

UNESCO (the United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organisation) has a General Assembly, which is distinct from the UN General Assembly. For UNESCO's General Assembly to admit Palestine to membership would not mean that it had full U&N membership.

The same will apply when the UN General Assembly does the same - that won't happen until the Security Council votes for it, which the USA has said it will block with its veto, whatever the other members want, so long as Israel is opposed.

It's all very silly.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Mrrzy
Date: 07 Oct 11 - 10:29 PM

Well, McGrath, I couldn't agree with you more.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: GUEST,livelylass
Date: 08 Oct 11 - 05:43 PM

Abbas continuing to chip away at gaining forms of recognition for Palestine, among other international bodies.

According to 'The Voice of Russia' (don't know anything much about this news source) the PA have now been granted 'partnership of democracy' status (which grants the right to attend meetings, but not to vote) by PACE, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe.

http://english.ruvr.ru/2011/10/08/58387041.html


Abbas speech at PACE here (scroll down):
http://assembly.coe.int/defaultE.asp

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Oct 11 - 08:21 PM

"" there has never been any question of the Israeli participation in the Sabra and Shatila massacres"
"Yes there has. It is disputed."
"And "thousands" of Arabs massacred?? Hardly."

Meant to post this before our trip to Seville (a fascinating city for anybody interested in Christian?Muslim/Jewish relations)
Jim Carroll

http://www.counterpunch.org/2001/11/28/at-last-the-truth-about-sabra-and-chatila-massacres/

November 28, 2001
37
At Last the Truth About Sabra and Chatila Massacres
by Robert Fisk The Independent

Sana Sersawi speaks carefully, loudly but slowly, as she recalls the chaotic, dangerous, desperately tragic events that overwhelmed her just over 19 years ago, on 18 September 1982. As one of the survivors prepared to testify against the Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon–who was then Israel's defence minister–she stops to search her memory when she confronts the most terrible moments of her life. "The Lebanese Forces militia [Phalangists] had taken us from our homes and marched us up to the entrance to the camp where a large hole had been dug in the earth. The men were told to get into it. Then the militiamen shot a Palestinian. The women and children had climbed over bodies to reach this spot, but we were truly shocked by seeing this man killed in front of us and there was a roar of shouting and screams from the women. That's when we heard the Israelis on loudspeakers shouting, 'Give us the men, give us the men.' We thought, 'Thank God, they will save us.'" It was to prove a cruelly false hope.

Mrs Sersawi, three months pregnant, saw her husband Hassan, 30, and her Egyptian brother-in-law Faraj el-Sayed Ahmed standing in the crowd of men. "We were told to walk up the road towards the Kuwaiti embassy, the women and children in front, the men behind. We had been separated. There were Phalangist militiamen and Israeli soldiers walking alongside us. I could still see Hassan and Faraj. It was like a parade. There were several hundred of us. When we got to the Cite Sportif, the Israelis put us women in a big concrete room and the men were taken to another side of the stadium. There were a lot of men from the camp and I could no longer see my husband. The Israelis went round saying 'Sit, sit.' It was 11am. An hour later, we were told to leave. But we stood around outside amid the Israeli soldiers, waiting for our men."

Sana Sersawi waited in the bright, sweltering sun for Hassan and Faraj to emerge. "Some men came out, none of them younger than 40, and they told us to be patient, that hundreds of men were still inside. Then about 4pm, an Israeli officer came out. He was wearing dark glasses and said in Arabic: 'What are you all waiting for?' He said there was nobody left, that everyone had gone. There were Israeli trucks moving out with tarpaulin over them. We couldn't see inside. And there were jeeps and tanks and a bulldozer making a lot of noise. We stayed there as it got dark and the Israelis appeared to be leaving and we were very nervous. But then when the Israelis had moved away, we went inside. And there was no one there. Nobody. I had been only three years married. I never saw my husband again."

Today, a Belgian appeals court will begin a hearing to decide if Prime Minister Sharon should be prosecuted for the massacre of Palestinian civilians at the Sabra and Chatila refugee camps in Beirut in 1982. (Belgian laws allow courts to try foreigners for war crimes committed on foreign soil.) In working on this case, the prosecution believes that it has discovered shocking new evidence of Israel's involvement.

The evidence centres on the Camille Chamoun Sports Stadium– the "Cite Sportif". Only two miles from Beirut airport, the damaged stadium was a natural holding centre for prisoners. It had been an ammunition dump for Yasser Arafat's PLO and repeatedly bombed by Israeli jets during the 1982 siege of Beirut so that its giant, smashed exterior looked like a nightmare denture. The Palestinians had earlier mined its cavernous interior, but its vast, underground storage space and athletics changing-rooms remained intact. It was a familiar landmark to all of us who lived in Beirut. At mid-morning on 18 September 1982–about the time Sana Sersawi says she was brought to the stadium–I saw hundreds of Palestinian and Lebanese prisoners, probably well over 1,000, sitting in its gloomy, dark interior, squatting in the dust, watched over by Israeli soldiers and plain-clothes Shin Beth (Israeli secret service) agents and men who I suspected were Lebanese collaborators. The men sat in silence, obviously in fear. From time to time, I noted, a few were taken away. They were put into Israeli army trucks or jeeps or Phalangist vehicles–for further "interrogation".

Nor did I doubt this. A few hundred metres away, inside the Sabra and Chatila Palestinian refugee camps, up to 600 massacre victims rotted in the sun, the stench of decomposition drifting over the prisoners and their captors alike. It was suffocatingly hot. Loren Jenkins of The Washington Post, Paul Eedle of Reuters and I had only got into the cells because the Israelis assumed–given our Western appearance–that we must have been members of Shin Beth. Many of the prisoners had their heads bowed. But Israel's Phalangist militiamen–still raging at the murder of their leader and president elect Bashir Gemayel–had been withdrawn from the camps, their slaughter over, and at least the Israeli army was now in charge. So what did these men have to fear?

Looking back–and listening to Sana Sersawi today–I shudder now at our innocence. My notes of the time, subsequently written into a book about Israel's 1982 invasion and its war with the PLO, contain some ominous clues. We found a Lebanese employee of Reuters, Abdullah Mattar, among the prisoners and obtained his release, Paul leading him away with his arm around the man's shoulders. "They take us away, one by one, for interrogation," one of the prisoners muttered to me. "They are Haddad [Christian militia] men. Usually they bring the people back after interrogation, but not always. Sometimes the people do not return them." Then an Israeli officer ordered me to leave. Why couldn't the prisoners talk to me, I asked? "They can talk if they want," he replied. "But they have nothing to say."

All the Israelis knew what had happened inside the camps. The smell of the corpses was now overpowering. Outside, a Phalangist jeep with the words "Military Police" painted on it–if so exotic an institution could be associated with this gang of murderers–drove by. A few television crews had turned up. One filmed the Lebanese Christian militiamen outside the Cite Sportif. He also filmed a woman pleading to an Israeli army colonel called "Yahya" for the release of her husband. (The colonel has now been positively identified by The Independent. Today, he is a general in the Israeli army.)

Along the main road opposite the stadium there was a line of Israeli Merkava tanks, their crews sitting on the turrets, smoking, watching the men being led from the stadium in ones or twos, some being set free, others being led away by Shin Beth men or by Lebanese men in drab khaki overalls. All these soldiers knew what had happened inside the camps. One of the members of the tank crews, Lt Avi Grabovsky–he was later to testify to the Israeli Kahan commission–had even witnessed the murder of several civilians the previous day and had been told not to "interfere".

And in the days that followed, strange reports reached us. A girl had been dragged from a car in Damour by Phalangist militiamen and taken away, despite her appeals to a nearby Israeli soldier. Then the cleaning lady of a Lebanese woman who worked for a US television chain complained bitterly that Israelis had arrested her husband. He was never seen again. There were other vague rumours of "disappeared" people.

I wrote in my notes at the time that "even after Chatila, Israel's 'terrorist' enemies were being liquidated in West Beirut". But I had not directly associated this dark conviction with the Cite Sportif. I had not even reflected on the fearful precedents of a sports stadium in time of war. Hadn't there been a sports stadium in Santiago a few years before, packed with prisoners after Pinochet's coup d'etat, a stadium from which many prisoners never returned?

Among the testimonies gathered by lawyers seeking to indict Ariel Sharon for war crimes is that of Wadha al-Sabeq. On Friday, 17 September 1982, she said, while the massacre was still (unknown to her) underway inside Sabra and Chatila, she was in her home with her family in Bir Hassan, just opposite the camps. "Neighbours came and said the Israelis wanted to stamp our ID cards, so we went downstairs and we saw both Israelis and Lebanese Forces [Phalangists] on the road. The men were separated from the women." This separation–with its awful shadow of similar separations at Srebrenica during the Bosnian war–were a common feature of these mass arrests. "We were told to go to the Cite Sportif. The men stayed put." Among the men were Wadha's two sons, 19-year-old Mohamed and 16-year-old Ali and her brother Mohamed. "We went to the Cite Sportif, as the Israelis told us," she says. "I never saw my sons or brother again."

The survivors tell distressingly similar stories. Bahija Zrein says she was ordered by an Israeli patrol to go to the Cite Sportif and the men with her, including her 22-year-old brother, were taken away. Some militiamen–watched by the Israelis–loaded him into a car, blindfolded, she claims. "That's how he disappeared," she says in her official testimony, "and I have never seen him again since."

It was only a few days afterwards that we journalists began to notice a discrepancy in the figures of dead. While up to 600 bodies had been found inside Sabra and Chatila, 1,800 civilians had been reported as "missing". We assumed–how easy assumptions are in war–that they had been killed in the three days between 16 September 1982 and the withdrawal of the Phalangist killers on the 18th, that their corpses had been secretly buried outside the camp. Beneath the golf course, we suspected. The idea that many of these young people had been murdered outside the camps or after the 18th, that the killings were still going on while we walked through the camps, never occurred to us.

Why did we not think of this at the time? The following year, the Israeli Kahan commission published its report, condemning Sharon but ending its own inquiry of the atrocity on 18 September, with just a one-line hint–unexplained– that several hundred people may have "disappeared" at about the same time. The commission interviewed no Palestinian survivors but it was allowed to become the narrative of history. The idea that the Israelis went on handing over prisoners to their bloodthirsty militia allies never occurred to us. The Palestinians of Sabra and Chatila are now giving evidence that this is exactly what happened. One man, Abdel Nasser Alameh, believes his brother Ali was handed to the Phalange on the morning of the 18th. A Palestinian Christian woman called Milaneh Boutros has recorded how, in a truck-load of women and children, she was taken from the camps to the Christian town of Bikfaya, the home of the newly assassinated Christian president-elect Bashir Gemayel, where a grief-stricken Christian woman ordered the execution of a 13-year-old boy in the truck. He was shot. The truck must have passed at least four Israeli checkpoints on its way to Bikfaya. And heaven spare me, I realise now that I had even met the woman who ordered the boy's execution.

Even before the slaughter inside the camps had ended, Shahira Abu Rudeina says she was taken to the Cite Sportif where, in one of the underground "holding centres", she saw a retarded man, watched by Israeli soldiers, burying bodies in a pit. Her evidence might be rejected were it not for the fact that she also expressed her gratitude for an Israeli soldier–inside the Chatila camp, against all the evidence given by the Israelis–who prevented the murder of her daughters by the Phalange.

Long after the war, the ruins of the Cite Sportif were torn down and a brand new marble stadium was built in its place, partly by the British. Pavarotti has sung there. But the testimony of what may lie beneath its foundations–and its frightful implications–might give Ariel Sharon further reason to fear an indictment.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Sawzaw
Date: 10 Oct 11 - 12:54 AM

"My message to the loathed Jews is that there is no god but Allah, we will chase you everywhere! We are a nation that drinks blood, and we know that there is no blood better than the blood of Jews. We will not leave you alone until we have quenched our thirst with your blood, and our children's thirst with your blood. We will not leave until you leave the Muslim countries. In the name of Allah, we will destroy you, blow you up, take revenge against you, and purify the land of you, pigs that have defiled our country"

"Sons of monkeys and pigs." Cf. Qur'an 2:62-65, 5:59-60, and 7:166.

Our Country?

It is worthwhile to note that Jews existed before Muslims.

Muslims are the descendants of Jews.

Islam is an offshoot of Judaism.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Oct 11 - 09:54 AM

Not the 'loathed Jews that are the problem, but the 'murderous Zionists' still around, still murdering and still in charge – (and still supported by their apologists, as evidenced here)
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Oct 11 - 10:02 AM

Where?

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Oct 11 - 12:03 PM

"Where?"
Here - especially the grotesque 'holocaust-deniers-in reverse' who insist that the massacres that have taken place were no more than minor oversights of duty rather than the cold-bloodedly deliberate race killings that they really were/are (not to mention the chemical weapons used on schools and hospitals that are little more harmful than sparklers, even when used on women and children!!!)
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Oct 11 - 12:10 PM

There is no evidence that Israel was involved in the massacre and they deny it.
They accept that they should have prevented it.
There are no apologists for the massacre here.

Jim, smoke is only a chemical weapon in your head.
In the real world, no one classes it as such.
It is not even a weapon, as your own cut and paste made clear.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 10 Oct 11 - 12:41 PM

'holocaust-deniers-in reverse' ---
.,.,.,
With this phrase, Jim, you are reverting to that offensive over-statement that I drew your attention to above; in particular as DOING NOBODY AS MUCH HARM AS IT DOES TO YOURSELF AND YOUR IMAGE, by the impression it gives of the sort of intellectual & ideological company you make yourself appear to be keeping. Do you want to be associated in your statements and locutions with the National Front and the English Defence League? If not, for your own sake STOP DOING THIS!

Again:~ I genuinely say this as a friend who wishes you nothing but well.

~Michael~

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Oct 11 - 01:01 PM

"In the real world, no one classes it as such."
In the real world the shit that has been fired directly and deliberately at civilians as WEAPONS, including women and children has, blinded them and burned holes in their faces. I and others have provided numerous (not one) links to articles which include eye-witness accounts and horrific photographs of the results of the use of these weapons (described by the US's own agency as "chemical" until they decided to use it themselves in Fallujah - confirmed in some cases by US soldiers).
The fact that you make it a regular practice to ignore what others have written confirms that "there is nothing new under the sun"
Perhaps you'd now like to repeat your distortion of the Israeli part in the massacre of up to 3,500 refugees at Sabr and Shatila refugee camps?
Thank you for providing us with a perfect example of a holocaust denier in reverse.
Unless you have any definite proof of any of your denials of the war crimes carried out by Israel (haven't got round to mentioning Tzipi Livni's testing of the new Conservative change of law on war crimes and torture yet!) please go and talk to someone else
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Oct 11 - 01:08 PM

Christianity is also an offshoot of Judaism. Judaism was undoubtedly an offshoot of whatever came before Judaism...there were many previous religions existing in that region of the world prior to Judaism.

And so what? What does any of that have to do with present day issues of right and wrong? Supposedly being "first" at something does not make someone better than someone else. Justice is based on practicing equality, not on practicing some kind of concept of a Master Race or of preferential treatment for "God's Chosen". We are either all God's Chosen or the concept is utterly fallacious and destructive.

Religious/cultural arrogance and exclusivity is equally offensive whether it is practiced by Nazis, Zionists, Muslim Fundamentalists, Christian fundamentalist, Maoists...or any other kind of "ists".

Land theft is also equally offensive no matter who does it to whom. The Nazis called it a search for "lebensraum" (room in which to live). (Room in which Germans could live at the expense of the previous inhabitants, who would be displaced...or killed, if necessary...by German settlers.) Gosh! Doesn't that sound a wee bit familiar in the present context of the Middle East?

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Oct 11 - 01:23 PM

Mike
Sorry - cross posted
Have given your apparent concern about my anti-Zionism being construed as anti-Semitism a great deal of thought over the last week.
I was rather moved at first, but I had forgotten that it came from somebody who can find no racism in describing "all male Pakistanis" as having a "cultural implant" which tends them "ALL" to having sex with under-age girls.
I wonder if you would hold the same opinion had your protegé's target been ALL male Jews, Catholics, Irish people..... (please insert the race, culture, religion of your own choice) having a cultural tendenct towards..... (please insert the crime or perversion of your own choice), or do you reserve your tolerance of such statements only for when it is aimed at Pakistanis?
I should think that anybody who choses to associate my ideas (and anybody elses who finds the Israeli contempt for human rights) as that of the EDL and the NF (thought they were a dead letter) would do so anyway, no matter what I said.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 10 Oct 11 - 01:48 PM

Can't go over all that about Keith just quoting someone else without endorsing, but simply taking their word for it as better informed again. Not really related to this point anyhow. I don't spend more time than can help thinking about the NF ~ so whatever may be their current avatar; and don't be evasive, eh?

Even if such people as you mention would think ill of you "no matter what you said", that doesn't alter the fact that some things are more seemly to say than others. Just as comparison of some sections of Jewish thought with "Nazism" is for obvious reasons going to be so provocative to any Jew that it would be IMO best avoided by any person who makes pretension to good faith {surely you can see that ~ honest, now!}, so is the use of the word 'holocaust' which, even with out its cap-H, has acquired a particular and specialist overtone and syndrome of associations which make the motivation of its usage in such a context at least, let us say, highly equivocal; and surely best avoided?

Even if you don't care what all the putative detractors whose presence you hypothecate in the last sentence of your last response to me might think of you ~~ do you really not care what I think? I do think of myself as your friend, even when we may disagree as not infrequently happens; and would like to retain a favourable opinion of you, and of your views, and of your expression of such with some becoming moderation: and hope such might be mutual.

~Michael~

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 10 Oct 11 - 02:20 PM

""if we all get out of the issue and let things take their course a solution is more probable.""

Indeed it is Ollaimh.

If outsiders stand back, the almost inevitable solution will be a bloody and violent ethnic cleansing of Palestine, and a larger, more arrogant and intractable Israel.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Oct 11 - 03:20 PM

"Not really related to this point anyhow"
It is EXACTLY this point Mike
You have threatened me with being branded a racist for finding parallels between what the Nazis did to the Jews and what is happening in Palestine/Israel (even though I have qualified my view and been careful not to aim my statements at ALL Jewish people - male or female) yet you feel free to defend what I consider is a direct racist attack on the male gender of a whole nation.
Would you like me to provide a list of people who think Pakistanis are culturally perverted and ask you whether you are not afraid of being identified with them - happy to oblige.
I was interested to read Robert Fisk's comparisons between Israeli behaviour at Citi Sportif and Pinochet's Santiago Stadium and Srebrenica - would you include him and his newspaper in your warning against being condemned as anti-Semite?
It is cowardice in the extreme to cower behing the cry of "anti Semitism" when the question of Israeli war crimes come up - defend their actions if you feel you must but please stop flinging shit about - you are becoming indistinguishable from your ward.
I am not the slightest surprised that you feel you "can't go over all that again....."; in your shoes, I wouldn't want to either.
I have to say that, given our mutual interest in folksong, I was half expecting you to intervene when he suggested that Travellers were "over-represented" in the crime of keeping slaves - but no - not even a mild admonishment - not in the job description of a modern fairy godmother, it would appear!
Before you accuse, or even hint that I or anybody, by criticising war criminals and terrorists, might be considered racist, I would take a long, hard look at your own attitude and how it is perceived by others.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 10 Oct 11 - 03:49 PM

No, Jim. Whataboutery is never an answer.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Oct 11 - 04:32 PM

Jim, you posted this.
"The M825A1 rounds, which are the kind identified as being fired by Israeli forces, are made primarily for use as a smokescreen in a way that limits their effect as an incendiary weapon, experts say."

Jim, WP has been used in munitions for about a hundred years.
In all that time no treaty, agency or government did or does classify it as a chemical weapon.
Just one man in one report once in error.
You can go on believing it in your world, but you make yourself ridiculous in the real one.

I never expressed any opinion about Pakistani culture.
I know nothing about it.
I did report the opinion of people who do know about it.
I was not qualified to endorse or dispute it, so I did neither.
This has been explained to you many times but you go on using it in personal attacks on me.
Why must you be so belligerent?
We have had such friendly debate while you were away.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 10 Oct 11 - 05:20 PM

And now he uses it in personal attacks on me too, Keith. And just refuses to be told how offensive are some of his remarks and comparisons. He persists in making remarks which are offensive to an important demographic ~~ here, not in a foreign state in the Middle East; and if he refuses to acknowledge how offensive he is being, it is certainly not for lack of telling. And when I point out he is being offensive, he falls back on mistaking my information for accusations of racism, which he knows in fact to be no part of my agenda at all ~~ or if he doesn't, then again it is because he hasn't been listening...

I am beginning to think he is one of those people who always have to know what one means better than one does oneself. Mindset of a certain sort of doctrinaire politicisation, I suspect...

I very much fear that our dear friend Jim is losing it...

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 10 Oct 11 - 05:31 PM

""I was not qualified to endorse or dispute it, so I did neither.""

"I do now believe that........etc". Sounds awfully like an endorsement to most people Keith, especially when those who investigate say that no racial conclusions can, or should, be drawn.

Back on topic, these arguments have been done to death, quite frankly, and your frantic defence of everything Israel does is a major part of the reason for that.

Until the apologists STFU, and Israel is told "No Further" or you lose all your international trade, this will continue.

Palestinians also have a right to live peacefully in a sovereign Palestinian state, with borders that the Israeli military, on land, sea, or air, do not cross.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Oct 11 - 06:49 PM

Amnesty is not "one man in one report once in error".

..."White phosphorus is a weapon intended to provide a smokescreen for troop movements on the battlefield," said Cobb-Smith. "It is highly incendiary, air burst and its spread effect is such that it that should never be used on civilian areas."

Donatella Rovera, Amnesty's researcher on Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories said that such extensive use of this weapon in Gaza's densely populated residential neighbourhoods is inherently indiscriminate. "Its repeated use in this manner, despite evidence of its indiscriminate effects and its toll on civilians, is a war crime," she said

When each 155mm artillery shell bursts, it deploys 116 wedges impregnated with white phosphorus which ignite on contact with oxygen and can scatter, depending on the height at which it is burst (and wind conditions), over an area at least the size of a football pitch. In addition to the indiscriminate effect of air-bursting such a weapon, firing such shells as artillery exacerbates the likelihood that civilians will be affected. (From here)

The point is not the materials used, but the way in which they are used. After all chlorine can be used in swimming pools...

Yes it may be possible to use White Phosphorous, even in a war setting in a way that does escapes the definition of "chemical warfare". In the same way, it is possible to use water in a way that does not constitute torture. But the claim that Israel restricted its use in this way is analogous to the USA claim that its use of water-boarding was not torture.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Oct 11 - 08:35 AM

MG of H, I did deplore that usage of the stuff and said it may have been illegal.
Amnesty does not say it was a chemical weapon because it is not.
Jim keeps accusing Israel of using chemical weapons.
They do not.

Don you asked for my belief and I gave you an honest answer.
The rest of the sentence makes clear that I only believed it because of the credentials of those who put it forward.
Anti-racist, pro Pakistani Pakistanis.
I believed it as I would believe a weather forecast.
It was not my opinion and I did not endorse it.
I have not the knowledge or experience.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 11 Oct 11 - 12:48 PM

"No, Jim. Whataboutery is never an answer."
A simple question AGAIN
If Keith - or anybody - had claimed that ALL MALE JEWS have a culturral implant which makes them inclined to usury (an accusation I have been hearing all my life) would he be making a racist statement, and if yes, why is his claim that ALL MALE PAKISTANIS have a cultural implant which makes them inclined to having sex with underage girls not racist?
That is the level of bigotry you have endorsed and continue to defend.
And again, is Robert Fisk to be accused of racism because he equates Israeli massacres with "Pinochet's Santiago Stadium and Srebrenica"?
It continues to be cowardice in the extreme to cower behing the cry of "anti Semitism"
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Stringsinger
Date: 11 Oct 11 - 01:05 PM

Remember that Jews and Palestinians are both Semitic peoples.

"Islam is an offshoot of Judaism." (?)

This is by no means confirmed as a theological fact. They are seen as independent sources and interpretations not one evolved from another.

Judaism predates Islam and Christianity but Hinduism predates all three.

The derivation of religious practice from one sect to another relies on general religious practices found in all religions, not just one.

The problem with this argument is that both Islam and Judaism are practiced differently throughout the world. Even though each religion purports to be a rigid law, there are many interpretations of these laws as there are in courtrooms by lawyers. Any literalist of a religious doctrine can find inconsistencies in their bible, koran or torah if they look hard enough.

The history of Israel is not consistent since at one time, the Jews were forced to flee from it. They are no more entitled to reclamation than are the Native Americans to the U.S.
And we know that ain't gonna' happen.

This is a religio-culture war. The who was there first argument won't wash and is totally irrelevant to the solution of the two religious inhabitants. Zionism is a new idea and is not embraced by many orthodox Jews in the world. Zionism has nothing to do with Islam.
There is one exception, much of the composed music for Israel has been inspired not just by Russia or Europe but a great deal by Arab sources.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Oct 11 - 02:40 PM

It is so simple Jim.
I did not claim that anyone had a "cultural implant" so your whole argument falls flat.
You have no case.

All I did was state that some people ascribed certain offending to enforced abstinence.

Asked directly if I believed it I said yes, but only because they had impeccable credentials and no other explanation was produced.

If some meteorologists produce a weather forecast, or doctors a diagnosis, why would I not believe it?
I might even repeat it if relevant to a conversation, but not my claim and not endorsed.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Oct 11 - 04:21 PM

Phosphorus is of course a chemical. When it is used as a weapon, rather than as a means of camouflage it is a chemical weapon. There are very strong grounds for thinking it was in fact used as an anti-personnel weapon in Gaza.

If so, this was a war crime, as it would have been if it had been used in the same way by anyone - Hamas, the British Army. Or the IDF.

The crucial distinction is not whether a chemical falls within a particular list of prohibited substances, but what it does, and what are the intentions of those using it, included known and anticipated "collateral damage" when used on a civilian target.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Oct 11 - 04:45 PM

When it is used as a weapon, rather than as a means of camouflage it is a chemical weapon.

That is not correct.
The definition is to do with toxicity.
That is how weapons defined as chemical cause casualties.

When used as a weapon it is an incendiary, as is napalm.
They cause casualties because they burn.

It should not have been used in Gaza.
IDF accepted that.
The local commander was in error.
That is why I would not defend its use there.
If I had a son or daughter among those troops and they died for want of screening I would might feel differently.
If I had to explain to grieving parents, wives and orphans why their loved ones could not be screened from their enemies I might feel differently.

The situation arose because Hamas made their positions in civilian areas.
That was a war crime.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Oct 11 - 04:50 PM

There are very strong grounds for thinking it was in fact used as an anti-personnel weapon in Gaza.

WHAT GROUNDS?

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Oct 11 - 05:00 PM

The Gaza strip as a whole is a heavily populated civilian area.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 11 Oct 11 - 05:17 PM

====It continues to be cowardice in the extreme to cower behing the cry of "anti Semitism"====
.,,.,..,
Persisting in uttering accusations and comparisons which you know, because you have repeatedly been told, are peculiarly offensive to all Jews ~~ not just to the regreattable sections of Israeli government & population, but, I repeat, to ALL jews~~~

is by any definition an

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 11 Oct 11 - 05:28 PM

====It continues to be cowardice in the extreme to cower behing the cry of "anti Semitism"====
.,,.,..,
Persisting in uttering accusations and comparisons which you know, because you have repeatedly been told so & have admitted that to be their effect, are peculiarly offensive to all Jews ~~ not just to the regrettable sections of Israeli government & population, but, I repeat, to ALL Jews~~~

is by any definition

an ANTI-SEMITIC act

of which anyone who calls himself any sort of progressive or anti-racist or humanitarian should be

FUCKING WELL ASHAMED

& you know how frequently I employ such language on this forum.

Think it isn't if you like, Jim: but it is.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Oct 11 - 05:30 PM

Look at these images.
http://www.geographic.org/maps/new1/gaza_strip_maps.html
Hamas could have dug in in the large unpopulated areas shown, evacuated civilians from around their positions in built up areas, or just concealed themselves.
They chose to fight surrounded by civilians.
That is a war crime.

There are very strong grounds for thinking it was in fact used as an anti-personnel weapon in Gaza.
What are these very strong grounds please?

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 11 Oct 11 - 05:32 PM

... a particularly aggressive, belligerent, intentionally offensive piece of antisemitism moreover.

You think it isn't but it is.

You are a RACIST, Jim

demonstrably

unarguably

& intentionally

You think you are not but you are.

Live with it.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Oct 11 - 05:38 PM

Jim, your behaviour here is beneath contempt.
We all have strong feelings and views, but the rest of us can conduct ourselves with decency and civility.

In your deranged campaign to demonize me, you have to invent crimes for me in the absence of any real ones.
On the subject of Israel you seem unable to confine yourself to reasoned statements, and manage to offend one of the most inoffensive and reasonable people you could ever come across.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Oct 11 - 02:53 AM

The pair of you appear to have now crawled behind your "anti-Semitism defence completely.
"Persisting in uttering accusations and comparisons which you know, because you have repeatedly been told, are peculiarly offensive to all Jews"
So it is permissable to culturally generalise and smear one race/culture but not another - both racist and hypocritical in my book.
"Jim, your behaviour here is beneath contempt."
Your aproach to these debates appears to be that you can be as racist and bigoted as you wish as long as you do it 'politely' - bigotry and racism do not alter one iota in either content or effect no matter how you parcel them up - MacColl once referred to it in one of his songs as "The smiler with the knife", and that'll do for me..
I can't think of anything more evil than excusing massacres of women, children, young, old - all non-combatants by ignoring them, pretending they didn't happen, or downgrading the motives of the killers to 'neglect' - at the same time as promoting the weapons that inflict such horrific damage on human beings (proof provided) as 'harmless illuminations'.
Go and take a cold shower - the pair of you.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Oct 11 - 03:21 AM

you can be as racist and bigoted as you wish as long as you do it 'politely'
Lie. I refute any and all bigotry and racism.
excusing massacres of women, children, young, old - all non-combatants
Lie. I have never excused any massacre
- at the same time as promoting the weapons that inflict such horrific damage on human beings (proof provided) as 'harmless illuminations'.
Lie. I have never said that.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Oct 11 - 03:59 AM

Is that the song they call 'The Banks of Denial?'
Have a nice day!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 12 Oct 11 - 04:23 AM

A dozen showers, cold or hot, are not going to wash the RACIST stench off you, Jim.

You think you're not but you are

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Oct 11 - 05:15 AM

Thanks for answering my questions and responding to my points so succinctly Mike
You've made it very clear now
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Oct 11 - 06:02 AM

De Nial
Good one Jim.
Yes of course I deny saying WP is "'harmless illuminations'"
Only a fool would describe it as harmless.
I have worked with the stuff.
You made that up.

I would never, and have never, "excused" any massacre.
A very nasty thing to make up about me.
I certainly deny that.

The racism thing.
I deny making the claim you ascribe to me because I did not make it.
The people who did make it are not racists.
It is laughable to describe people like Jasmin Alibhai-Brown as racist.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 12 Oct 11 - 06:26 AM

""The situation arose because Hamas made their positions in civilian areas.""

Civilian areas of their own country which was, from their point of view, being attacked and invaded by a foreign army.

And Keith, I would like you to explain to me what part of any nation, absent the presence of a defined front line defended by its own troops, is NOT a civilian area?

You leap to the defence of a regime which thinks nothing of applying vastly superior force against the virtually defenseless population of a neighbour state. Because my friend, whether the world recognises it or not, Palestine is a de facto state, and the only thing that stops it being recognised is the cowardice of western politicians, terrified of losing the votes of their Jewish citizens.

Simples.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Oct 11 - 07:06 AM

And Keith, I would like you to explain to me what part of any nation, absent the presence of a defined front line defended by its own troops, is NOT a civilian area?

I mean a built up civilian area Don.
The law of armed conflict states that civilians must be evacuated if fighting is likely, you must not construct military positions in civilian occupied places, and prior warning must be given of any attack (Israel complied with the last).

I am not aware of "leaping to the defence" of anyone Don.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Oct 11 - 07:19 AM

"I have worked with the stuff."
You described yourself as a teacher - on yourr pupils, no doubt!
"I would never, and have never, "excused" any massacre.!"
You claimed the Israelis were only guilty of PREVENTING the Shatila Sabra massacres, and denied their active part in them - you still have to withdraw that statement.
"The people who did make it are not racists."
You headed your "cultural implant" statement "I now believe" - and have still failed to produce a source for the claimed quote.
As I said, have a nice day
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Oct 11 - 07:49 AM

I am having a nice day thanks Jim.

I am a science teacher, and have used it in demonstrations.
I was also an army reservist.
I used hand launched wp flares and fired wp smoke from a mortar.

You claimed the Israelis were only guilty of PREVENTING the Shatila Sabra massacres, and denied their active part in them

Not a claim Jim.
Israel denies it and no evidence has been produced.
If it is true I condemn it absolutely.
If.

The "cultural implant" (not my words)
The offending was said to stem from enforced sexual abstinence.
I thought that all or most would be subject to that, but I do not know enough about it.
What proportion would you say Jim?

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Oct 11 - 08:50 AM

"Israel denies it and no evidence has been produced."
The Israelis would deny it - wouldn't they?
Enough evidedence has been produced for the Israelis to have been DIRECTLY IMPLICATED IN THE KILLING OF up to 3,500 REFUGEES BY AN INDEPENDENT ENQUIRY. THE MASSACRE COULD NEVER HAVE TAKEN PLACE WITHOUT THE FULL CO-OPERATION OF THE ISRAELI TROOPS AND EVEN THEIR GOVERNMENT HAVE BEEN FORCED TO ADMIT PARTIAL COMPLICITY - WITH THEIR TRACK RECORD OF FINDING THEMSELVES NOT GUILTY OF WAR CRIMES, THIS IS ITSELF AN INDICATION OF PROFOUND IMPLICATION IN THESE MASSACRES which appear in virtually every list of Israeli massacres as an Israeli war crime.
Eye witness descriptions have been produced and the man in charge was even in line to be prosecuted until he was elected prime minister.
Robert Fisk's artical not only implicates the Israeli troops of having providing the transport and illumination for the massacres and opening the gates to let the killers in, but also claims that not only were the troops present at the massacres, but also were possibly actively implicated.
As I said - holocaust denial in reverse.
"The "cultural implant" (not my words)"
Whose words are they - you used them?
Who else has claimed such a "cultural implant" and said that this is possessed by " ALL MALE PAKISTANIS"? You have yet to produce one quote using these descriptions - and even if you produced 100, without research or documented evidence to back them up IT IS A RACIST STATEMENT AND THE FACT THAT YOU HAVE PERSENTED IT AS YOUR OPINION in order to prove that a "massive, massive" proportion of BPs are involved in illegal sex with under-age girls makes it YOUR racist statement.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Oct 11 - 09:28 AM

What gets lost in this kind of food fight is the extent to which there is agreement on many of the really important issues.

Disagreement about the extent to which Israelis were culpable in the Shatila Sabra massacres is less important than agreement that all those who were culpable were criminal, and deserved to be punished in ways which they were not. So far as I can see, everyone here agrees on this.

Disagreement about the exact classification of White Phosphorous as a tool of war is less important than agreement that its use against civilian populations is intolerable, and that it was used in such a way in Gaza. So far as I can see, everyone here agrees on this.

Disagreement about the past history of what has been called "Cisjordan" (the region between the Jordan and the Mediterranean), and the shape of any future settlement, is less important than agreement that both Israelis and Palestinians have a right to live there in peace. So far as I can see, everyone here agrees on this.

Yes, so far as I can see, everyone here agrees on all these. But it is quite possible to find people who disagree on all of them - and those are the disagreements that matter.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 12 Oct 11 - 09:35 AM

---"As I said - holocaust denial in reverse".---

Yes, didn't you just, Racist Jim! & to quote & adapt some of your own subsequent words back at you [which I own are slightly edited to adapt to present circumstances, not to alter your point which can be ascertained by anyone going back one post]

---IT IS A RACIST STATEMENT AND THE FACT THAT YOU HAVE PERSENTED IT AS YOUR OPINION ... makes it YOUR racist statement.---

Again, Jim:
you are a racist.
I have, as anyone can see just by scrolling back, spent hours above trying to blind myself to the fact, & to make you aware of how undilutedly RACIST your statements are ~~ only for you to attack my bonafides in doing so and to deny their implications, to yourself as well as to the rest of us. I genuinely believe that you can't see what is so patent because you wilfully blind yourself to the truth.

To put it as I have before in the quote from Shaw, with which I am getting as bored as anyone else, but which happens so efficiently to summarise the facts~

You think you are not but you are.

So that I must reassert ~~~

YOU ARE A RACIST, JIM; UNDENIABLY, SELF-CONDEMNED, AN OUT-&-OUT RACIST.

Got it now, have you, Jim Carroll? R-A-C-I-S-T.

Shamelessly so ~~ except that you clearly have no shame...

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Oct 11 - 09:46 AM

Enough evidedence has been produced for the Israelis to have been DIRECTLY IMPLICATED IN THE KILLING OF up to 3,500 REFUGEES BY AN INDEPENDENT ENQUIRY.
Fine, but give details please. It is new to me.

THE MASSACRE COULD NEVER HAVE TAKEN PLACE WITHOUT THE FULL CO-OPERATION OF THE ISRAELI TROOPS AND EVEN THEIR GOVERNMENT HAVE BEEN FORCED TO ADMIT PARTIAL COMPLICITY -
Yes, they should have stopped it.
That is the extent of "complicity" they acknowledge.

Eye witness descriptions have been produced and the man in charge was even in line to be prosecuted until he was elected prime minister.

Forgive my cynicism, but the "eye witnesses" were produced 20 years later.
The prosecution was to be in Belgium but never happened because there was no case.
Remember all those "eye witnesses" on the Marvara?
The firing from boats and helicopters before the landings?
The large numbers of dead?
Bodies being dumped over board?
All lies.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Oct 11 - 09:53 AM

My offending post in full Jim

Date: 13 Feb 11 - 07:10 AM

Don, no one on this thread has claimed any of those things.

Don I do now " believe that all male Pakistani Muslims have a culturally implanted tendency" but only because of the testimony of all those knowledgeable people, and always acknowledging that only a tiny minority succumb.

Do you dismiss all that just because it does not fit your preconceptions, or do you have some powerful evidence to the contrary that you have not shared with us?


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

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Oct 11 - 01:52 PM

My point being is, disagreement about the facts of the case are important, but in discussing such disagreements it is important not to lose sight of the fact that both parties live in the same moral universe as to what is right and what is wrong. That is more important.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Oct 11 - 03:36 PM

"Fine, but give details please. It is new to me."
No - it is you who is challenging the known facts and the findings of an official enquiry into what is commonly accepted as a massacre of over 3,00 refugees which was facilitated and almost certainly participated in by Israeli troops.
It is entirely up to you to present evidence to the contrary.
Even the Israeli government was in the process of prosecuting Ariel Sharon - were they are fault too?
Fisk's report was only confirming what was already known, or at least, widely suspected
On what grounds are you contraditicting all these findings?
As I said - holocaust denial in reverse.
"Yes, they should have stopped it."
No - they should not have driven the killers to the site, they should never have opened the gates and let them in, they should never have provided the illumination so that the killers could see what they were doing and they should never have allowed the killing to go on once they knew what was happening.
Which bit of all of this are you claiming never happened and what is your evidence for doing so?
Sorry - scepticism isn't enough.
So far you have only given us the Israeli PARTIAL denial of their troops part in the massacre.
Are you claiming that the independant enquiry wasn't independant.
Are you saying that they didn't examine the evidence properly - or not at all maybe, or that they are biased - what are you trying to tell us?
AS I SAID - HOLOCUST DENIAL IN REVERSE
"but only because of the testimony of all those knowledgeable people,"
Which knowledgable people and where is your "cultural implant" and "all male Pakistani Muslims" quote - lost in the post maybe?
"or do you have some powerful evidence to the contrary that you have not shared with us?"
You have made the racist statement, you have just reproduced it here (despite previously having denied it) - WHAT IS THE EVIDENCE FOR YOUR CLAIM WHICH IMPLICATES THE ENTIRE MALE POPULATION OF ONE CULTURE - surely not "a politician told you it was true"?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Oct 11 - 03:41 PM

MGof H, I agree.
Jim and I can both agree that the massacre was an appalling crime against humanity.
Our difference is just that I am not sure that Israel was complicit.
Jim is sure but can give no reason or evidence to support it.
If he has no reason or evidence, that is just prejudice.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Oct 11 - 03:59 PM

No - it is you who is challenging the known facts and the findings of an official enquiry into what is commonly accepted as a massacre of over 3,00 refugees which was facilitated and almost certainly participated in by Israeli troops.
The facts are disputed. They are not known.
What "official enquiry" found Israel complicit?
"almost certainly" means not certain Jim!

On what grounds are you contraditicting all these findings?
WHAT FINDINGS????

Are you claiming that the independant enquiry wasn't independant.
WHAT INDEPENDENT ENQUIRY??

they should not have driven the killers to the site, they should never have opened the gates and let them in, they should never have provided the illumination
How do you know they did those things?
It is denied.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Oct 11 - 04:25 PM

WHAT IS THE EVIDENCE FOR YOUR CLAIM WHICH IMPLICATES THE ENTIRE MALE POPULATION OF ONE CULTURE
How many times must I say it Jim?
It was not and is not my claim.
Clear now?

The culture claim was made by Jack Straw, Anne Cryer, Lord Ahmed, Mohammed Safiq and Jasmin Allibhai-Brown.
The evidence was their own personal knowledge and experience.

I have no personal knowledge and experience.
I could not make such a claim.

All this has been explained to you many times since February.
Why do you keep on?

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Oct 11 - 04:36 PM

I am not sure that Israel was complicit.

There does in fact appear to be evidence that Israeli forces, with Ariel Sharon in command, colluded in this massacre. This includes evidence from Israeli soldiers who were present.

The Israeli Kahan commission found that, while the actual killi9ng was done by the Christian Phalangist militia, Israeli military personnel were aware that a massacre was in progress without taking serious steps to stop it, and that reports of a massacre in progress were made to senior Israeli officers and even to an Israeli cabinet minister; it therefore regarded Israel as bearing part of the "indirect responsibility." In particular Ariel Sharon bore "personal responsibility", should be dismissed as Defence Minister and never allowed to hold public office again.

This did not prevent Sharon from subsequently becoming Prime Minister of Israel.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Oct 11 - 05:09 PM

MG of H, I have acknowledged from when Jim first raised this a year or more ago that the IDF should have done something to stop the massacre.
I said their inaction shamed them.
Jim knows that, but it is not enough for him.

He attacks me and calls me names just for asking for evidence of actual complicity.
Evidence that he does not have.
I suspect that it does not exist, but my mind is open.
No prejudice from me.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Oct 11 - 05:42 PM

So there was collusion, but complicity has not been proved to your satisfaction Keith.

There have definitely been eyewitness reports of involvement by Israeli personnel which would amount to complicity, going even further than merely holding back from intervening in what was known to be a massacre. Whether these reports are credible is not something which can be decided by a squabble on a Mudcat thread. But they should not be dismissed because they do not fit in with the desired narrative.

Maybe sorting out the truth will have to wait until a peaceful settlement has been reached, and the conflict is history. Not in our time.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Oct 11 - 06:00 PM

I am not dismissing anything.
I am just asking for any evidence of actual complicity.
For that I am called "reverse Holocaust denier."

Jim actually does dismiss any questioning of actual complicity.
Why are all your rebukes directed at me, and none at him Kevin?

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Oct 11 - 03:32 AM

Those who have an irrational hatred of Israelis will not be interested in this version of events.

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

The Lebanese Christian Phalangist militia was responsible for the massacres that occurred at the two Beirut-area refugee camps on September 16-17, 1982. Israeli troops allowed the Phalangists to enter Sabra and Shatila to root out terrorist cells believed located there. It had been estimated that there may have been up to 200 armed men in the camps working out of the countless bunkers built by the PLO over the years, and stocked with generous reserves of ammunition.

When Israeli soldiers ordered the Phalangists out, they found hundreds dead (estimates range from 460 according to the Lebanese police, to 700-800 calculated by Israeli intelligence). The dead, according to the Lebanese account, included 35 women and children. The rest were men: Palestinians, Lebanese, Pakistanis, Iranians, Syrians and Algerians. The killings came on top of an estimated 95,000 deaths that had occurred during the civil war in Lebanon from 1975-1982.

The killings were perpetrated to avenge the murders of Lebanese President Bashir Gemayel and 25 of his followers, killed in a bomb attack earlier that week.

Israel had allowed the Phalange to enter the camps as part of a plan to transfer authority to the Lebanese, and accepted responsibility for that decision. The Kahan Commission of Inquiry, formed by the Israeli government in response to public outrage and grief, found that Israel was indirectly responsible for not anticipating the possibility of Phalangist violence. Israel instituted the panel's recommendations, including the dismissal of Gen. Raful Eitan, the Army Chief of Staff. Defense Minister Ariel Sharon resigned.

The Kahan Commission, declared former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, was "a great tribute to Israeli democracy....There are very few governments in the world that one can imagine making such a public investigation of such a difficult and shameful episode."

Ironically, while 300,000 Israelis demonstrated in Israel to protest the killings, little or no reaction occurred in the Arab world. Outside the Middle East, a major international outcry against Israel erupted over the massacres. The Phalangists, who perpetrated the crime, were spared the brunt of the condemnations for it.

By contrast, few voices were raised in May 1985, when Muslim militiamen attacked the Shatila and Burj-el Barajneh Palestinian refugee camps. According to UN officials, 635 were killed and 2,500 wounded. During a two-year battle between the Syrian-backed Shiite Amal militia and the PLO, more than 2,000, including many civilians, were reportedly killed. No outcry was directed at the PLO or the Syrians and their allies over the slaughter. International reaction was also muted in October 1990 when Syrian forces overran Christian-controlled areas of Lebanon. In the eight-hour clash, 700 Christians were killed-the worst single battle of Lebanon's Civil War.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 Oct 11 - 03:39 AM

"I am just asking for any evidence of actual complicity."
You are asking for evidence for an affair that, as far as most of us of us are concerned is done and dusted.
The fact that you have to ask "What enquiry" is evidence enough that you have not even bothered to read the links that have been posted - two enquiries took place following the events, one independent, one by the Israelis - I have no intention of doing your work for you - go and read them.
You are not "just asking for any evidence of actual complicity", you have given a conclusive opinion on the extent of Israeli troops involment in the massacre 'a failure to prevent it from happening' - historical whitewash, nothing less! That is not "asking for evidence"; it it an outright rejection of work that has already been carried out, without even bothering to present the reason for that rejection.
Where is your evidence for rejecting Fisk's latest work (he gave an on-the-spot report of the massacre at the time and has obviously followed up his earlier experience) - what are your ground for scepticism?
Apart from anything else, there is no reason to disbelieve the conclusions drawn from the massacre - you have a list of similar events actually carried out by Israeli troops - go and read them (and maybe challenge them).
I haven't followed up the Tzipi Livni/British Government affair - in 2009 an arrest warrant was served on a former Israeli Foreign Minister for war crimes, which she intends to challenge by visiting Britain thanks to the present government having changed the laws regarding war criminals - it would seem 'the beat goes on'.
It is apparent that we are not going to be given your "evidence" for "cultural implanting" of "all male Pakistanis" so we can safely assume that it doesn't exist and these are your opinions alone.
"Why are all your rebukes directed at me,"
Because of your persistence in making racist statements - Muslims, all male Pakistanis, Travellers "over-reperesentation in slavery - all grist to your particularly nasty little mill.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Oct 11 - 04:11 AM

an affair that, as far as most of us of us are concerned is done and dusted.
You brought it up in this thread Jim.
Or do you just mean you have closed your mind on it?

I have read Fisk's initial report.
He does not claim Israelis took any active part.
He wrongly believed that parachute flares are delivered by aircraft.
They are not.
They are from hand launched rockets or mortars which the militia had.

No report i have found, and certainly none posted here, found Israeli active participation.
You are making that up.

I have made no racist comment about Pakistanis, Travellers or anyone else.
You would demonize me as you do Israelis.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 13 Oct 11 - 05:10 AM

---all grist to your particularly nasty little mill.
Jim Carroll---
.,,.,..,
And what of your own nasty antisemitic little mill, eh? Your persistent employment of terms like Nazi & Holocaust in this context is precisely covered by the locution

             "Jew-Bating"

the term notoriously used by Mosley & his Blackshirts in the 1930s for their charming activities.

That is what you are doing, Jim ~ YOU ARE "BATING".

Can you honestly not see it?

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Oct 11 - 05:20 AM

It is apparent that we are not going to be given your "evidence"

Given in my post 12 Oct 11 - 04:25 PM

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 13 Oct 11 - 06:29 AM

Perhaps, Carroll, if your father had lost 20+ of his first cousins {my grandmother told me the exact number but I can't recall it precisely after 65+ years} in the real Holocaust, you wouldn't bandy the word around in this context with such delightfully insouciant abandon ---

or am I, as you so charmingly put it some posts back, merely

'crawl[ing] behind [my] "anti-Semitism" defence completely'

you unmitgated little racist swine?

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 Oct 11 - 06:38 AM

Why do you insist on prolonging this Keith - you have the evidence - you have dismissed any part in the Israeli invovement without evidence, yiou have made your comments about Pakistanis, you have suggsted Travellers as being slavers, you have shown yourself fr what you are
Leave this thread for decent, honest discussion.
"Jew-Bating"
You really have slid down the "anti-Semitism slime hole Mike.
After a comment you made earlier I took the trouble to renew some of my old Jewish acquaintences in Manchester to see how they felt about the situation in Palestine.
Their feelings were summed up by one response "the greatest contribution to anti Semitism since the war has been made by the various Israeli governments"
You have shown that to be the case.
I, nor anybody I spoke to believed the Israeli authorities to be representative of the Jewish people as a whole - you apparently disagree.
If you are right, then god help us all.
Jim arroll

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Oct 11 - 07:02 AM

The accusation that some of Israel's actions bear comparison with Nazi atrocities is of course a hurtful one, but I'd question whether it can be termed anti-semitic, since it only makes sense because the person making the accusation is appealing to a shared loathing of what the Nazis did to Jews (and gypsies etc).

A more relevant comparison, where the parallels are less distant, is sometimes made to apartheid South Africa - where some of the most active opponents of the system were members of the Jewish community, though at the same time the Israeli government at times had a somewhat different relationship to the regime.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Oct 11 - 08:00 AM

Keith - you have the evidence - you have dismissed any part in the Israeli invovement without evidence, yiou have made your comments about Pakistanis, you have suggsted Travellers as being slavers,

The Israelis deny any active involvement.
To accuse them requires evidence, unless you rely on bigoted prejudice against Israelis.
Tell us how you know they did it, then we will know they did it too Jim.
I dismiss nothing.
My mind is open, yours closed.

No-one has yet been convicted under the new antislavery laws.
Some Travellers have been charged.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 13 Oct 11 - 08:52 AM

"Jew-Bating"
You really have slid down the "anti-Semitism slime hole Mike.
After a comment you made earlier I took the trouble to renew some of my old Jewish acquaintences in Manchester to see how they felt about the situation in Palestine.
Their feelings were summed up by one response "the greatest contribution to anti Semitism since the war has been made by the various Israeli governments"
You have shown that to be the case.
I, nor anybody I spoke to believed the Israeli authorities to be representative of the Jewish people as a whole - you apparently disagree.
If you are right, then god help us all.---Carroll

You know that to be my position also ~~ I will repeat what I have already posted at least twice

---From: MtheGM - PM
Date: 26 Sep 11 - 05:23 PM

And let me repeat here something I said in a previous post ~~

"I am embarrassed and horrified by what the state of Israel is in danger of turning into; even my sister & her son [who was born there], who maintain their Jewish & Zionist identity which I don't, are having serious reservations" ~~

I hold no brief for the actions or attitudes of the present government of Israel, find many of their actions and policies entirely unacceptable and culpable, and dissociate myself unreservedly from them.

But I do expect accuracy in statements that are made: and ones which question the right of Israel to exist legally are so manifestly absurd as to cast much doubt as to the motivations, intelligence, and general bona fides of those uttering them.---

And so, I would add to that final sentence, is the vocabulary of Nazi & Holocaust which you persist in employing. I say again, they are
    DELIBERATE BATING
on your part. Did you ask these Jewish friends of yours in Manchester how they felt about such provocative and disproportionate comparisons made to the actions of the government of Israel and clearly intended to be offensive to Jews in general? ~~ if you did not originally so intend them, you know now that that is their effect; but you continue to insist on them.

I would add that I am grieved to have thus fallen out with you. It has deprived me of one of the remaining pleasures of what must, by any reckoning, be regarded as my few remaining years of life. But there are bounds that no one of principle can possibly tolerate the overstepping of, and you have overstepped them; not once but again and again, deliberately, provocatively, intentionally, BATINGLY.

How dare you address me in the tone of your opening sentence copy/pasted in the extract above!

If this post departs from the coherence and clarity which it always my aim to achieve, I apologise. But I am profoundly distressed and shaken by the intransigent attitude you have elected to adopt, and the pertinacity with which you endeavour to defend its acceptability.

I leave it to others to judge which of us has slid down a "slime-hole".

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 Oct 11 - 09:19 AM

MIke
My comments throughout have been aimed at the Israeli government's behaviour towards the Palestinians.
"I am embarrassed and horrified by what the state of Israel is in danger of turning into"
Too late for such embarrassment - the Israeli state was born to the sound of "freedom fighters" slaughtering families to clear the way for the new Israel - those massacres have continued.
Your accusation of "Jew baiting" is beyond contempt - you are skulking behind the victims of Nazisms as a platform to defend the indefensible - you have finally sunk to Keith's level - you really should be ashamed.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 13 Oct 11 - 09:29 AM

Have the last word, Jim. I have done ~~ apart from repeating my invitation for any others who have bothered to follow all this to identify which of us it is who occupies the 'slime hole'.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Oct 11 - 10:25 AM

I have exchnged views with people whose sympathies lie wholly with the Palestinian people.
I have commented in previous threads how hate filled are all jim's posts on any topic involving Israel.
I have always thought it went beyond any rational, objective consideration of the issues.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 13 Oct 11 - 10:39 AM

Indeed, Keith. Anyone who can describe the events of 1948, when the newly proclaimed infant state, existing in UN-sanctioned borders which it made no attempt to extend until attacked, had to defend itself against the combined armies of 6 hostile neighbouring states, in such terms as

'the Israeli state was born to the sound of "freedom fighters" slaughtering families to clear the way for the new Israel'

is someone with serious problems.

Poor old Jim. I daresay he means well, & probably inherited his irrational, subjective antisemitism, which he so alarmingly refuses to recognise in himself but which must be patent to any disinterested observer, from somewhere.

And then he has the gall to cry shame on those he so irrationally abuses.

Alas!

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 Oct 11 - 10:41 AM

"hate filled "
The only "hate" I have expressed is for racism and racists - you're top of the list.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 13 Oct 11 - 01:00 PM

Still in denial about own racism, you see, Keith. Or perhaps some suppressed self-hatred emerging?

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 13 Oct 11 - 02:16 PM

Opinions don't have to be based on hatred. They can be based on other things..ignorance of all the facts, indoctrination, following the crowd or the perceived guru, or actually having more facts, or a desire for fairness across the board or any other number of factors. Sometimes quite external factors..like someone said if someone has your baby in one hand and a bayonette in the other you are likely to change your opinion or at least pretend to quite quickly. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Oct 11 - 02:40 PM

It is OK to hate an evil.
Most here would hate injustice and unfairness.
That obviously includes racism.
Hating people is different.
It hardly comes as a surprise that I am at the top of Jim's hate list, but to be hated is not nice.

I have disagreed with you Jim, and challenged some of your cherished perceptions.
I think you hate me for that, because I have never posted anything racist, because I am no racist.

Look again at the post you keep going on about, and the posts I followed it with.
And ask yourself why you hate the Israelis so much.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Oct 11 - 03:40 PM

This is getting a bit silly. Accusations being thrown through cyberspace like it's a barroom...

Whatever they may have said or being understood as meaning, it's very clear that neither MtheGM, Jim Carrol or Keith are racists or anti-semites or anything of the kind.

Wash out your mouths...

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: bobad
Date: 13 Oct 11 - 05:34 PM

"....it's very clear that neither MtheGM, Jim Carrol or Keith are racists or anti-semites or anything of the kind."

According to who's definitions?

Many in the Jewish community consider the equating of Israel's actions with that of the Nazis as anti-semitic. They also regard attacks against "the Zionists", the "state of Israel", "the government" etc. as thinly disguised substitutes for attacks against "the Jews".

I would suggest that you do some research into "the new Anti-Semitism" to inform yourself of how the Jewish community defines it, not how some loud mouth bigots on a forum do.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Oct 11 - 06:13 PM

MGofH, it is a greatly consoling to me to receive that endorsement from you.
Thank you Kevin, but I have had "racist racist racist" shouted at me for month, after month, after month by Jim Carroll, and you kept silent until the tables were turned on Jim Carroll.
But thank you.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Oct 11 - 12:09 PM

"Don I do now " believe that all male Pakistani Muslims have a culturally implanted tendency" towards having sex with under-age girls.
This is a racist statement - whoever puts it forward has put forward a racist statement - whoever puts it forward as a personal belief without researched documented evidence is guilty of perpertuating a racist stereotype.
Even if this statement had been taken from elsewhere (no source or quote has yet been given either for "all male Pakistanis" or "culturally implanted tendency", therefore we have to believe that it is solely the opinion of the poster) it would still be a racist statement and, as the poster has declared it to be his personal belief, it would accurately represent the opinion of the poster.
Rather than complain of being called racist for making such a statement it would be far more convincing if the poster either;
a. Proved that this was not a racist statement.
b. Proved that he had not posted it and it was not his opinion.
Take your pick.
I know this statement to be racist because another poster told me of a similar statement; ("ALL MALE JEWS have a cultural implant which makes them inclined to usury") that "Persisting in uttering accusations and comparisons which you know, because you have repeatedly been told so & have admitted that to be their effect, are peculiarly offensive to all Jews"
To claim one of these not to be offensively racist, yet the other to be racist is hypocritical in the extreme, and to suggest that either is not racist is being an apologist for racism.
As far as my own racism is concerned - are we to conclude that criticism on any national government can be regarded as racist?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Oct 11 - 01:45 PM

Just confirming that the above was me - just in case anybody wished to suggest that it was somebody posting using a false name - as has happened in the past.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Oct 11 - 02:45 PM

whoever puts it forward has put forward a racist statement

It was put forward by eminent Pakistani people well known as anti-racists and as defenders of their community against bigotry.
So perhaps that is your mistake.
It is not racist as you believe.

Either way, it is not unreasonable or racist to assume such people know what they are talking about.
As you would believe a specialist's diagnosis.
As you would believe a meteorologist's weather forecast.
It would not make you a meteorologist or a doctor.
I am not a racist.
Allibhai-Brown, Saffiq and Ahmed are not racists.
I do not believe their statements were racist.
I see no reason not to believe them.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Oct 11 - 04:07 PM

"It was put forward by eminent Pakistani people "
By whom and can you give the quote?
Are you claiming that this claim has been researched, as would be any outlandish claim by a meteorologist or a doctor - can you provide the details of the research or are they just passing an opinion - lots of other experts took great offence at what they did say, and for the life of me I can find no mention of "cultural implant" or "all male Pakistanis - have I missed something.
If there is nothing to back it up it is a racist statement and it isyour opinion "I now believe..."
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Oct 11 - 05:03 PM

By whom and can you give the quote?
Are you claiming that this claim has been researched,

Jim, all three of them, and Jack Straw, and Anne Cryer, separately stated their beliefs that various aspects of culture led to the problem under discussion.
Do you deny that Jim?
Obviously there is no one quote.

The research in the case of Straw and Cryer was a career spent representing large Pakistani constituencies.

In the case of the three Pakistanis it was a life time of service to the Pakistani communities they were born into.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Oct 11 - 05:25 PM

It is well over 24 hours since there was a post on the subject of Palestine.
This thread is being kept alive by Jim, seeking to restart a closed thread discussion.
I suggest, Jim, that you continue your campaign privately using the pm facility.
I will still answer all your challenges.
The same old answers to the same old challenges obviously.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 14 Oct 11 - 05:37 PM

Pay no mind to Carroll, Keith. He is stuck in a great glass house clutching stones labelled Nazi & Holocaust and would do well to button his antisemitic gob.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Oct 11 - 03:55 AM

No quote, no research, (surely necessary for such a profoundly dangerous and all-embracing accusation) no specific statement, no "cultural implant" evidence, no "all Pakistani males"..... nothing but your own stated opinion.
That's what I thought = it is your statement and yours alone, the logical conclusion of which is that in every street, town, city, country where these 'potential perverts' live we have to carefully monitor the behaviour of our Pakistani neighbours and lock away our daughters because all male Pakistanis are potential "culturally implanted" statuary rapists who have to resist their cultural impulses in case their natural impulses surface
"labelled Nazi & Holocaust"
I have asked for proof of this - like Keith's bile, none has been forthcoming and you continue to defend the indefensible with your dishonest and extremely cowardly cry of "Jew baiting".
If you have any evidence whatever that I, or any here who find the behaviour of the Israeli authorities repulsive and unacceptable, have at any time attempted to blame the Jewish people as a whole, please present it.
Nobody, certainly not me, has labelled as "Nazi & Holocaust" the actions of Israeli governments - I have said that there are comparisons to be made, on a lesser scale certainly, but similar in objective and effect.
You have chosen not to challege, therefore to support with your silence, (garnished with the occasional cries of "Jew baiter" and "anti-Semite") the fact that British troops left Palestine to the sound of Arab villages being ethnically cleansed, you have ignored the continued killing and maiming of civilians (in two cases the massacre of up to 3,500 men women and children refugees, which Keith has demoted to 'military incompetence'), that have taken place, the wall that has been built across legally occupied (and vitally important to provide sustenance for the people living there) land, the ghettoisation, the attempts to starve an impoverished third world people into submission with a sweeping and spiteful embargo, the murder of relief bringers, the continued use of heavy artillery and chemical weapons in built-up areas, the evictions to make way for Israeli homes and tourist centres - all remincent of similar acts carried out in pre-war Germany, former Yugoslavia, Chile.... and anywhere where one dominant political, religious, ethnic group attempts to impose its political, economic, cultural will on another.
Nobody here has attempted to touch the proposed visit to Britain of an ex- Israeli foreign minister with an arrest warrant for war crimes hanging over her.
Added to this, you have (rightly) described the stereotyping of Jews as 'cultural usurers' as racist, while at the same time defending similar racist stereotyping of Muslims as "non-racist - - "anti- Semite Jew baiter" - I think I can live with that from such a dishonest and cowardly hypocritical source!
If you have any proof of "Anti Semitism", or "Jew baiting" from anybody here, please produce it, but I suspect that the result will be the same as requests for Keith's "cultural implants" or "all male Pakistanis".      
It is significant, to me at least, that the only support the Israelis have for their opposition to Palestinian statehood has come from an intended veto by the world's most powerful nation who has proved itself not averese to using similar tactics against impoverished third-world peoples.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Oct 11 - 05:48 AM

... nothing but your own stated opinion.

It was not and is not my opinion.
I have neither the knowledge nor experience to form such an opinion.
It was the opinion of all those eminent people.
And they are not racists, are they Jim?

The weather forecast is also not my opinion, though I do now believe it.
Last time I was diagnosed it was not my opinion either, but I do now believe it.

You have not, and could not find any racism in my posts.
Yet you just 'know' I am.
Pure prejudice.
Not being a racist, you have no reason to hate me, but you can't stop hating.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Oct 11 - 05:52 AM

Jim, all five separately stated their beliefs that various aspects of culture led to the problem under discussion.
Do you deny that Jim?
DO YOU DENY THAT JIM?

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Oct 11 - 06:44 AM

"It was not and is not my opinion."
"Don I do now " believe that all male Pakistani Muslims have a culturally implanted tendency" towards having sex with under-age girls."
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Oct 11 - 06:59 AM

PS
"Jim, all five separately stated their beliefs that various aspects of culture "
I HAVE BEEN UNABLE TO FIND ONE SINGLE REFERENCE TO THE STATEMENT THAT "ALL MALE PAKISTANIS" CARRY A "CULTURALLY IMPLANTED TENDENCY TO HAVING SEX WITH UNDER-AGE GIRLS" - Please produce one or admit to the fact that it is your statement and your opinion alone
Jim Carrol

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Oct 11 - 07:53 AM

Just because I believed it, as I said "only because" of the eminence and knowledge of those saying it, DOES NOT MAKE IT MY OPINION JIM.

I am no meteorologist.
Believing meteoroligists' stated opinions does not mean that I have formed an opinion based on meteorological data too!

Jim, all five separately stated their beliefs that various aspects of culture led to the problem under discussion.
DO YOU DENY THAT JIM?

If you do I will make you look ridiculous again by reposting their actual words.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Oct 11 - 08:40 AM

You have yet to to provide either a source or an actual quote for your claim, making it yours and yours alone.
Many people have made statements on Pakistani involvement in underage sex, for and against your claims - you have chosen to produce those FOR and ignored those AGAINST - proving nothing - please feel free to repost what you choose and please include the warnings against drawing racist conclusions from their statements, including that from Straw and from the police investigating those crimes, - WHICH YOU HAVE CHOSEN TO CONTINUALLY IGNORE THROUGHOUT THESE DISCUSSIONS
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Oct 11 - 02:07 PM

None of that is true jim.
Those 5 were in all the media then (late jan / feb).
I can still provide examples.
You will never be able to produce alternatives because there were none.
In the thread I asked many times for another theory.
None was provided, except Don produced one of his own.
If I am lying, put up an alternative.
(No chance Jim. You made it up.)

You have yet to to provide either a source or an actual quote for your claim, making it yours and yours alone.

I provided the 5 sources of the opinion.
It never was a claim.
I told you literally dozens of times I was not interested in why they did it.
For some reason that was all you wanted to talk about, but without any suggestion of your own.
I made no claim.
I reluctantly said what I believed only because Don directly asked me.
It was not a claim and I was never interested.
Deny that Jim?

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Oct 11 - 02:26 PM

My post, 31st Jan, well before "Don, I do now believe....but only because...

I did not offer the explanations of Straw, Cryer and Ahmed over those of others.
No other explanation has been offered.
It is like a taboo.
Also no one has found fault with those suggestions.
Obviously they can not be proved, but how is it justified to dismiss them out of hand?

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Oct 11 - 02:35 PM

I think you have humiliated yourself enough Keith.
Once again I've allowed your vaccuous arguments to nause up another thread by responding to the - apologies to all, if there is anybody still alive out there.
Now if you can't provide a source and a quote to back up your claim of "culrural implants" infecting the entire "male Pakistani" population - please ****** off and shut the door behind you.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Oct 11 - 02:52 PM

The idea that aspects of culture led to the problem under discussion came separately from Cryer, Straw, Ahmed Saffiq and Allibhai-Brown.

THOSE ARE THE SOURCES JIM.
Which bit do you not get?

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Oct 11 - 02:57 PM

"THOSE ARE THE SOURCES JIM."
And not one of them mentoned "implants" or "entire Pakistani male populations", and two of them warned specifically against racists like yourself using the figures to make racist points.
Sorry -really have gone now.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Oct 11 - 03:14 PM

Oh FFS!!! Get a Room!

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Oct 11 - 03:56 PM

So you finally accept that those 5 said that aspects of culture led to the problem.
The culture is experienced by all within the culture.
OK Jim?

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Oct 11 - 04:48 AM

two of them warned specifically against racists like yourself using the figures to make racist points.

Another personal slander against me, but not true about them either.
All 5 went public because they wanted the issues out in the open and discussed.
A final lie Jim?

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 Oct 11 - 06:24 AM

Keith
Leave this alone,
We've fucked up yet another thread between us.
I'm sure people have had a bellyful of our bickering, and have (more than) enough information to make up their own minds on the rights and wrongs of all this, presuming they are the slightest bit interested.
Just piss off
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Oct 11 - 07:33 AM

29th Sept. My post
"We argued it out at the time.
You have brought it into every thread we have been on since.
Why?"

1st October. My post
"Or when that same person resumed the discussion of a closed thread so that child abuse in N England was discussed on this thread!

I was the only person who questioned the relevance.
You let him get on with it unchallenged. "

12th October. My post
"All this has been explained to you many times since February.
Why do you keep on? "

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 Oct 11 - 08:01 AM

"Why do you keep on? "
Because I detest racism and I believe that describing the male population of an entire cultural community as being prone to statuary rape because of their culture is as racist as it gets and will continue to challenge it when it it is claimed and excused.
I believe Israel, if not completely, well on the way to becoming a fascist state prepared to commit atrocities and war crimes to further its political ends, that is why I brought up what I believe to have been an anti-Muslim statement (made by you), up on this thread.
I agree with those we have driven off this thread that we have once again allowed our argument dominate and destroy another thread but this does not make a racist statement (in this case, yours and nobody elses) any less racist
For me, it ends here until the subject of racism raises its perverted head)
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Oct 11 - 08:53 AM

I believe that describing the male population of an entire cultural community as being prone to statuary rape because of their culture is as racist as it gets and will continue to challenge it when it it is claimed and excused.

If anyone ever does that I will challenge them with you Jim.
Now, if you have finally shut up, there is an event of current interest.
The exchange.
An innocent young soldier illegally abducted and held in isolation with no outside contact or even Red Cross/Crescent visits will be released after years of confinement.
In return, hundreds of convicted criminals and terrorists are to be released from their humane conditions of confinement in prisons subject to inspection.
They include the mass murderers of ordinary people and children.

Hamas claimed this as a triumph of arms.
I see it as a triumph of humanity, generosity and compassion.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 Oct 11 - 10:50 AM

"They include the mass murderers of ordinary people and children."
If that is true, then it is an accusation that can be levelled at both sides - the Palestinians have done have done nothing to the Israelis that hasn't been done to them with a hundred times greater force, with heavy artillery, chemical weapons and by well trained and well armed troops - over a continuing period of 60-odd years.
"I see it as a triumph of humanity, generosity and compassion."
I see it as a totally empty gesture in the light of a blockade of essential goods, annexation and occupation of Palestinisn land, a continuing policy of building settlements (1,500 proposed on land occupied since the six-day war), the maintenance of a 'Berlin wall' cutting Palestinians off from their livelihood and food supply and most of all - an opposition to Palestinian statehood by way of a bullying veto by the world's most powerful nation.
My first entry into this thread was with an article headed
"BEDOUIN PEOPLE ISRAEL WANTS TO RELOCATE TO FORMER DUMP"
That, for me, sums up "the humanity, generosity and compassion" of the Israelis towards those who get in the way of their political and economic ambitions.
What is needed now is the tackling of the real problems BY BOTH SIDES - not window dressing.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Oct 11 - 02:31 PM

It is true that the freed include those guilty of terrorist atrocities.
The Bedouin in your post were quite clear that the Palestinians were no better than the Israelis.
You Jim are clearly incapable of rational, coherent thought when Israel is mentioned.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Jeri
Date: 16 Oct 11 - 02:49 PM

It might be a good idea to re-title this thread "The Keith & Jim Show, part ∞" but I figure most people will see a thread with something controversial in the title, notice it's over 400 posts long and just know it's the two of you going at it again/stll, albeit with a little help once in a while.

Forget taking it to PMs because it's not worth it for you without an audience... or more accurately being able to believe you have an audience. You two should just get your own forum.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 Oct 11 - 03:39 PM

"It is true that the freed include those guilty of terrorist atrocities."
Unless you have information not possessed by the rest of us, we have no idea whatever of the identities of those to be released; whether they are "mass murderers of ordinary people and children" or Turkish belly dancers; whether they are members of Hamas or just people picked up on one of the incursions into Gaza; whether in fact they are just guilty of being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
We have no more idea of who they are and what they've done than we have of the prisoner in Guantanamo.
Personally, I believe that the Israeli administration would be utterly irresponsible and neglectful of its duty of care to its own citizens to let such people loose to "mass murder ordinary people and children" again.
"The Bedouin in your post were quite clear that the Palestinians were no better than the Israelis."
Once again - have you any information regarding the treatment of the Bedouins by the Palestinians.
Updated news on the treatment of Bedouins is that Israel intends to expel 30,000 of them (60,000 according to the Christian organisation's World Post News) - I wonder if the Palestinians could top that one!!
http://972mag.com/israel-approves-plan-to-uproot-30000-bedouins/22814/

http://worldpostnews.com/2011/10/israel-plans-expulsion-of-some-60000-bedouin-palestinians/

"The Keith & Jim Show,"
Jeri
My abject apologies - I really was about to bow out in shame until I got caught up in the obsequious tone of Keith's last posting.
I feel not a little like a rabbit caught in the headlights of a car when it comes to Keith.
We find ourselves on the opposite side of the spectrum and as he tends to direct his postings directly at me on topics that concern me deeply (he has even been known to put up my 'supposed' opinions on threads I was not involved in) I feel obliged to respond.
Short of not taking part in these discussions, I really am at a loss as to what to do - I have tried to ignore whet I believe to be his extremely right wing remarks, but somehow it never has worked out that way.
Once again, my apologies - will try harder,
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Oct 11 - 04:02 PM

Unless you have information not possessed by the rest of us, we have no idea whatever of the identities of those to be released;
Key initial releases
Nasser Iteima: Helped bomb Netanya hotel in 2002 - 30 people killed
Walid Anjes: Helped bomb Moment cafe in Jerusalem in 2002 - 11 people killed
Yehia Sanwar: A founder of Hamas militant wing. Serving multiple life sentences
Jihad Yaghmour: Took part in execution of Israeli solder Nachson Waxman in 1994
Mohammed al-Sharatha: A leader of the elite Hamas 101 unit. Multiple life terms
Nael Barguti: Arrested in April 1978 and convicted of role in death of Israeli soldier
Rawhi al-Mushtaha: Senior Hamas leader. Multiple life sentences
Amna Muna: Serving life for luring Israeli teenager to his death

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Oct 11 - 04:31 PM

Jeri.

Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 14 Oct 11 - 05:25 PM

It is well over 24 hours since there was a post on the subject of Palestine.
This thread is being kept alive by Jim, seeking to restart a closed thread discussion.
I suggest, Jim, that you continue your campaign privately using the pm facility.
I will still answer all your challenges.
The same old answers to the same old challenges obviously.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 17 Oct 11 - 12:42 AM

I must chip in again to point out that J.Carroll, for all his compulsive over&over&overagain quoting of one equivocal & inconclusive statement by Keith on another now-long-ago thread, has no other argument at all; and moreover persists in his accusations of racism, without having replied in any convincing manner to my direct accusations against him of ACUTE ANTISEMITISM, of which I have conclusively demonstrated him culpable.

Motes & beams, Mr Carroll...

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Oct 11 - 02:41 AM

"ACUTE ANTISEMITISM"
And you have provided no proof whatever of your accusation of anti-Semitism - I have aimed my remarks at the Israeli auuthorities who I believe do not represent the Jewish people as a whole and whose behaviour has offended Jews both inside and outsid Israel.
Perhaps you would like to address the expelling of 30,000 Bedouins, which is now being openly referred to as "ethnic cleansing" (whoops, there goes my anti-Semitism" again).
A far cry from "All male

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Oct 11 - 02:57 AM

From Wiki.
"Ismail Khaldi is the first Bedouin deputy consul of the State of Israel and the highest ranking Muslim in the Israeli foreign service.[85] Khaldi is a strong advocate of Israel. While acknowledging that the state of Israeli Bedouin minority is not ideal, he said

I am a proud Israeli - along with many other non-Jewish Israelis such as Druze, Bahai, Bedouin, Christians and Muslims, who live in one of the most culturally diversified societies and the only true democracy in the Middle East. Like America, Israeli society is far from perfect, but let us deals honestly. By any yardstick you choose -- educational opportunity, economic development, women and gay's rights, freedom of speech and assembly, legislative representation -- Israel's minorities fare far better than any other country in the Middle East"

I also read that, every year, between 5 and 10% of all Bedouin males reaching the required age VOLUNTEER for the army of Israel.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Oct 11 - 03:07 AM

For comparison.
"Egypt's Bedouins who inhabit the triangular Sinai Peninsula which links Africa with Asia and covers an area of 23,500 square miles, say they do not enjoy full citizenship rights and are treated as second class citizens. They say they are not allowed to join the army, study in police or military colleges, hold key government positions or form their own political parties.

Locked in this arid expanse, the Bedouins claim they have have been left to fend for themselves. Mistrust between the government and the Bedouins, some of whom allegedly collaborated with the Israeli military when it occupied Sinai in 1967, continues to fuel negative stereotypes about them."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/global-development/2011/jun/17/egypt-bedouin-risk-of-exclusion-citizenship-rights

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Oct 11 - 03:35 AM

Whoops
"ACUTE ANTISEMITISM"
And you have provided no proof whatever of your accusation of anti-Semitism - throughout these discussions I have aimed my remarks at actions of the Israeli authorities who I believe do not represent the Jewish people as a whole and whose behaviour has offended Jews both inside and outside Israel.
My suggestion that there are comparisons to be drawn of the behaviour of the Nazis towards the Jews, and that of the Israelis towards the Palestinians are a far cry from "All male Pakistanis" being infected with a 'statuary rape implant' (inconclusive!!!) which you have dismissed as being "not racist" while objecting to the potential use of a similar suggestion about Jews.
Your hysterical accusation of "anti Semitism" is one that has been used by others on all these Israeli threads angainst any criticism of Israeli policy, including by some who have put up some degree of argument in support of Israeli behaviour, which you have not.
My dictionary gives an anti Semite as being "A person who is hostile to or prejudiced against Jews" - point out where my comments have been aimed at anything, other than the behaviour of Israelis towards the Palestinians - you have ignored requests to do so to date.
The only effect your untrue and unqualified accusations could possibly have on this forum is to make us think twice before we criticise Mugabe (because he is black), Duvalier (because he was black), Gadaffi (because he is an Arab)......
Utterly spineless and dishonest.
Perhaps you would like to address the expulsion of 30,000 Bedouins, which is now being openly referred to as "ethnic cleansing" (whoops, there goes my anti-Semitism" again).
Your continued support for Keith's openly racist statement (explain why it is not, and why a similar example of stereotyping Jews is - another request you have consistently ignored) calls into question your own approach to race and remains both hypocritical and cowardly.
Keith:
My apologies - the Israelis have published a list of prisoners to be released, which includes some active terrorists - I was not aware of this - and withdraw what I wrongly claimed.
My case still stands; "The Palestinians have done have done nothing to the Israelis that hasn't been done to them with a hundred times greater force, with heavy artillery, chemical weapons and by well trained and well armed troops - over a continuing period of 60-odd years."
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Oct 11 - 04:12 AM

Apology accepted.

Jeri, he has started again to accuse me of racism and supporting it with false representations of an 8 month old post.
What should I do?
Allow myself to be slandered in public or again point out the deceit in his accusations?

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 17 Oct 11 - 04:45 AM

Having made an accusation, I suppose I must support it.

You refuse, Mr Carroll, to take the point that the aggressive expansion which resulted in the present intransigent Israeli attitude [which, I repeat, I deplore ~~ don't make me reiterate yet again, please, my now 3ce-repeated post about even my sister & nephews...] was originally caused by the attempts by six [count them ~ 6] hostile states to prevent by overwhelmingly superior-in-numbers military force to overthrow entirely the State proclaimed on 8 May 1948 WITHIN THE BORDERS ESTABLISHED BY FREE VOTE OF THE UNITED NATIONS, of which five of those six states were members at the time; which destruction moreover remains explicit policy to this day within the majority of those states.

This refusal

-- coupled with constant untrue allegations of causeless Israeli massacres unrelated to these endeavours; together with deliberately and persistently reiterated use on your part of terms which, as has been pointed out to you time & again by others as well as me, are bound to be particularly offensive to all Jews for obvious reasons ~~ terms of baleful association like 'Nazi' & 'Holocaust' ~~ aimed at the Israeli people [not just their government]; and refusal to apologise for the offence thus inevitably caused to Jews in general and not just to the Israeli government (and please leave out your Manchester acquaintance: that old "some of my best friends" bromide has whiskers on it & is always a powerful counter-indicator of one of your persuasion) --

would, to my mind, indicate a strongly adverse interpretation to be placed on your obsessive anti-Israeli animadversions.

If, in short, these manifestations are not to be taken as antisemitic, then how do you think they should be regarded?

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Oct 11 - 04:51 AM

"Jeri, he has started again to accuse me of racism "
Keith
You wrote the 'cultural implant' statement - it is on record on this forum as coming from you - without evidence it is racist stereotyping in the extreme - show us where it is not. You claimed it was somebody else's statement - (even if that were true, without evidence it would still be a racist statement, and it would still be your opinion), but you have totally failed to produce evidence that anybody anywhere made anything resembling the suggestion that all male Pakistanis are culturally inclined to statuary rape, in fact witnesses you produced to back up your case warned of the danger of their opinions being used in such a manner as you have used them.
If you have evidence of somebody saying anything approaching a statement so profoundly damaging to a whole ethnic culture, please produce it and I will totally accept that it it somebody else's statement as well as yours, but that will not change the fact that, without proof, it is a racist statement and it was put forward by you.
I may have over-stressed it, but I find it incredibly offensive that anybody should put forward such a foul suggestion about an entire gender of a whole ethnic group, and I feel it relates to your attitude to all Muslims, which is why I raised it here.
Give your proof of the statement and I will happily withdraw my accusation - give your source and quote and I will happily accept that you (misguidedly maybe) took your cue from elsewhere.
Until such time, it remains a racist statement and it remains yours, no matter what blanket support you may have got from elsewhere.
Meanwhile, would you care to comment on the ethnic cleansing of the Bedouins, and would you care to provide proof that similar treatment has been forthcoming from the Palestinians?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Oct 11 - 05:33 AM

Help me out please Jeri.
I do not want to be part of a "Jim and Keith Show" but he is corrupting and misrepresenting one old post to promote this personal hate campaign against me.

Shall I defend myself against the slander?
Do our rules not apply to Jim?
Help please.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Oct 11 - 06:35 AM

While you continue to deny what you have written and refuse to accept its implications, you continue to make it an issue.
The solution is simple - prove it is not a racist statement by providing evidence that it is true, show that it is not your view and you did not put it forward as your view.
As far as I am concerned, there is no further we can go with this at present and am happy to stand by what I believe and leave it there, and would have done long ago, had you not persisted in making claims that I am lying and distorting what you said..
My 'hate campaign' is aimed at racism, I don't know you, nor do I wish to.
Maybe now we can discuss the ethnic cleansing of Bedouins by the Israelis?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Oct 11 - 06:46 AM

I am no racist, as you have been told by other people besides me.
I have never made a racist posts.
If you are going to make such a serious personal attack based on a post, at least give it in full, and account for why some is in quotes.

Or better still, after 8 months of having the obvious explained to you, drop it.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Oct 11 - 06:53 AM

Bedouin are treated much worse in Egypt than in Israel, but you only hate Israel.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Oct 11 - 08:03 AM

Stet
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Oct 11 - 08:27 AM

"BS: I AM going to be the last one on this thread.. ?

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Oct 11 - 08:32 AM

Back on topic
"Bedouin are treated much worse in Egypt"
There is no evidence of this whatever; the treatment of Bedouins in Egypt is just about on par with that of Travellers in Britain and Ireland, poor, but nowhere near 'ethnic cleansing' proportions.
Nor is there any evidence of mistreatment at the hands ofthe Palestinians, which was your original response.
Even if it were true it is no excuse for the ethnic cleansing that is proposed for 30,000 Bedouins by Israel
Excusing atrocities by one nation by comparing them to the the behaviour of another is tantamount to being an apologist for such treatment - racist harrasment is racist harrassment whoever does it Israel's behaviour towards the Bedouins is yet more evidence of their contempt for human rights.
As for my hatred of Israel; I go along with MtheGM when he says; "Which is not to say that I am not embarrassed and horrified by what the state of Israel is in danger of turning into" (though I believe Israel to be much further down that road), but apparently it makes me an "anti Semite Jew baiter" if I say so!!
Funny old world (or maybe not so funny)
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Oct 11 - 09:05 AM

Evidence of Bedouin treatment in Israelthread.cfm?threadid=140399&messages=471#3240066
Evidence of much worse treatment in Egyptthread.cfm?threadid=140399&messages=471#3240069

Bedouin quote showing Palestinians treat them no better than Israelis
" He shrugged when asked if the Palestinian leadership's bid for UN membership and recognition of statehood in East Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza could improve conditions.
"The sulta [the Palestinian Authority] and the Israelis co-operate against us." "

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Oct 11 - 09:38 AM

Apropos of the assertion that drawing parallels between Nazi actions and actions of Israelis, must be seen as anti-semitic:

"The judges likened his stated willingness "to murder even women and children in cold blood" to "Hitler's methods in France".

The judges in question being Israeli judges, in a trial of a group of Israeli soldiers, which was kept secret for 54 years.(Israel learns of a hidden shame in its early years")

That goes to suggest that MtheGM's strictures on Jim were excessive. As for Jim Carroll's bullheaded campaign against Keith for his interpretation of a post Keith once made, that's equally over the top.

Go and play some music...

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Oct 11 - 09:43 AM

Both of your links end up at the same Guardian article (which I was fully aware of), which talks of harrassment, neglect and denial of full citizenship which is a reality for virtually every community of Travellers all over the world - particularly Britain at the present time
No country, apart from Israel is proposing the forcible expulsion of 30,000 members of an ethnic community.
Pointing at the abuse by one government in order to excuse ethnic cleansing by another is tantamount to being an apologist for inhuman racist behaviour.
All nations treat Travellers badly, address the ethnic cleansing; the racist behaviour of the Israelis is the issue here.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 17 Oct 11 - 09:58 AM

There are not 6,000,000 of them, scheduled to be methodically murdered in death-factories specifically designed for the purpose as a matter of approved national policy: that is what your chosen word 'Holocaust' designates. I say again ~~ if some 20-30 of your 1st cousins once removed [i.e. your father's first cousins] had been among that vast multitude, a number somewhat greater than the entire populations of Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool, Sheffield, Nottingham and Leeds, I don't think you would bandy such a term so insouciantly. I say again ~~ it is a provocatively and deliberately antisemitic act, an act of Jew-baiting, to do so. It far exceeds anything justified by the intransigence and belligerence of Israel's regrettable policies. You have made no apology or in any way said anything to mitigate such intentional abuse.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Oct 11 - 10:04 AM

First link, about the Bedouin in Israel.
detail.cfm?messages__Message_ID=3240066

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Oct 11 - 10:39 AM

Nowhere does your link mention the forcible expulsion of 30,000 Bedouins
Congratualtions - you have just added 'apologist for ethnic cleansing' to your CV
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Jeri
Date: 17 Oct 11 - 11:10 AM

You guys are absolutely hilarious. "Mummy, he MADE me do it!"

You want to stop posting, stop posting. If you don't, it's because YOU DON'T WANT TO STOP.

If anybody wonders, yes I really DO think this is funny. But I've had my say and it will be my opinion for as long as you continue, and probably a few years after you stop.

I'm done. Watch this, guys--this is how you do it.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Oct 11 - 11:25 AM

Not because I did not want to stop Jeri, but because I did not want to let personal, slanderous attacks go unanswered.

Are you sure that you would let such things said against you remain on the forum unchallenged?

At least you got a laugh out of it.
Not so funny to be on the receiving end.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Oct 11 - 11:32 AM

Jim, the expulsion has already been mentioned, but has not already happened.
Has it even been announced?
Are the numbers fixed?

Jim I am not defending or apologising for the treatment of the Bedouin.
I provided evidence that, of the 2 neighbours, Egypt is far worse.
So why single out the lesser for your rage?
Irrational prejudice?

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Oct 11 - 01:32 PM

Israel plans expulsion of some 60,000 Bedouin Palestinians

    By Ben White – The Electronic Intifada – 10/11/2011

Israeli human rights organisation B'Tselem has drawn attention to plans by the Israeli government to expel 27,000 Bedouin Palestinians who currently live in what is known as 'Area C' of the West Bank.

    The Civil Administration (CA) is planning to expel the Bedouin communities living in Area C in the West Bank, transferring some 27,000 persons from their homes. In the first phase, planned as early as January 2012, some 20 communities, comprising 2,300 persons, will be forcibly transferred to a site near the Abu Dis refuse dump, east of Jerusalem.

Area C, making up around 60 percent of the Israeli-occupied West Bank, is where most Israeli colonisation is concentrated, e.g. the largest settlements, military training zones, etc. (For more information on Area C see these UN reports from August 2011 and August 2010).

Palestinians who live in Area C have long faced severe discrimination under Israeli military rule, particularly when it comes to issues of housing. For example, a UN survey in 2008 found that 94 percent of building permit applications by Palestinians were denied by the Israeli occupation authorities.

Meanwhile, it was only a month ago that the Israeli cabinet approved a plan for the Negev that means the forcible relocation of around 30,000 Bedouin Palestinian citizens.

As I wrote at the time, this 'transfer' plan is directly linked to efforts to 'Judaize' the Negev: as Ramat Negev Regional Council mayor Shmuel Rifman put it, if the Israeli government does not "finalise the Bedouin settlement it will be very hard to enhance Jewish settlement in the Negev".

In the West Bank, the same logic is at work. UN OCHA have also just released a factsheet on the displacement of Bedouin near Jerusalem in which they note:

    The Bedouin's current homes are located in an area that holds strategic significance for further expansion of Israeli settlements.

Thus in the de facto one state that exists between the Mediterranean Sea and Jordan River, Israeli authorities are currently planning mass expulsions of around 60,000 Palestinians, specifically in order to free up more territory for Jewish settlement. The Nakba never finished.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Oct 11 - 02:10 PM

Egypt is far worse

Not good, though things could get better if the post Mubarak Egypt ends up as a democracy, but the evidence does seem to show Israel as the leader in the competition to treat Bedouin worse.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Oct 11 - 03:11 PM

How so Kevin?
In Egypt they are already banished to the Sinai, and discriminated against in every way.

Plans and proposals do not always become fact.
We do not know if generous compensation is planned.
We do not know what the new provision will be.
It is all a bit premature.

As of now, The Guardian piece shows the plight of the Egyptian Bedouin to be worse.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Oct 11 - 03:12 PM

"There are not 6,000,000 of them, "
Nobody said there were - but (to repeat, as you have constantly refused to comment on) I have never once attempted to compare like with like and your accusation of anti-Semite Jew baiter would be perfectly justified if I had; I merly said that there are echoes of the Nazi treatment of the Jews. Surely the proposed forcible ejection of 30-60 thousand people is indication enough that this is the case?
There are smaller incidents that are reminiscent of Nazi behaviour - jeering soldiers forcing a musician to play for them "to prove he was what he said he was" http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/nov/29/israel
Or the Israeli soldiers who billeted themselves with a Palestinian family and shat in all the cooking utensils when they left - all chillingly reminiscent of the Nazi behaviour towards the Jews.
I've already mentioned the massacres, the wall, the razing of homes, te evictions - now we have a proposed ethnic cleansing which once again you choose to defend with your silence.
You have hidden behind accusations of 'anti-Semitism' to avoid facing these incidents and your own double standards on anti Jewish and anti-Pakistani racism calls your own racist stance to question.
It seems that "anti-Semitism" rather than "patriotim" has become "the last refuge of a scoundrel" (in your case, an extremely cowardly one in defence of what has become a fascist state).
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 17 Oct 11 - 04:28 PM

"I merly said that there are echoes of the Nazi treatment of the Jews. Surely the proposed forcible ejection of 30-60 thousand people is indication enough that this is the case?"
.,,.,..,
The Nazis did not 'eject' the Jews by the thousands; they methodically murdered them by the millions in efficiently run organisations specifically designed for the purpose; in the most humiliating & painful possible manner: thrust naked several hundred at the time into small compartments and then choked to death by the fumes of concentrated weedkiller. Have you ever seen what is, to my mind, probably the saddest picture ever published, even more than the piles of emaciated corpses being bulldozed into pits at Belsen - the mountainous pile of children's shoes outside the gas-chamber at Treblinka?

I leave it to others to judge; but I would call your cited enormity a pretty faint & feeble 'echo' myself.

Which is not to discount it as such, an enormity, mind. You are getting pathetic with your accusations of my 'defending' the state in its present form; inconsistently so - you actually quote me doing the precise opposite only 10 posts back - 0938 am.

I say again, Jim; your tone is antisemitic, whatever you might think. If it is not intentionally so, then I suggest that you pause & have a listen to yourself; and stop accusing me of cowardice by hiding behind accusations of antisemitism, which is a cowardly evasive get-out of precisely the sort you are accusing me of. You are doing yourself no credit at all even inviting such accusations; which IS what you are doing, with your Nazi & your Holocaust, and your accusations of racism for denunciations of the activities of undisputed sections of some specific demographics in particular situations, and your obsessive persecution of Keith which is nothing but a shoot-the-messenger rant, based on a long-ago ambiguous post on another thread, at best most marginally relevant to the gravamen of this thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 17 Oct 11 - 04:31 PM

Sorry - I miscounted: 13 posts back, 0832 am

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Oct 11 - 04:32 PM

I think the Sinai is a place the Bedouin have always lived. That's a bit like saying the Welsh are exiled to Wales.

The Guardian piece didn't mention anything about them not being allowed to live there or destroying their homes...

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 17 Oct 11 - 04:38 PM

Here is a link to one of the pictures of the children's shoes ~~ this one at Belzec

http://www.shamash.org/holocaust/photos/images/Belzec01.jpg

Several others are online, at Birkenau, Matthauasen, as well as Treblinka.

Just show me something similar in Israel, eh - for all the admitted disappointment to so many of us at the way the place has turned out.

BTW - re your account of shitting by soldiers in cooking utensils: same thing was done during British army visits to Jewish settlements in Mandate-era Palestine, I am sorry to say.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 17 Oct 11 - 04:41 PM

& here is a pile of dead people's spectacles from Auschwitz ~~

http://www.shamash.org/holocaust/photos/images/Auschw01.jpg

You & your bloody 'echoes', Jim Carroll...

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Oct 11 - 04:45 PM

"I say again, Jim; your tone is antisemitic, "
And I say again thay your tone is both hypocritical and racist.
You continue to distort my attitude by ignoring what I say and your double standards of what is and is not racist when it is applied to Jews and Muslims is breathtaking.
At least Keith attempts to make an effort when he dissembles.
There was a time when I respected and was entertained and informed by your writings, even though I didn't always agree with them.
Just shows you; if you want to keep your respect for someone - keep you distance.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Oct 11 - 04:50 PM

Cross posted:
I know what the dead of Auschwitz look like - I was educated by friends whose parents were there.
I see you are not going to even refer to the proposed ethnic cleansing - another echo of pre-war Germany and all those good citizens who "passed by on the other side".
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 17 Oct 11 - 05:10 PM

Oh for heaven's sake, Jim: the ethnic cleansing is obviously a part that I am taking into account of the insufferable nature of the present regime in Israel that I keep on denouncing - & not defending, for all your obsessive parroting ~~ it is not what I and my friends worked our arses off for in our teens; it is a grievous disappointment to us all: I didn't do it for people to be rehoused against their will from their ancestral lands, or for the olive groves they depend on for their livings to be maliciously uprooted in return for some activities of their co-patriots for which they were in no way responsible. I am not defending any such thing, Jim. I join you in your wholehearted denunciation of it. So what more do you want me to say?

But, please, enough of your almost inaudible 'echoes'. I say again: you might as well call the cold in the head my mother had for a few days when she was 50 a proleptic 'echo' of the cancer which killed her seven years later. Please get some sense of proportion. You go on about all these Jewish friends of yours. Just ask them, please, how they view your insistence on comparing the present doings of the Israeli government to the actual six-million strong HOLOCAUST! Go on. See what they say to that.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Oct 11 - 05:16 PM

The sad thing is that there are people in all nations who are capable of behaving like Nazis - including Britain and Israel. The platoon commander in that "hidden shame" story, to which I linked a few posts back, served in the British army before he led his Israeli platoon in this atrocity which led Israeli judges to liken "his stated willingness 'to murder even women and children in cold blood' to 'Hitler's methods in France'."

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: GUEST,Mrr at work
Date: 17 Oct 11 - 09:04 PM

Anybody posting here actually lose any relatives to the Holocaust?

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 18 Oct 11 - 12:02 AM

Mrr ~ Yes. As you will read above, my father lost all his first cousins who had been left behind in Roumania. About 20-ish of them, I believe. He was brought here at 1 year old but knew some of them who had visited in his childhood and youth [he was born in 1901], but I remember my grandmother, who did of course remember them all well, getting a letter from one surviving relative in 1945 when the place had been liberated. I know I never met any of them (thought I may have a vague recollection of some 'cousin' with a foreign accent in, maybe, 1935, when I was 3), but they were all as genetically close to me as my mother's large number of first cousins (both her parents came from large & prolific families ~ I myself had 23 first cousins, as my father was one of five and my mother one of eight), many of whom I did know well in my childhood. Her family originated in Lithuania, but I don't know what happened to any of her lot who might have remained there.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 18 Oct 11 - 12:10 AM

It's why,as you will note from some of my remarks above, I am getting so (disproportionately, some might say, but obviously I wouldn't agree) exercised and distressed by some of Jim's invidious and disproportionate comparisons and "echoes". I really do wish he'd stop it. They come over [I can't avoid saying it again] as intentionally distressing to Jews; & IMO aimed at them in what can only be described as an antisemitic fashion. He can bluster that I am hiding in cowardly fashion behind such an accusation to cover up some less than worthy views of my own; but, be that as it may, I still aver that he is being deliberately racist, for all his pleas of 'echoes' and 'merely matters of degree' and all the rest of his racist rhetoric.

I really am as disappointed in him as I am in the State of Israel ~~ and that is saying something.

Are you listening, Jim Carroll?

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 18 Oct 11 - 12:55 AM

Jim Carroll

Let me repeat here a couple of previous posts of mine ---
,.,.
"I am embarrassed and horrified by what the state of Israel is in danger of turning into; even my sister & her son [who was born there], who maintain their Jewish & Zionist identity which I don't, are having serious reservations". I hold no brief for the actions or attitudes of the present government of Israel, find many of their actions and policies entirely unacceptable and culpable, and dissociate myself unreservedly from them."
.,.,
"Jim ~ I do not disagree with you re WP. I wish the Israelis didn't do such things; or destroy Arab lands and agricultural resources as they do in disproportionate retaliations against attacks. It was not for such that I marched and collected in my youth in support of the establishment of the entity which has turned out in its present governmental avatar to be such a grave disappointment. I really do see where you are coming from re Israeli intransigence & worse ~ I refer you again to that previous credo of mine of a couple of days ago."
.,.,

Can you really not see that objections to present policies vis-à-vis the Arab population ~ call it 'ethnic cleansing' if you like ~ is subsumed in the above statements as one of the factors responsible for my present attitude of grief and disappointment and more at what the Jewish Homeland we all so earnestly wished for in my youth has turned into?

So let me say explicitly that it is. It is one of the worst things going on there.

Now please stop accusing me of ignoring or trying to belittle this aspect of the situation. I do no such thing, and there it is spelt out in black & white.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 18 Oct 11 - 01:00 AM

And in turn, perhaps you would be so good as to stop calling it "a Holocaust", which you know perfectly well is a designation which can only be regarded as deliberately and intentionally offensive and distressing ~~ and hence antisemitic in intent. So long as you persist in such loctions, to whatever extent you regard them as mere 'echoes', so long will my accusation of antisemitic racism on your part remain, and be fully justified.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Oct 11 - 02:45 AM

Kevin,

I think the Sinai is a place the Bedouin have always lived. That's a bit like saying the Welsh are exiled to Wales.

The Guardian piece didn't mention anything about them not being allowed to live there or destroying their homes...

If they are already in the most barren and desolate place, it would be nice if they were allowed to go elsewhere.
They are even denied employment in Sinai.
"they do not enjoy full citizenship rights and are treated as second class citizens. They say they are not allowed to join the army, study in police or military colleges, hold key government positions or form their own political parties.

Locked in this arid expanse, the Bedouins claim they have have been left to fend for themselves"

A successful, educated high office holding Israeli Bedouin said"I am a proud Israeli - along with many other non-Jewish Israelis such as Druze, Bahai, Bedouin, Christians and Muslims, who live in one of the most culturally diversified societies and the only true democracy in the Middle East. Like America, Israeli society is far from perfect, but let us deals honestly. By any yardstick you choose -- educational opportunity, economic development, women and gay's rights, freedom of speech and assembly, legislative representation -- Israel's minorities fare far better than any other country in the Middle East"

And no homes have been destroyed.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Oct 11 - 03:24 AM

Sorry Mike - your ranting name-calling defence of Zionist fascism has done it for me, as has your selective double-standard defence of racist statements (you really should have taken a longer spoon to that particular dinner party).
Israel isn't "becoming" anything - it's a done deal and has been going that way since the days of Yehida and Khisas, and giving it your blessing with your "danger of becoming", your silence and your apologist defence makes you part of it
I suggest we all take cold showers and leave this thread to people who can make better use of it than we obviously can.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 18 Oct 11 - 03:42 AM

Motes & beams yet again, Jim. You are the only name-caller: Nazi, Holocaust... I have apologised for or defended nothing ~~ and you know it, with your pathetic evasions and provocations and intentional offensiveness. You disappoint me, I repeat, even more than Israel; which, I say again, really is saying something.

Enjoy the rest of your life. You now join my list of Mudcatters ~~ along with Lox et al ~~ whose posts on any topic I intend never even to read again. Enjoy their company.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 18 Oct 11 - 03:43 AM

... and this thread the list of those I shall not reopen.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Oct 11 - 07:34 AM

Just in case anyone, for the sake of balance, would like to know what Israel's side of the story is.

ILA [Israel Lands Authority] said that residents first "invaded" the area in 1998, were soon evicted, and returned a year later.

The ILA said residents had been asked to rent the land for agricultural purposes for NIS 2 per dunam (0.1 hectare), but "they refused to pay and continued to infiltrate the land year after year."

After an eviction notice was issued in 2003, the residents filed a petition that made its way to the High Court of Justice.

While the petition was being heard, the residents "continued to infiltrate and squat on state-owned land, and in fact expanded their infiltration through constructing illegal and unproved buildings, crudely trampling on the law," the ILA said.

In 2007, the Beersheba Magistrates's Court dismissed residents' request for a delay in implementation of the eviction orders and ruled that residents were "infiltrators repeatedly seizing state land after being evicted."

There are tens of thousands of illegal structures in Beduin communities in the country, and several thousand more are built each year; far more than the number the state manages to demolish. Many of these settlements lack basic services, with residents living "off the grid" and not paying municipal taxes.

In recent years, some of the Bedouin residing in the dispersed areas have started claiming ownership of land areas totaling some 600,000 dunams (60,000 hectares or 230 square miles) in the Negev over 12 times the area of Tel Aviv!

The Israel Land Administration (ILA) is doing everything in its power to resolve the problems of the landless Bedouin in the Negev. Although this matter is exceedingly complex given the large number of claimants (15,000) who represent the clans of the original claimants, investigation of all land ownership claims has been recently expedited… Instead of prosecution, Israel proposes to settle the conflict by offering extremely generous settlements in return for the withdrawal of the Bedouin's ownership claims. By 2006, the ILA's efforts to reach compromise agreements with Bedouin land claimants had resulted in agreements regarding 150,000 dunams out of the 800,000 dunams under dispute.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 18 Oct 11 - 08:01 AM

"""continued to infiltrate and squat on state-owned land,""

Disputed ownership, and arguably the "State" in question should by rights be Palestine.

""Instead of prosecution, Israel proposes to settle the conflict by offering extremely generous settlements in return for the withdrawal of the Bedouin's ownership claims. By 2006, the ILA's efforts to reach compromise agreements with Bedouin land claimants had resulted in agreements regarding 150,000 dunams out of the 800,000 dunams under dispute.""

And then what??.....Do they walk round in circles in the desert till they all die, leaving Israel with more space for colonisation? They can't eat or drink money, and it's not much help where there's nowhere to spend it, is it?

That seems to be exactly what you were decrying in Egypt's behaviour, but if Israel does it, it's alright. Is that what you mean?

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Oct 11 - 08:25 AM

And no homes have been destroyed.

Unfortunately you are mistaken in saying that, Keith. Just try googling "Bedouin homes destroyed"

And here is a video of a recent clearance as "The Israeli Police demolished the Arab Bedouin village of Al-Arakib for the third time in two weeks to clear space for a Jewish National Fund forest. And for the third time, the residents of Al-Arakib rebuilt their destroyed homes alongside Jewish Israeli activists. Al-Arakib is a village in the Negev desert that was born decades before the foundation of Israel. Its residents are Israeli citizens."

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: GUEST,keith A
Date: 18 Oct 11 - 09:42 AM

Israeli Jews are living on the streets in Jerusalem in protest at their inability to find amywhere they can afford to live.

As here, you are not allowed to set up home wherever you want.

The Bedouin want to settle and Israel should assist them.
They are helping.
Read how much they are investing.
Maybe not enough but moreso than Egypt.

Why is Israel alone criticised?

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Oct 11 - 10:20 AM

The rate of growth of the Negev Bedouin is the highest
in the world – the Bedouin population doubles its size every
15 years. By 2020, the Bedouin population of the Negev will
be 300,000.
Israel provides its citizens with high quality public
services in sanitation, health and education, and
municipal services. These services can only be provided
to those living in permanent housing, and the fact that the
Bedouin are dispersed over an extensive area prevents the
state from offering these public services.
Israel is currently building 13 new villages or towns
for the Negev Bedouin. These townships are intended to
meet all the present and future needs of this population.
The government of Israel has allocated more than
NIS1 billion for the benefit of this population. Aside
from building new townships for the Bedouin in the Negev,
the Israeli government plans to invest more than NIS 1 billion
in a multi-phased program to improve the infrastructure of
existing Bedouin towns and to develop their public facilities.
Read more here.
http://www.mmi.gov.il/static/HanhalaPirsumim/Beduin_information.pdf

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Oct 11 - 11:19 AM

See the happy Bedouin of Egypt here.
http://www.bugbog.com/gallery/galleryegypt/egypt-pictures-red-sea.html

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Oct 11 - 11:47 AM

See the happy Bedouins in Israel here
http://www.hrw.org/news/2010/08/18/israel-stop-demolishing-bedouin-homes
Jim Carrol

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Oct 11 - 11:52 AM

Israel BUILDING Bedouin homes!
13 new towns and villages.
But only Israel gets demonized.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Lox
Date: 18 Oct 11 - 11:54 AM

"Why is Israel alone criticised? "

No one is sticking up for egypt - hence - no discussion.

Someone is sticking up for Israel - hence a discussion.





Wise man use brain ... sometimes say something clever.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 18 Oct 11 - 12:26 PM

""Wise man use brain ... sometimes say something clever.""

Doubtful in this case.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Oct 11 - 01:01 PM

Crimes against Bedouins in Israel
07.09.2011
Crimes against Bedouins in Israel. The plight of the Negev Bedouin inside Israel rarely makes the pages of the corporate press, yet the oppression these people suffer at the hands of the Israeli authorities includes racism, intolerance and discrimination more befitting of Nazi Germany than a modern State which claims to be a democracy.
As Moshe Dayan said in 1963 "This phenomenon of the Bedouins will disappear."
Israel's treatment of the Negev Bedouin, Israeli citizens but Arabs, is sickening: 70,000 people live in 45 villages. Their communities do not appear on maps, therefore they do not exist and as such, they have no right to municipal services. No running water, no electricity supply from the national grid, no sewer network, no schooling. Not being recognised as formal communities, they do not have building rights and therefore any shelters which do exist, are bulldozed.
"Supreme Court judge (emeritus) Eliezer Goldberg listened to many voices and together with a small committee put together "the Goldberg Report" in 2008. This report, while using positive rhetoric, such as "the villages must be recognized, as much as possible," also recommended that Bedouins should not receive land beyond route #40, re-establishing the norm that Bedouins, while being citizens, are not really a fully legitimate part of our country... The Bedouin community, which had fully cooperated with the Goldberg committee, was disappointed.
Prime Minister Ehud Ulmert assigned Ehud (Udi) Praver to create a plan implementing the Goldberg Report recommendations. Praver's plan was released a couple of months ago. This plan did not implement the Goldberg Report recommendations, but rather created a completely new plan. In the creation process of this new plan, NO BEDOUINS were consulted. NONE.
Creating a plan for a community, without even thinking of considering their voice, is a strong statement - indicating that Israel still perceives the Bedouin as less than citizens, less than... Beyond this strong statement, it also means that the chance of implementing the plan is really low. The Praver plan includes massive violent enforcement, concentration, no clear statement as to the recognition of villages, use of "divide and rule" tactics, intended to split the community, and no option for the community for negotiations. The end result was to be - reduction of actual use of land by the Bedouin community from 300,000 dunams to no more than 200,000.
Naturally, the leadership in the Bedouin community felt betrayed yet again, and together with organizations such as ACRI and Bimkom expressed their disapproval of this plan. But, evidently, that was not important to Prime Minister Binyamin (Bibi) Netanyahu: his concern was of the criticism from the Right.
It is with sadness, disappointment and a feeling of intense distaste that I write the next steps decided upon by Netanyahu:
Netanyahu gave Yaakov Amidror, the director of the National Security Council (NSC), the mission to "correct" Praver's plan. Yet again, the Bedouin are treated not as citizens, but as a security issue. In addition, Foreign Minister Liberman assigned MK David Rotem, head of the legislature committee in the Knesset, to study the plan, and make sure it is in accordance with their party's line. MK Rotem is demanding that the maximum amount of land allowed to remain in the hands of the Bedouin be no more than 100,000 dunams, and that another 300 police be assigned to enforce the concentration of the Bedouin.
There are 100,000 Bedouin living today in the villages, an agricultural people and young population with a yearly growth of about 5%. The entire land they utilize is 300,000 dunams - used for their homes, their livestock, and their agriculture.
Rotem is demanding that it be reduced to 100,000 dunams. In contrast 50 newly established single family ranches (Jewish) in the Negev have received about 1,000 dunams each from the State. The words of MK Rotem "...concentrate them, there they will till their land", are extremely ironic pending this planned concentration...
MK David Rotem's opinions on Arabs are well known. For example, he presented a law stipulating that Israeli citizenship be conditioned on service in the Israeli army. Now the Bedouin - who have no say in the plans for their future within their own country - have to accept the plans created for them by a person of MK Rotem's persuasions...
I don't believe it is possible, even with the use of massive force: police brutality, bulldozers, arrests, fines, demolitions, and village erasures - to evict the Bedouin from their lands and concentrate them. However, it seems we are about to step into a very dark era in Israeli history, and we are going to see the Bedouin community suffer tremendously before the government will change its ways. Eventually, at some time in history, Israel will realize that its treatment of its Bedouin population must be one of inclusion and dignity. But I am fearful of what will happen until then.
Recognition Now calls out to the Government of Israel to take measures concerning the integration of the Arab-Bedouin community of the Negev into the region based on the principles of partnership, equality, human rights, and a future of prosperity for all the Negev residents."
Lisa Karpova
Pravda.Ru
http://english.pravda.ru/hotspots/crimes/07-09-2011/118978-Crimes_against_Bedouins_in_Israel-0/
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Oct 11 - 03:35 PM

Don and Lox, the subject was raised in an attack on Israel and only Israel, Oh wise ones.
I just wondered why the worse sufferring of Bedouin in Egypt was never mentioned until I brought it up.

Israeli Bedouin have the fastest growing population of any group in the whole world.
Things can not be that terrible in Israel then.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Oct 11 - 03:42 PM

Jim, you compare the Israeli treatment of Bedouin to Nazi Germany.
In Nazi Germany, the population of the persecuted minorities went into catastrophic decline.
Israeli Bedouin have the fastest growing population in the world.
An extremely distasteful comparison, offensive to any survivor of those minority groups.

"Ismail Khaldi is the first Bedouin deputy consul of the State of Israel and the highest ranking Muslim in the Israeli foreign service.[85] Khaldi is a strong advocate of Israel. While acknowledging that the state of Israeli Bedouin minority is not ideal, he said

I am a proud Israeli - along with many other non-Jewish Israelis such as Druze, Bahai, Bedouin, Christians and Muslims, who live in one of the most culturally diversified societies and the only true democracy in the Middle East. Like America, Israeli society is far from perfect, but let us deals honestly. By any yardstick you choose -- educational opportunity, economic development, women and gay's rights, freedom of speech and assembly, legislative representation -- Israel's minorities fare far better than any other country in the Middle East"

I also read that, every year, between 5 and 10% of all Bedouin males reaching the required age VOLUNTEER for the army of Israel.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Mrrzy
Date: 18 Oct 11 - 04:09 PM

OK, MtheGM, that I think makes two of us.

Anyway, I was offline for about a week, and when I saw this thread still live I thought Wow, I opened a successful thread... (emoticon)

So in an effort to go back to the original question, I am happy the Israelis let a bunch of Palesteins out, isn't that a good thing or am I being naive? Again?

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: bobad
Date: 18 Oct 11 - 04:30 PM

Profiles of some of the Palestinian prisoners that were released: Al Jazeera

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Oct 11 - 05:01 PM

Even Jim Carroll thought it wrong to release those mass murderers of ordinary people and children.
But it was also wrong to hold that poor young soldier, who saw his comrades murdered, for any more long years in such cruel conditions and isolation.
Such evil.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Lox
Date: 18 Oct 11 - 07:01 PM

"the subject was raised in an attack on Israel and only Israel"

The subject was raised in a conversation about Israel/Palestine.

It makes sense in a conversation about Israel/Palestine that those involved would discuss stuff happening in ... er ... Israel/Palestine.


The point is made during the conversation (about Israel/Palestine) that there is a political issue between the Israeli Government and Bedouins.


Seems relevant.


You stick up for the Israeli Government by saying "well egypt treats them badly too - maybe worse".

OK

well done.


But this is a conversation (if you remember) about Israel/Palestine and the bedouins there.

So unless you wish to suggest that the egyptian government is responsible for issues surrounding Bedouin in Israel/Palestine then they have no relevance.


Start a thread about egypt.

Call it "Egypt mistreats Bedouin"

See how long it lasts.

Yes they do ... anyone disagree? ,... no? ... didn't think so.


Right then ... hey theres an interesting discussion about Israel/Palestine over here where people have opposing views - hence it hasn't just died ...


Have you managed to engage your brain yet?

I suspect not.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Oct 11 - 01:14 AM

Lox, this issue was raised in the 7th post of this thread, by which time Jordan had been brought in to the discussion by Joe Offer and Egypt by Q.

Even without that, to launch a tirade of hate against some alleged shortcoming of Israel without mentioning that the country next door is actually much worse, seems somewhat driven by prejudice.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Oct 11 - 02:51 AM

Jim, thanks for that massive cut and paste from Pravda, that well known supplier of fair and balanced honest truth!
You are becoming desperate in your search for anti-Israel propaganda.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Lox
Date: 19 Oct 11 - 03:33 AM

So Joe and Q talked about Jordan etc ...

The thread is still about Israel/Palestine (look at the title if you don't believe me.

It is therefore still relevant to talk about the Israeli government.


Saying "Well Joe and Q did it"

is the same red herring reasoning as "well Egypt does it"


All very interesting, but sheds no light on whether Israels policies, much less those on bedouins are appropriate or not.


But what is this unmitigated fantasy ....


You state that to criticize the ISRAELI Government on a thread ABOUT A PLACE CONTROLLED BY THE ISRAELI GOVERNMENT, is prejudiced.

And you state that to not talk about a DIFFERENT GOVERNMENT on a thread about A PLACE THEY DO NOT CONTROL is prejudiced.


I dipped in briefly but will go again as I see no reason to continue having a discussion with such a disingenuous, dishonest and deliiberate distorter of so many aspects of the truth.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Oct 11 - 03:39 AM

Lox no!
Don't leave us without you razor sharp insights to guide us.
How could you tease us with such a tantalisingly short visit where you made such a thread changing contribution?

'Bye then.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Oct 11 - 04:52 AM

"thanks for that massive cut and paste from Pravda,"
Sorry Keith - I forgot your dyslexia problem, which you usually manage to get over by not bothering to read what people write.
"But it was also wrong to hold that poor young soldier...."
Who, of course, wasn't part of a force that carried out chemical attacks on civilians, hospitals and schools, or participated in and facilitated huge massacres of villagers and refugees or evicted Palestinians from their homes, which were then razed to the ground in order to build tourist centres and Israeli settlements or humiliated civilians on a daily basis or built a wall across legally occupied property or removed citizenship from any Palestinian who stayed away fom home too long.....
Don't you ever let anybody accuse you of being biased in your choice of who you support!!!!
"Jim, you compare the Israeli treatment of Bedouin to Nazi Germany."
The article does that "and discrimination more befitting of Nazi Germany than a modern State which claims to be a democracy" - I said that the treatment of Palastinians has echoes of Nazi behaviour - nobody has attempted to suggest it is anything like the scale of the holocaust - of course it isn't - but they're doing their best in spite of overwhelming international condemnation.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Oct 11 - 05:04 AM

"The article does that" and you thought it so appropriate that you posted that bit in big red letters.
(Were you deprived of colouring pencils as a lad Jim?)

Shalit was not "part of a force that carried out chemical attacks on civilians, hospitals and schools, or participated in and facilitated huge massacres of villagers and refugees or evicted Palestinians from their homes,"

There is no evidence for any of those claims.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 19 Oct 11 - 05:49 AM

So I've changed my mind. So sue me


"nobody has attempted to suggest it is anything like the scale of the holocaust" claims Carroll pathetically -

Maybe ~ but Carroll has said, note, that the difference between his 'reverse-holocaust' & the real one is 'only in scope'

From: Jim Carroll - PM
Date: 27 Sep 11 - 08:35 AM
Mike:
"as because it gravely understates the nazi ones."
As I said, only in scope
Jim Carroll
~~~~
And here's another exchange from a couple of days back ~~

"I merly said that there are echoes of the Nazi treatment of the Jews. Surely the proposed forcible ejection of 30-60 thousand people is indication enough that this is the case?".,,.,..,
The Nazis did not 'eject' the Jews by the thousands; they methodically murdered them by the millions in efficiently run organisations specifically designed for the purpose; in the most humiliating & painful possible manner: thrust naked several hundred at the time into small compartments and then choked to death by the fumes of concentrated weedkiller. Have you ever seen what is, to my mind, probably the saddest picture ever published, even more than the piles of emaciated corpses being bulldozed into pits at Belsen - the mountainous pile of children's shoes outside the gas-chamber at Treblinka?
I leave it to others to judge; but I would call your cited enormity a pretty faint & feeble 'echo' myself.


"Only in scope"; "ejection" set up directly as morally equivalent to the too unpleasant to contemplate efficiently methodical murder of 6,000,000 -- I ask you.

And he still denies being antisemitic. Crawling little sewer-rat!

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 19 Oct 11 - 06:22 AM

Saying things are comparable shouldn't the same as saying they are identical. In should mean recognising that they are different, but that the differences and similarities deserve attention - comparing them, in fact.

I agree that the industrialised killing machinery built out by the Nazis should not be used as a standard against which other horrors are measured. It risks suggesting that this was less unspeakable than it was, which should never be done. But it also has the danger that weighing these acts in the same scale, it tends to makes other acts of inhumanity seem relatively minor, and that should never be done either.

The Shoah and the Nabka were very different indeed. But both words mean the same, respectively in Hebrew and Arabic - catastrophe.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Oct 11 - 06:42 AM

"Shalit was not "part of a force that carried out chemical attacks on civilians,"
Schalit is a soldier in the army of a terrorist state; part of the job description of being such is to risk being taken prisoner, wounded or killed.
My sypathies lie with the victims of ongoing Israeli atrocities and persecution in pursuit of territory - and with heroes like the brave prisoner of concience Mordachai Vananu who thought it wise ot expose the fact that this terrorist state had nuclear capability, for which he served 18 years in prison (11 of them in solitary confinement).
"Crawling little sewer-rat!"
Somehow I take great comfort from this when it comes from a racist who supports racism when it is aimed at Pakistanis, but crawls behind an "anti-Semitism" shield when a Zionist fascist state comes under criticism.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 19 Oct 11 - 07:16 AM

Fine ~~ nice to think of you comfortable in your glass house...

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Oct 11 - 08:34 AM

"Saying things are comparable shouldn't the same as saying they are identical. "
Thank you, McGrath, of course it isn't, and it is disingenously agenda-serving and defensive of anybody to claim it is.
"There is no evidence for any of those claims"
Which claims are they? The numerous massacres, persecution and atrocities are a matter of record and have been officially examined, documented and protested against by independent observers - including the United Nations. They are now a matter of history.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Oct 11 - 08:38 AM

No chemical weapons at all.
No massacres at all.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 19 Oct 11 - 09:18 AM

"In an apparent about-face, US officials criticized Tuesday evening the deal brokered for the freedom of Gilad Shalit, which set hundreds of terrorists, including those who had murdered Americans, free.

The criticism came after it became clear that the released terrorists included those who had murdered Jews with United States citizenship.

Earlier on Tuesday, US President Barak Obama had said he was pleased with the deal that set Shalit free despite his own nation's strict policy of not negotiating with terrorists for the release of its citizens.

Obama also expressed the hope Israel and officials in Ramallah would take the steps necessary to return to the negotiating table.

Previously, US secretary of state Hillary Clinton also praised Israel for negotiating with terrorists to secure Shalit's release.

French President Sarkozy welcomed the release of Gilad Shalit, saying France had breathed a sigh of relief. Visiting the port city of Nice, Sarkozy's opined Shalit's French citizenship helped keep him alive. He added that Gilad will visit France soon.

Britain's foreign secretary William Hague also welcomed the release of Gilad Shalit, and like Obama, added he hoped the terrorists-for-Shalit deal would provide positive momentum allowing the resumption of peace talks.

It is unclear why the Shalit deal would provide any such momentum. Israel's deal to release 1,027 security prisoners, some 450 convicted on terrorism charges, for Shalit was made with the Hamas terror organization in Gaza and not Palestinian Authority officials in Ramallah. Hamas encouraged those who were released to go back to terrorist acts.

Hamas had vowed never to negotiate with Israel."

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Oct 11 - 11:01 AM

"No chemical weapons at all. No massacres at all. "
Thank you for a perfect and timely echo of holocaust denial in reverse.
http://www.soundofegypt.com/palestinian/adult/massacres.htm
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Oct 11 - 11:09 AM

Or if you want an updated American version
http://www.revisionisthistory.org/palestine52.html
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 19 Oct 11 - 12:41 PM

···Jim Carroll - PM
Date: 28 Sep 11 - 03:54 AM
Mike,The logic of your suggestion is that we cannot criticise any ethnic group for fear it will be used by racists···.
,..,.,,.
Nobody, so far as I can see, has asked JC why this argument cannot be used right back at him, to ask why it is in that case 'racist' to criticise a particular group of Pakistani men who, it is not denied, methodically sexually exploited young women on specified occasions in specified locations in the North & Midlands, speculatively as a result of the inhibiting effects of their demographic's mandatory marriage customs, ~~ a point he has reiterated obsessively & irrelevantly on this and other threads to the extent that one begins to question his - er, um ah - mental stability.

Still comfortable in your glass house on de banks of denial, Mr Obvious Antisemite?

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 19 Oct 11 - 12:47 PM

... because, patently, he has nothing whatever else to go on

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 19 Oct 11 - 12:56 PM

& the 'speculation' I referred to in mine of 1241 coming from leading and respected members of their own community, plus a leading British parliamentarian.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 19 Oct 11 - 01:01 PM

& before he comes back yet again with what he sees as their attempted disclaimers about 'warning us not to interpret their comments as racially based', or whatever it was ~~ they were commenting pundits, not God Almighty, and had absolutely no authority or warrant to instruct anyone as to what interpretation he/she was entitled to put on their published statements.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Mrrzy
Date: 19 Oct 11 - 02:36 PM

So, um, am I naive to think the exchange was a good thing, or not?

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 19 Oct 11 - 03:44 PM

---Our views often harmonize, and we can keep our tone civil when differences of opinion become discordant.---

said Mrrzy in OP, which I checked back on in considering the question in his last post.

It would have been nice indeed; but fat chance when one persistent poster, as he has done in several threads before, hijacks this one in pursuit of an irrational personal vendetta he has been obsessively pursuing with another of our number. Carroll should be ashamed of himself; but I don't expect for a second that he is.

As to whether the exchange will turn out to be a good thing: depends on whether the Palestinian authorities can contrive to control the "destroying Israel is the priority" element in their midst, among those released and among their populace at large; which they have shown scant ability to do up to now.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 19 Oct 11 - 05:12 PM

"""The article does that" and you thought it so appropriate that you posted that bit in big red letters.""

You crack me up Keith, you really do. You spend four months claiming that what you post is not your opinion but that of others who know what they are talking about, then turn around and deny any who disagree with you the right to do exactly the same.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 19 Oct 11 - 05:20 PM

""why it is in that case 'racist' to criticise a particular group of Pakistani men who, it is not denied, methodically sexually exploited young women on specified occasions in specified locations in the North & Midlands, speculatively as a result of the inhibiting effects of their demographic's mandatory marriage customs,""

Sorry Mike, but that dog will only hunt if you can show that your speculation is true not only for the rest of that ethnic community, but also for other ethnic communities with the same marriage rules, of which there are several.

And nothing that Keith has produced comes close to fulfilling that requirement.

For that reason Jim has a point. Keith has double standards on a number of issues.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 19 Oct 11 - 06:08 PM

WHY, Don? Genuinely do not follow your logic.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 19 Oct 11 - 06:17 PM

And what's with 'my' speculation? Not 'mine' at all, but that of Alibhai-Brown, Straw,and two Pakistani community leaders & spokesmen. Nothing like attributing opinions to people which they haven't expressed & then making a big deal of ir. Carroll a master of that ploy ~~

& the insidious and invidious use of phrases designed to wind up Jews: phrases of baleful, distressing, offensive associations and connotations to them all ~~ "Nazi echoes, holocaust in reverse" ~~ not once but again & again & again; with the obvious intent of offending and distressing Jews who read it: he has been told time & again of the offensive connotations, but goes on unashamedly insulting & distressing them with these locutions.

If that is not the action of a deliberate and intentional antisemite, what is?

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Mrrzy
Date: 19 Oct 11 - 06:29 PM

Man, it's difficult to unhijack a thread!

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Oct 11 - 07:39 PM

Jim, chemical weapons.
Everyone here now knows that wp smoke rounds, though dangerous, are not as dangerous as actual weapons, and wp is not classed as a chemical weapon in any form.
You calling it that is just lying propaganda to demonize Israel.
If you had a case you would not need to make that up.

The 2 massacres.
The Israelis should have anticipated what happened, and maybe could have stopped it sooner.
They deny participation.
You had to delete stuff from a Wiki page because it showed that there was nothing to support that claim.
Your action shows you have nothing.
You said their were "independent enquiries" and "official enquiries" that support you, but you made it all up.
A week later you have produced nothing.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Oct 11 - 07:45 PM

Don, does Jim claim that he has been persuaded by Pravda because it has impeccable credentials and its knowledge is beyond question?

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Oct 11 - 07:52 PM

Sorry.

Don, does Jim claim that he has been persuaded by Pravda, but only because it has impeccable credentials and its knowledge is beyond question?

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Oct 11 - 03:39 AM

"Don, does Jim claim that he has been persuaded by Pravda,"
No he doesn't - he has been persuaded by all the evidence of all the massacres since the establishment of the State of Israel, even before the clearence of the Palestinian villages as the British troops left - I suggest anybody with any doubt googles Israeli atrocities - national newspapers, Channel 4 news, BBC reports, photographs, films inteviews with both Israelis and Palastinians - all inhumanity is there.
Comments from a UN special advisor to be going on with:
http://www.prisonplanet.com/israel-accused-of-massive-war-crime-atrocities.html
You really are shitty pair of atrocity apologists and racists - wonder which of you is going to have the honour of changing your name to David Irving.
Israel's terrorism is now a matter of history, it's published and it's filmed, it has been investigated by officially set up committees - it is on record.
Keith seems to have decided that the safest way is to go is to concentrate on two issues - chemical weapons and the Shatila/Sabra massacres - again a matter of history.
"& before he comes back yet again with what he sees as their attempted disclaimers about 'warning us not to interpret their comments as racially based'"
If you have any evidence of my attacking anything other than Israeli policy, please produce it.
Rings a bit hollow from somebody who has defended as non racist the writing off of the entire male population of a whole cultural group as cultural perverts - the only "evidence" offered being the opinions of a handful of politicicians, none of whom have made anything near the "cultural implant" claim that has been disowned, denied and blamed on others by its real creator.
"Not 'mine' at all, but that of Alibhai-Brown, Straw,and two Pakistani community leaders & spokesmen."
Seems that you're further down Keith's road than was at first apparent - one more teetering step and you'll be right out of the closet.
Have a good day - I'm off to the clean wholesome air of the funeral of a great man.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Oct 11 - 04:19 AM

concentrate on two issues - chemical weapons and the Shatila/Sabra massacres

Only because you kept bringing them up.
But you produce nothing to back up your claims.
Chemical weapons-factually wrong.
The massacres-disputed with no proof of guilt.

writing off of the entire male population of a whole cultural group as cultural perverts (LIE)

The 5 stated it came from culture, I did not.
Who is exposed to that culture?

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 20 Oct 11 - 05:26 AM

Haven't noticed a lot of support for you on the thread of late, though, have we, JC? ~~ I expect that will be because you have come out, & made the explicit antisemitism of your position so manifest to all, that your few erstwhile supporters are now embarrassed to be associated with you, old Mr Antisemitic Piggibigjobz.......

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Oct 11 - 05:33 AM

"Haven't noticed a lot of support for you on the thread of late, though, have we, JC? "
I haven't seen one single qualification of your spineless accusations - which will do me nicely thank you
I have invited you to produce one example of my critising anything other than Israeli policy and like 'Bear with little Brain's' mysterious "cultural pervert" claiment - nothing.
Please - both of you - feel free to produce something (anti- Semitism and/or "cultural implant" should you find it.   
Now you really are reduced to invective!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 20 Oct 11 - 06:00 AM

Oh, "invective", is it? Bit rich coming from the one with the constant, intentionally offensive, let's·wind·the·yids·up rants: the nonstop never·ending litany of Nazi & Holocaust. Beneath contempt, Carroll ~~ that's where you have opted to take your station.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 20 Oct 11 - 06:36 AM

Here you are ~ answer to your question, in the form that I put it to Don a few posts back:

"the insidious and invidious use of phrases designed to wind up Jews: phrases of baleful, distressing, offensive associations and connotations to them all ~~ "Nazi echoes, holocaust in reverse" ~~ not once but again & again & again; with the obvious intent of offending and distressing Jews who read it: he has been told time & again of the offensive connotations, but goes on unashamedly insulting & distressing them with these locutions.
If that is not the action of a deliberate and intentional antisemite, what is?"

You know these are offensive terms to Jews, whatever their context. You have climbed down from the pathetic "only a matter of scale" to the highly questionable claim that "nobody has attempted to suggest it is anything like the scale of the holocaust"; but you have persisted in using the terms, knowing their offensive nature, with no sort of apology or attempt to moderate them.

I repeat ~~

If that is not the action of a deliberate and intentional antisemite, what is?

Now, forget your accusations of "invective" and of my "hiding behind pleas of antisemitism" and the rest of it; and let us have an answer as to why it is not antisemitic to rant on in these terms as you have been doing.

And others reading this: I implied a challenge a few posts back. Let me put it explicitly ~~

If you think I am unjustified in accusing Carroll of manifesting antisemitism in his persistent use of these terms, clearly of offensive and distressing association to Jews, on a thread which will obviously be of interest to Jewish Catters ~~ do please say so. Let's hear it for Jim, the oh-so-objective non-antisemite who wouldn't dream of expressing any opinion but one in opposition to Israeli policy.

Come on. Let's be having you ~~ who wants to be associated with the terms in which Jim has chosen to express his views?

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Oct 11 - 06:39 AM

mysterious "cultural pervert" claiment

No mystery.
It came from the 5.
"cultural implant" was the term Don invented to describe their view.
Not a phrase I would have chosen, but I went along with it.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: GUEST,Confused of Dagenham
Date: 20 Oct 11 - 06:39 AM

I have always understood that there is a difference between anti-semitism and opposition to some of the more extreme actions of the Israeli state.

Adopting a line on eg Israeli killing of innocent Palestinians does not automatically make one ati-semitic. Or am I missing something, MtheGM?

And what is with this "invective" accusation? I read your post as being a base attack on Jim Carroll. Nothing more, nothing less.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: GUEST,Don Wise
Date: 20 Oct 11 - 06:45 AM

This thread has drifted so far off topic that it has degenerated into a pointless, 3 person, slanging match.

I suggest the mod(s) go for a mercy killing NOW.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 20 Oct 11 - 06:57 AM

What you are missing, Confused Of Dagenham, is the deliberate offensiveness of the choice of vocabulary in which Mr Carroll insists on denouncing Israel ~~ a never-ending litany of terms like Nazi & Holocaust, of particularly distressing and offensive associations to Jews. It has been suggested that he find other terms to express his opposition to Israel, but he has declined to do so; which suggests that his purpose is to be offensive to Jews; which I cannot envisage as the sort of course that would be deliberately pursued by anyone who was not a hater of Jews in general ~~ an antisemite, in short.

Hope that answers your point.

~Michael~

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: bobad
Date: 20 Oct 11 - 07:40 AM

I am not Jewish, but as I am a person of Eastern European extraction whose family suffered greatly at the hands of the Nazis, I too find Mr. Carroll's use of the tems "Nazi" and "holocaust", in regards to the state of Israel, to be both odious and offensive. I expressed my opinion on this early on in this thread:

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: bobad - PM
Date: 22 Sep 11 - 04:29 PM

Comparing Israel's actions to that of Nazis is despicable anti-semitism.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 20 Oct 11 - 10:46 AM

Taking a look to see what is up with this thread.

There are no innocent parties at this point in the conflict between Israel and her Palestinian and other Arab neighbors. She is a bad neighbor in many ways because she has a big friend - the US - that until now has been letting her get away with bad behavior. This observation has nothing to do with being anti-Semitic - it has to do with Israel's uncanny political ability to booby-trap peace negotiations by lobbing one last well-timed missile or sending in a militant group of villagers to build another "settlement" in a sensitive area every time it looks like peace might break out.

Throwing around the term "Holocaust" simply reminds me once again that the term that used to imply a natural disaster event has been appropriated to mean only the WWII-era Nazi murder of millions of Jewish and minority non-Aryan Europeans. That kind of semantic shift happens. And while at one time "Nazi" meant just one thing, nowadays that word has gained a lower-case "n" use - if someone is too anal about some interest or subject they are sometimes referred to as a Whatever-nazi.

Comparing Israel's actions to that of WWII German Nazi's is unfortunate and inaccurate, but if you remember the saying "children learn what they live," while I don't begin to believe there are death camps or such activities, earlier generations of Israelis learned about ghettos and refugee camps. They and modern generations continue to visit these habitations upon the Palestinians who are second-class citizens in their homeland.

Now that I've made my remarks I'll go away again for another 500 posts.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Oct 11 - 12:20 PM

Smoke and mirrors Mike - if I had put forward my view as like-with- like you might have a point - I didn't and you haven't.
Other than that, everything - like Keith's 'cultural implant' remains entirely in your vicious (and apparently extremely defensive) imagination.
Keith's ongoing defence by denial is little different to those who would explain away, the holocaust. The numbers are certainly incomparable but the continuing denial of the part played by the Israelis in a massacre that took the lives of up to 3,500 refugees is to excuse a major crime against humanity. By claiming it is any less of an atrocity by counting the dead, or to attempt to lessen the blame by reducing the guilt of the war criminals to "a failure to stop it from happening" is to take a similar line to those who would deny the holocaust - it is to absolve war criminals from their crime (in the case of Sabra and Shatila, up to 3,500).
Keith chooses to support his denial by undermining the journal I put up, choosing (wisely from his point of view) to ignore the many other reports which give the massacres as "Israeli facilitated" (isn't that what they all do) and in some case participated in. Not holocaust standards, but the denial of these and the many other killings is certainly reminiscent of David Irvine and his intellectual thugs.
At first I naively suspected that your blessing for Keith's openly racist statement, (which we have now apparently established was his own twisted summing up of Pakistani culture = racism plus lying) was an attempt to help a very lame dog over a very high stile - until your own breathtakingly stupid display of racism suggesting that it was ok to express racist stereotypes about Pakistanis, but not Jews - hypocrisy at best, but to my mind, just plain old-fashioned racism garnished with double standards.
As far as my having received no support on this thread; I think none of us can claim that - Don Wise has lived up to his name - we have all pretty well disgraced ourselves in taking a serious thread and turning it into a slanging match fiasco - shame on us all.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Oct 11 - 01:26 PM

Jim, you can not, and have not denied that the cultural explanation came from the 5 and not from me.
Why repeat the obvious lie Jim?
How does it make you look?
(Deranged actually Jim.)

I know nothing of the culture, except what I have learned from the 5.
IT COULD NOT HAVE COME FROM ME.
IT IS THAT SIMPLE YOU FOOL.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Oct 11 - 01:45 PM

"you can not, and have not denied that the cultural explanation came from the 5 and not from me."
Keith the statement that "all male Pakistanis" carried "a cultural implant" was put to you by Don - you endorsed it as "my opinion" - it is your opinion.
If you continue to claim that anybody else has said it, the solution is simple , put up the quote if not, please go **** yourself.
I suggest that it is deranged to continue denying something that as in print and has been put up interminably. Who else, other than you, has said that "All male Pakistanis have a cultural implant...."?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 20 Oct 11 - 01:47 PM

···As far as my having received no support on this thread; I think none of us can claim that····
..,,..
Oh, do you? I explicitly solicited support for you. Only response was following from Bobad

From: bobad - PM
Date: 20 Oct 11 - 07:40 AM

I am not Jewish, but as I am a person of Eastern European extraction whose family suffered greatly at the hands of the Nazis, I too find Mr. Carroll's use of the tems "Nazi" and "holocaust", in regards to the state of Israel, to be both odious and offensive. I expressed my opinion on this early on in this thread:

~~Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: bobad - PM
Date: 22 Sep 11 - 04:29 PM

Comparing Israel's actions to that of Nazis is despicable anti-semitism~~.

I think Keith has it about right: if you are not a liar, then you have an uncanny knack of closing your eyes to the truth.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Oct 11 - 02:41 PM

Keith the statement that "all male Pakistanis" carried "a cultural implant" was put to you by Don - you endorsed it as "my opinion" - it is your opinion.

NO IT IS NOT.
I SAID I BELIEVED IT, NOT THAT IT WAS MY OPINION.
You believe a doctor's diagnosis, but it is HIS opinion not yours.
If you go to another doc. it is a SECOND opinion, not a third!

And I said that I believed it, "but only because of the testimony of all those knowledgeable people, and always acknowledging that only a tiny minority succumb."

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 20 Oct 11 - 02:48 PM

""WHY, Don? Genuinely do not follow your logic.""

Simply this.

If you wish to assert that the marriage customs are responsible for the actions, you need to show that those actions are committed throughout the culture, and in other cultures which share those customs.

So basing your ""speculatively as a result of the inhibiting effects of their demographic's mandatory marriage customs,"" on such a small and unrepresentative number of members of that culture, just won't wash.

Now, I believe the topic is Palestine, if you two can let up on the "let's flame JC".

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Oct 11 - 03:02 PM

If you wish to assert that the marriage customs are responsible for the actions, you need to show that those actions are committed throughout the culture, and in other cultures which share those customs.

That is a message for those who made that assertion, who included famously ant-racist Pakistani people who have spent a lifetime defending their community from racism and bigotry, not for us who are just persuaded by their wise, informed counsel.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Oct 11 - 03:23 PM

"but only because of the testimony of all those knowledgeable people"
It is not an excuse for putting up such a racist statement, but just for curiosity, which "knowledgeable people" and which of them mentioned "cultural implants and the entire Pakistani population.
You have persistantly avoided answering this so if you continue to do so I will leave you with what is an extremely racist statement, for which, as far as I can see, you have only one supporter.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 20 Oct 11 - 04:07 PM

If that 'one supporter' is supposed to be me, JC, then I neither support nor oppose it as a statement; my position is simply that you persistently deny Keith a fair hearing because of a personal vendetta you are obsessed by, based on remarks you allege him to have made on other threads which have long since vanished into the ewigkeit. As to the rights & wrongs of his adoption of the views of those other pundits, I make no comment* ~ except that he is as entitled to believe them as you are to disbelieve them: provided that you do it with enough integrity to avoid the sort of paltering with the truth which I demonstrated you to have been indulging in, re Bobad's post, a few posts back.

~M~

*Don T please note also.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Oct 11 - 04:31 PM

If you didn't say you saw no racism in what Keith said (will check later) I apologise unconditionally
Make no apologes for targeting outrageous racist statements - put it down to a poor upbringing!
Are you really suggesting racism should be given a fair hearing - whatever happened to the anti-Semite sewer rat??
Sorry missed Bobad's comments - he is entitled to his opinion as I am entitled to disagree with them; I'm happy to stand by my own opinions and take responsibility for them without seeking support from you, Bobad or anybody - would that we all did the same.
Jiim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 20 Oct 11 - 05:22 PM

It depends on what you define as "racism", Jim. My point is that I can't see that Keith's accepting the word of people more acquainted with the demographic in question than he himself admitted to being made him a racist; accusing him as being so in such circumstances strikes me as mere messenger-shooting. And I am afraid that I do regard your persistent use of terms aimed offensively at Jews, and declining to desist even after their offensiveness & inevitable hurtfulness, as reminders of the lowest point in modern European history in which they were the principal victims, in such a way as to detract from & belittle the horrors and enormities of the persecutions undergone, was pointed out by Bobad, me and others, can only be construed as antisemitic ~ how else would you designate such persistent belligerent indulgence in behaviour and rhetoric which is bound, and apparently intended, to cause offence to that particular demographic?

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Mrrzy
Date: 20 Oct 11 - 05:40 PM

Um, if you believe something, then it becomes your opinion too. If it never becomes your opinion, then you haven't believed it. N'est-ce pas?

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Oct 11 - 07:20 PM

Mrrzy, the weather forecast is prepared by meteorological experts and is made with data and evidence that is not available to me, and would be meaningless if it was.
I believe it because of that, but the opinion is their's.
I might bring it into conversation if relevant, but I am not endorsing it, promoting it or advocating it.
It is the opinion of experts made available to me.
I have no reason not to believe it, BUT IT IS NOT MY OPINION.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Oct 11 - 07:27 PM

just for curiosity, which "knowledgeable people" and which of them mentioned "cultural implants"

They were Straw, Cryer, Saffiq, Ahmed and Allibhai-Brown.
They separately blamed the offending on aspects of culture.
Because they did it separately, they expressed it differently.

Don T summed it up as a "cultural implant."
Was he wrong to do that?
Had he misunderstood them, in your opinion Jim.
(Careful Jim. He is the only one still supporting your crazed campaign.)
I would not have used those words but took it on for the sake of furthering the discussion.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Oct 11 - 03:30 AM

It is estimated that at least 55% of British Pakistanis are married to first cousins and the tradition is also common among some other South Asian communities and in some Middle Eastern countries.

British Pakistanis are 13 times more likely to have children with genetic disorders than the general population - they account for just over 3% of all births but have just under a third of all British children with such illnesses.

Indeed, Birmingham Primary Care Trust estimates that one in ten of all children born to first cousins in the city either dies in infancy or goes on to develop serious disability as a result of a recessive genetic disorder.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/4442010.stm

Their culture predisposes BP children to genetic disease.
Is it racist to say that?

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Oct 11 - 03:34 AM

That was not my opinion BTW.
How would I know about things like that.
I believe it though, because I trust BBC to have done their research.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: GUEST,livelylass
Date: 21 Oct 11 - 05:12 AM

I was wondering if the mods could ban discussion of 'that other thread' here. Accusations of either anti-muslim racism or anti-semitism, are I believe of no genuine value to the discussion of the Israeli-Palestine issue as it is currently unfolding.

I am honestly interested in contributing to and reading contributions to the topic of the thread, a heartfelt "please" to those who are engaging in personal disputes (however strongly felt), to engage in such elsewhere.

I personally believe that this period in the middle-east is of great significance to us all, and humbly and politely request that other participants recognise and respect that.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Oct 11 - 05:24 AM

I did not want this livelylass.
Jim Carroll keeps bringing it up, and making slanderous accusations against me that I feel I have to refute.
I do not know why he is allowed to do it.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Oct 11 - 07:12 AM

livelylass
As far as I'm concerned I have said what I have to say on this matter, I see nothing to change my mind and stand by all I have said
As far as I'm concerned - it is finished here and I apologise that it has interrupted this thread
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 21 Oct 11 - 07:17 AM

What, Jim? ~ without answering the question I put you at the end of my post of 20 Oct 0522 pm, or explaining or departing at all from the usages & locutions which occasioned it? You do realise the position that appears to leave you in?

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Oct 11 - 07:26 AM

Some interruption Jim!
This thread is one month old.
You raised the spurious issue of British Pakistanis when it was only 26 hours old.
Sorry does not really cover it.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Oct 11 - 10:27 AM

"What, Jim? ~ without answering the question I put you at the end of my post of 20 Oct 05;22 pm,"
Do you really want to continue nausing up this thread Mike - why not start one on the twin arts racism and hypocracy.
Leave it
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 21 Oct 11 - 10:38 AM

OK. If that's what you want. Stay comfortable in your glass house & I hope it keeps fine for you.

Ta-ra.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 21 Oct 11 - 10:39 AM

""I believe it though, because I trust BBC to have done their research.""

While castigating Jim, and implying that Pravda, with no axe to grind, are spouting a pack of lies.

Is there just a tinge of "racial superiority" there?

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 21 Oct 11 - 10:52 AM

I never thought I'd say this, but I have to agree with Bruce.

This deal with Hamas is not likely to bring any more serious attempt at achieving peace than we have seen in the past.

I think that the only way to keep the peace on that border is to have a force wearing blue berets along the line, with guns pointing in both directions.

The IDF will never establish anything other than more Palestinian corpses, and Hamas hasn't the sense to see that firing unaimed rockets, most of which just dig holes and scare cattle, is a ludicrous waste of time and energy.

Given that neither Israel nor Palestine is going to go away anytime soon, they need to decide what the border is now, and Israel needs to try something new and stay on its own side of the line.

Whenever peace talks look like getting anywhere, one side or the other chucks a spanner into the works.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: GUEST
Date: 21 Oct 11 - 11:05 AM

"Whenever peace talks look like getting anywhere, one side or the other chucks a spanner into the works."

someone's always doing it, it's like peace is not wanted in the mid east (or anywhere else come to that). The one "side" that's doing very well out of sll this is, of course, the arms dealers.

P.S. speaking of spanners in the works, I see Jim The Red has been doing his share.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Oct 11 - 11:08 AM

implying that Pravda, with no axe to grind,...

Are YOU implying that Pravda has a reputation for honest, independent, objective reporting Don?

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 21 Oct 11 - 12:01 PM

I'm not feeding your ego any more by following your "off Topic" bait, so talk about Palestine and I'll respond.

The other subject?... start a thread, and I'll tell you there.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Oct 11 - 12:16 PM

It was not off topic Don.
That was about how Israel was being reported in Pravda, remember?
Why are you always so hostile?
"Racial superiority"??
Where did that come from?

I am off line for a week or so.
Catch up with you then.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Oct 11 - 01:40 PM

The reports of massacres of civilians by Israel are covered by many sources, including the BBC and Channel Four news, Panorama......
The earliest comprehensive on-the-spot report that fully implicated Israel in the Shatila and Sabra massacres, along with horrific photographs, was carried by the The Sunday Times, colour supplement (think I still have a copy on file).
The list of continued massacres of civilians dating back sixty odd years, fully reported, verified, and in many cases, officially enquired into by independent bodies, including the U.N., make Israel unquestionably a terrorist state.
If Palestine is not fit for Statehood because of Hamas's (undisputed) terrorism, then neither is Israel.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 21 Oct 11 - 02:32 PM

Suggesting that there have been no massacres carried out by Israeli military personnel over the years is as absurd as claiming that there have been no massacres out by Palestinians. It's a nigfhmare,

This list includes both List of massacres in Israel

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Mrrzy
Date: 21 Oct 11 - 05:09 PM

Come on, people, the Semites have been slaughtering each other for millennia, and white folks have been slaughtering everybody for centuries, so let's go back to the thread.

What about Libya falling? Help, or hindrance, to the Palesteins getting a state?

(I've also decided in fairness to start calling misspelling Israeallah, too.)

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Stringsinger
Date: 21 Oct 11 - 08:34 PM

The U.S. is incapable of being an honest broker in the peace deal. It should be another
country, perhaps Brazil or one that doesn't have a vested political interest.

White phosphorous is a chemical weapon and was used as such. To say otherwise
makes no sense and is risible. The same people who said that it wasn't probably were the same who maintained that the U.S. doesn't torture.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 22 Oct 11 - 12:57 AM

"The list of continued massacres of civilians dating back sixty odd years, fully reported, verified, and in many cases, officially enquired into by independent bodies, including the U.N., make Israel unquestionably a terrorist state.
If Palestine is not fit for Statehood because of Hamas's (undisputed) terrorism, then neither is Israel.
Jim Carroll"
.,,.
Brilliant leap of logic in that last sentence, absolutely typical of Antisemite-James. On that basis, I should love to hear of any state in the modern world with nothing in its history that would disqualify it for "Statehood" ~~ USA/Redskins; Australia/Aborigines; Belgium/Congo; UK/sub-Saharan Africa [which, otoh, is observably so much nicer an area since we withdrew!]/Amritsar (cont p 94). The UN General Assembly is going to look a bit desolate and forsaken.

For heaven's sake drop it, Jim. Is there no limit you will not overstep to demonstrate that you are not just racist, but also profoundly bloody STUPID! Get back in your glass house and commune with yourself and revolve your racist sentiments in your own mind not on this forum, you were better.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 22 Oct 11 - 02:26 AM

... and as for the now probably European leaders, Germany!

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Oct 11 - 04:29 AM

"Antisemite-James"
Getting a little sick of this
A brief clarification of my Anti Semitism.
I was brought up as part of an anti-Fascist family.
My uncles, aunts and grandparents were part of the Anti-Mosely demonstrators who went out and fought the good old 'guardian's of the law' who were staunchly defending that peer of the realm's "right to free speech" to the extent that at least two of my relatives ended up in prison for their 'crimes'.
My father was so disturbed at what was happening in Nazi Germany that he went to Spain (as a then practicing Catholic) to fight Fascism, where he was wounded and taken prisoner. I found out earlier this year that one of the regular events that he was treated to was a mock firing squad where he and several of his fellow prisoners were taken into a yard, stood up against a wall and prepared to be shot - this happened at least a dozen times during his stay.
He returned to good old "anti-Facist Britain" where the government were girding their loins to "fight the Hun" (the same government who came back from Munich waving "Peace in our time" declarations, and some of whose MPs, when the facts filtered through about Auschwitz, dismissed them as "the lies of wingeing Yids" - denied by your acolyte Keithie btw)
My father found that not only had he been excommunicated from his religion in his absence (not important by then), but he had also been awarded the honour of a police record as a "premature anti-Fascist"
When he tried to return to his work he found that, thanks to a visit to potential employers by the authorities, he had been placed on a blacklist as 'suspect'.
Eventually he had no other alternative to join McAlpines men and work away from home, the result being that my sister and I hardly saw him until I was nearly at the end of my schooling.
When he died in the mid-sixties a number of his old friends, and comrades, including several Jewish ex International Brigaders, came to his funeral and regaled us with their exploits of fighting Mosely and his fascists and Franco in Spain.
My sisters and I were brought up to respect people of different races, religions and cultures, to enjoy their company and to speak out when we found them under attack from bigots and racists.   
As a youth I was quite often embarrased by my father's outspokeness; nowadays hardly a day passes when I don't think of him with pride.
So when a squalid like you vomits his "anti-Semite" and "Jew-baiter" alternative for argument, I tend to welcome them as confirmation of my opinions, sort of like how my faher wore his "premature anti-fascism as a badge of honour.
So you may take your miserably cowardly alternatives for discussion, your racist double-standards, your support for blatently racist stereotyping, and your 'support by silence and 'apologism' for Zionist fascism and shove them as far from the daylight as you possibly can.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 22 Oct 11 - 04:55 AM

Well, wouldn't your father have been proud of what you have come to, then!

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 Oct 11 - 05:49 AM

Basically from what I've read here, Jim Carroll and MtheGM seem to have roughly the same view of current Israeli policies and practice.

It's just that the latter objects to the rhetoric the former uses, and interprets that as being anti-semitic. Quite falsely it appears.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 22 Oct 11 - 06:15 AM

Wherein this 'falseness' of apprehension, pray? His objections appear to be, not just to the current policies, in which, as you say I agree with him, but to the very existence of the State of Israel from the word 'go'. He appears to wish Israel had never been suffered to come into existence; belittles the difficulties it encountered then, attacked literally on all sides by overwhelming numbers of hostile enemies, against whom he appears to think it should not have defended itself; and accuses it of bad faith in the way that defence was conducted: and would, it appears, agree with the present determination expressed by so many of the neighbouring states to this day, that its total destruction is highly desirable.

In support of these opinions, he employs rhetoric explicitly designed and intended [he has never denied this, note ~~ I say again how proud his father would have been if he could see & hear how he goes on now!] to offend Jews and belittle the sufferings they underwent during what was probably the most appalling sequence of events to have occurred in, let us say, the past two or three centuries; with his litany of 'Nazi echoes' and 'Holocaust in reverse' & all the rest of it. It is a sort of fringe Holocaust-denial in which he is indulging. (Are you just listening to your son on the Other Side, Mr Carroll Snr!?). And you find falsehood, do you, in my perception of all this as antisemitic?

If this syndrome of opinions, wishes and expressions is not antisemitic, just tell me what you think would be so, please, Kevin.

~Michael~

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 Oct 11 - 06:40 AM

There is actually nothing anti-semitic in wishing that the history of anti-semitism in Europe, culminating in the Holocaust had not happened, and that's its consequence in the setting up of the state of Israel, with its devastating effects on the lives of the inhabitants of the area, had never come about.

We have to live with the history that happened, make the most of it, and try to repair the damage. Ultimately good things can come as a result of terrible crimes. The Slave Trade and the Irish Famine had some wonderful consequences. Present day America, and the world, would be very much culturally poorer if they had not.

But they were disasters for all that. And of course we can never know what the world lost because they happened.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 22 Oct 11 - 06:42 AM

Very good answer, Kevin ~~ but to what question[s]? ~ certainly not to any of those that I asked.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 22 Oct 11 - 07:08 AM

""He appears to wish Israel had never been suffered to come into existence; belittles the difficulties it encountered then, attacked literally on all sides by overwhelming numbers of hostile enemies, against whom he appears to think it should not have defended itself; and accuses it of bad faith in the way that defence was conducted: and would, it appears, agree with the present determination expressed by so many of the neighbouring states to this day, that its total destruction is highly desirable.""

Nowhere that I can find, has Jim said that Israel has no right to exist, or to defend itself against aggression.

He has said that their over the top responses in Gaza are terrorism pure and simple and he is right. They need to moderate their position, and so do you.

You and Keith, having conducted olympic standard whingeing sessions about poor Keith being bullied by the rest on other threads, have decided to devote your energies to hijacking this thread in one of the most protracted and concentrated bullying attacks on another member it has been my misfortune to witness.

I'm not quite sure why the moderators have allowed it to continue thus far, but it is a deplorable, mean spirited action and completely unjustifiable action on your part which should meet with censure.

You try most of the time to come across as the epitome of reasonable, polite humanity, but in the last few days you have revealed the real personality behind the act, and it's not a pretty sight.

Your hectoring, name calling and plain bad manners transcend anything that has been levelled at you in the past, and the respect I might have had for your point of view is utterly destroyed.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 22 Oct 11 - 08:37 AM

DonT

Form Message permanently bookmarked:

It is my policy to make no further response than this to posts which are purely abusive, as I take yours to be.

No further correspondence will be entered into.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Oct 11 - 08:40 AM

Thank you Don and McGrath.
Nowhere have I questioned the right of the State Israel to exist - I have questioned the statement of others that Palestine should not be granted statehood, a line being peddled by Israel (I listened to Benjamin Netanyahu's UN speech describing the Palestinians as deadly "crocodiles") and backed up only by an undemocratic and bullying US veto
My point remains that if one is deserving of statehood, both are, and distorting that to mean the opposite seems par for the course for one whose arguments (where he has bothered to put them) have sunk to the level of facile and (had they come from anybody else) extremely hurtful.
As a pacifist I am appalled that terrorism, massacres of civilians, ghettoisation, evictions to make room for the invaders, destructions of homes, daily persecution and humiliation, attempts to starve into submission..... should be resorted to, but as McGrath's link made perfectly clear, the blame for some of the violence lies on both sides of the conflict, the only difference being that Israel has a well-armed, well trained powerful force at their disposal to quash a poorly equipped bunch of cowboys with crude equipment and virtually no training.
As far as I am concerned the only way the Palestinian problem will be solved is by debate and co-operation on equal terms - the only alternative I can see is being crushed into submission by force of arms an political and economic bullying, which seems to be the option the Israelis (with the support of the US) have opted for.   
Hiding behind worries of "what Isreal might become" doesn't begin to address the question, and certainly nor does ignoring the atrocities taking place on a massive scale and writing of criticism of same as "anti-Semitism and Jew-baiting.
I have asked on a number of occasions for examples of my criticising anybody other than the Israeli administration for what is happening in Palestine; once again, have you examples of my doing anything but this and if not, is describing some of the actions of the Israeli Government as 'crimes against humanity "anti-Semitic Jew baiting"
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 22 Oct 11 - 10:00 AM

Again, Jim, and trying to express it without undue heat: yes, it does come over as such, so long as you persist in bandying about words with the associations of 'Nazi' & 'Holocaust'; however much you may try to abate their baleful effect with 'echoes' and 'in reverse' and 'matters of scale'. It has been pointed out that these terms are bound to be offensive: not only by me, but by Bobad and others. Could you not at least try to mitigate their effects by admitting that they might be taken amiss, and finding some alternative locutions to express your [in many cases, as I have never denied] justified criticisms of and animadversions against, Israeli policies and actions? But, no; such requests have fallen on deaf ears. There is, as McGrath pointed out, a fair bit of common ground here. Why do you insist on ploughing it up with your studied, unwearying, & to all apperarances intentional and unregretted insults.

I think it probable, all things considered, that you are not consciously or intentionally antisemitic. But you seem strangely unwilling to climb down from the obstinate stance you have adopted which is what gives me, and others, so distinct an overall impression to the contrary.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Oct 11 - 10:23 AM

"Bobad and others"
Others ?
"Could you not at least try to mitigate their effects by admitting that they might be taken amiss,"
They will only be "taken amiss" by those trying to defend the indefensible.
"I think it probable, all things considered, that you are not consciously or intentionally antisemitic."
I would like to think you are not a racist; difficlult with your double standards on racist stereotyping
Still no examples of my attacking Jews though!
"Why do you insist on ploughing it up with your studied, unwearying, & to all apperarances intentional and unregretted insults."
Possibly for the same reason you keep ignoring Israeli fascism and claiming it's nt here yet.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Stringsinger
Date: 22 Oct 11 - 10:26 AM

I think that Jim's responses reflect an emotional and passionate reaction to the Israeli
occupation and subjugation of Palestinians and I don't think he has to be polite about his reactions because Israel has behaved reprehensibly. I don't know what the Israeli apologists here have in mind and expressing ideas without undue heat in this case may be virtually impossible.

Remember that the term Anti-Semitic is a misnomer because Palestinians and Arabs in general are all members of Semitic tribes and languages. Anti-Zionist might be more appropriate here.

Atrocities anywhere are not to be defended by saying as a schoolyard statement, "Well, he did it" or "He did it first". I think that more passion should be exerted on this issue instead of the weak apologies given here.

Fortunately, these apologetic defenses are not representative of all here.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Stringsinger
Date: 22 Oct 11 - 10:39 AM

There seems to be sufficient sophistry in bandying about the term "chemical weapons".
Since chemicals are used in weaponry, the fact that propagandists in favor of wartime
parsing is not material to this issue. Their definition of "chemical warfare" is based on spin favoring their use.

The US is not an honest broker of any peace deal here. Noam Chomsky suggests that a country like Brazil would be a better arbitrator. I agree with that.

I don't see unanimity on the part of Mudcatters on this issue of peace. I see that
there are those here who care about peace and justice in Palestine and others who are defending atrocities.

Whenever Mudcatters attempt to speak for the whole of the group, they do a disservice and cloud the issue.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: bobad
Date: 22 Oct 11 - 11:42 AM

"Others ?"

Here's an "other" and what he has to say on the subject - Irwin Cotler

Short bio:

Cotler has served on the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and its sub-Committee on Human Rights and International Development, as well as on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. In 2000, he was appointed special advisor to the Minister of Foreign Affairs on the International Criminal Court.

He is considered an expert on international law and human rights law. As an international human rights lawyer, Cotler served as counsel to former prisoners of conscience Nelson Mandela in South Africa, Jacobo Timmerman in Latin America, Muchtar Pakpahan in Asia, as well as other well known political prisoners and dissidents. Cotler represented Natan Sharansky, who was imprisoned in the Soviet gulag for Jewish activism. After his release, Sharansky went on to become Israeli Deputy Prime Minister.

Saad Eddin Ibrahim, an Egyptian democracy activist imprisoned by the Egyptian government, was represented by Cotler and acquitted in 2003. He acted as counsel to Maher Arar during part of Arar's imprisonment and supported demands for a public inquiry. He has also defended both Palestinians and Israelis against their own governments, and participated in a minor role in the Camp David peace agreement between Israel and Egypt.

In 1986 he was chief counsel to the Canadian Jewish Congress at the Deschênes Commission of Inquiry on War Criminals.

Cotler is on the Board of Advancing Human Rights (NGO).



Some excerpts from his writings on the new anti-semitism:

"Ideological anti-Semitism finds expression not only in the "Zionism is Racism" indictment... but the further criminal indictment of Israel as "an apartheid state," and the calling for the dismantling of this "apartheid state" -- a euphemism for Israel's destruction. If the proclamation of "Zionism as Racism" gave anti-Semitism the appearance of international sanction, the calling for the dismantling of the apartheid state of Israel is even more toxic and virulent, once again giving anti-Semitism the appearance of international sanction. Indeed, the increased characterization or libeling of Israel as a "Nazi state" is tantamount to transforming ideological anti-Semitism into a duty -- the obligation to remove this Nazi state, Israel."

"...the demonization of Israel through the escalating ascription of Nazi metaphors"

Full text

Interestingly right wingers call Cotler a Jewish Uncle Tom and the Conservative Party, in an election campaign flyer, accused him of sympathizing with anti-semites - this for championing the human rights of Muslim individuals and for attending the notorious Durban conference, organized by the UN, which provided an international soapbox for anti-Semitic remarks.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Oct 11 - 12:44 PM

"......the "Zionism is Racism" indictment."
Have not suggested anywhere to my knowledge that Zionism is racism, but as it manifests itself in Israeli policy towards its opponents, I believe it has become fascist in nature - or tell me where I have.
I am happy to accept the dictionary definition of Zionism as "A plan or movement of the Jewish People to return from the Diospora to Palestine" but when this is done via massacres, persecution, evictions and general aggression - brute force and hotility towards the people occupying the desired territory, it becomes fascism.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 22 Oct 11 - 02:52 PM

You missed this bit tho, didn't you, Jim:~

"Indeed, the increased characterization or libeling of Israel as a "Nazi state" is tantamount to transforming ideological anti-Semitism into a duty -- the obligation to remove this Nazi state, Israel."
,..,
Now tell us you haven't said this [go on, hide behind your pathetic 'echoes']. You're quite liar enough; and obstinate enough to stick to your denial. Your evasive last few answers to me demonstrate, to any who have eyes to see, that you are enjoying being denounced as an antisemite [an accusation I have demonstrated you could easily encompass the withdrawal of by simply agreeing to moderate & modify your fatuous 'Nazi'&'Holocaust' parrotings], because you are enjoying the warm glow of victimhood it enables you to wallow in, the 'getting sick of ...', the status of poor little me that nobody understands; that sense that Kingsley Amis summarised so brilliantly in his essay "Why Lucky Jim Turned Right", of joining the lefty chorus of a million lone voices crying in the wilderness...

Another 'other' is the one who described you a bit back ~ can't remember who, but that is not the important point, as "Jim the Red at his stirrings again' ~ or WTTE.

Wallow on in your glass house, then, self-confessed embracer of the 'antisemite' label. Enjoy.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 Oct 11 - 04:50 PM

But to describe Germany as "a Nazi state", when it was, wouldn't have implied "an obligation to remove" the Germany state, but rather a hope to see it change into something better, into something worthy of the wonderful German traditions and culture which it had betrayed in so many ways.

Saying that doesn't mean I'd describe Israel as a Nazi state - but I would see it as something pretty close in some ways to "an apartheid state" which would evidently still be classified as an anti-semitic comment by some people (viz bodad's last post).

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Stringsinger
Date: 22 Oct 11 - 09:02 PM

The epithet "anti-semitic" begs the question of whether the Jews the world over approve of Israel's behavior and there are plenty who don't, rabbis included.
Also, Arabs are semitic.

The U.S. is not an honest broker when it comes to negotiating peace. Noam Chomsky suggests Brazil or another impartial country.

The inescapable point is that Jim Carroll is right in that Israel commits atrocities.
Hamas does also. Both need to be held accountable.

The lie is that paranoid Israel will be driven into the sea, a bogeyman for AIPAC propaganda.

No one is going to let that happen but Netanyahu will continue to do damage unless his actions are checked by the rational people who still live in Israel and can dump him.

If Iran is bombed, you can expect WWIII.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 23 Oct 11 - 01:05 AM

Let's settle the hash of all this "Arabs are a semitic people too" nonsense, shall we? ~~

'Online Dictionary
an·ti-Sem·ite (nt-smt, nt-)
n.
One who discriminates against or who is hostile toward or prejudiced against Jews.
anti-Se·mitic (-s-mtk) adj.'

Any dictionary will give same definition. Everybody knows that words' meanings develop and alter over time, and that common usage can give them connotations different from, and even at complete variance to, their original derivations. It is disingenuous to base arguments on over-literal definitions based on long-ago meanings that no longer apply. Anyone who argues that antisemitism includes Arabs, or any other demographics other than Jews, is merely trying to muddy the issue without adding a whit to the actual applicative arguments.

And they know it too.

~Michael~

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Oct 11 - 04:20 AM

"Indeed, the increased characterization or libeling of Israel as a "Nazi state"
That is a odd opinion don't you think?
Israel is Jewish, so anything it does, no matter how inhuman, how horrific, how much of a war crime.... cannot be considered fascist - because ... Israel is Jewish, and to criticise those actions as fascist would be anti-Semitic..
I, and as far as I can see, everybody on this thread who has criticised the undeniable atrocities committed by Israel, have based those criticisms on what Israel has done, not what she is
You have chosen to suppport what Israel does by a mixture of ignoring and refusing to discuss its actions and by writing it off as "what Israel might become". At least Keith has the gall to claim that what happened didn't happen.
In fact it is you who has given your unqualified support to racist statements against Muslims, (openly stated on this forum), has claimed that while it is offensive to indulge in racist stereotypes concerning Jews, it is permissable to use similar stereotypes against Muslims.
No, I am not an anti-Semite, I never have been a racist in any shape or form and I will die having spent my adult life attacking all forms of racism, and I am proud of that fact.
I wonder if you are proud of your own openly displayed racist hypocrisy.
As you have failed to put up one single tangible argument of my being "anti-Semite", I assume that you are skulking behind your invective to cover your own racism.
And by the way - can you point to where anybody here has libelled Israel as a Nazi state.
I have claimed that there are comparisons ("echoes" is the word I used) to be drawn between the behaviour of the Nazis towards the Jews, and that of the Israelis towards the Palestinians, but I have never described Israel as a Nazi state, nor has anybody else here. If you are going to lie and distort our arguments, please make the effort to do so less crudely obviously.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 23 Oct 11 - 04:46 AM

---You have chosen to suppport what Israel does by a mixture of ignoring and refusing to discuss its actions and by writing it off as "what Israel might become".---
,..,
No I haven't Jim. You are either deliberately lying or deliberately misrepresenting me by ignoring my previous posts on the subject {I suppose you will claim you "missed" them like that one of Bobad's which was a repetition of a previous one ~ how careless of you!}.

I repeat: I hate what Israel HAS become ~ I have no recourse to "in danger of becoming" or any such evasions. Even my still Jewish & Zionist relations (I am no longer either of these things ideologically) are the ones who are concerned about developments which, I repeat, I think have already occurred and which I have several times stated here I hate & deplore. Israel is one of the great disappointments of my life [you, as I have remarked previously also, are another]. I repeat:

my position is that I did not march & demonstrate & collect house-t-house in my teenage years to establish the sort of regime in which the army is sent in to destroy the olive-groves on which innocent people depend for their living in revenge for the activities of some of their co-religionists for which they are in no way responsible

~~ that was the event, years back now, that convinced me that the Israeli dream was dead beyond hope of salvation. & that, as I repeat, remains my position ~~

~~ which in no way alters my unshakeable view that your persistence in the use of terminology which you know to be provocative & unacceptable attracts the censure of antisemitism; that your continued refusal to moderate or modify or such accusations makes the antisemitism label all the more applicable to you; and that you enjoy wallowing in the supposed victim-status that such accusations, you appear to believe, confer on you.

Despicable, Jim.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Oct 11 - 04:52 AM

Then I apologise - I became somewhat fixed on your "what Isreal might become" statment - sorry.
Regarding the other points I made - I quite understand why you don't wish to address them.
Oh - and keep the name-calling coming; it's comforting in its own little way!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 23 Oct 11 - 05:17 AM

Thank you.

Is this one of those other points you take me to have ignored?:

···In fact it is you who has given your unqualified support to racist statements against Muslims, (openly stated on this forum) ··

If so, I really don't think the accusation lies. I didn't "support" Keith's supposedly racist statements ~ on the contents of which, as I have said before, I have no particular opinion ~ so much as say that I thought you misrepresented them as HIS opinions, when he was merely citing those of others whom he regarded as better-informed than himself; and that you were thus treating him unfairly: and were also attempting by misrepresentation to deny him the freedom of this forum. I repeat what I said before: I thought you indulging in "messenger-shooting".

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Oct 11 - 06:38 AM

"Is this one of those other points you take me to have ignored?:"
No it isn't - I don't find racist stereotyping acceptable just because "somebody else said it (he has singularly failed to produce one single 'expert' as having said "all male Pakistanis" have a cultural implant which makes them potential perverts" - it is his own blatently racist attack on a whole ethnic community.
It is pathetic in the extreme to say "I only said it because he/she said it", but such a claim, whoever said it, without the necessary verification, is blatatly crude racial stereotyping, as you have admitted by pointing out (rightly) that a similar statment made against Jews would be offensively racist.
That is what you have given your support to and that is what makes you both a hypocrite, and a selective racist.
There is no messenger to shoot as there is no message, or are you really suggesting that "All male Pakistanis" are potential perverts because of their culture?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Oct 11 - 06:49 AM

And if you have "no particular opinion" on such a blatent racist attack - why not?
If somebody told me that all Jews indulge in blood sacrifice I'd have an opinion and I'd be ready to express that opinion.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 23 Oct 11 - 07:06 AM

I think you have lost me, Jim, Sorry, but you are becoming completely incoherent. You start off by saying that the point I quote isn't the one you refer to my not having engaged with; and then show that in fact it is, by proceeding to address it by accusing me of saying all sorts of things that I have just pointed out I didn't say without adducing any further evidence that I did.

If that wasn't the point I chose IYO not to address, then please be specific which was. If it was the one after all, why did you kick off by saying it wasn't?

Where, precisely, are you coming from? And what am I alleged to have said or done to justify your continued, entirely unjustified, accusations of racism? I have at least given you my reasons for my continued regard of you as antisemitic: those expressions which you have consistently declined to moderate. All you are doing in return is bluster.

I appreciate this is a topic on which your feelings run strong. But either clarify your position, please, or just shut up. Your nonsensical ravings are beginning to get on my nerves more than somewhat. I am happy to respond to any point that you make coherently; but you will have to make it in comprehensible form first.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Oct 11 - 07:50 AM

Simple Mike - you have endorsed an extremely racist statement by claiming it was not racist - you were asked for your blessing and you freely gave it - that is about as coherent as I can get - sorry.
Also sorry that you appear to have been reduced to slipping out through the back door with accusations onf incoherence.
It only has relevence here as it appears to be part of Keith's anti-Muslim crusade, so lets get this over with eh?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 23 Oct 11 - 08:26 AM

That's better. & so, yes, it appears I was after all right about which point you meant?

I have neither endorsed nor contradicted the statement you complain of, simply said that your efforts to prevent it being cited ~ NOT originated ~ by Keith were misplaced: were, indeed, I say again, merely an unworthy act of "shooting the messenger". If, as you say, you really couldn't even see a messenger, then perhaps you should have gone to Specsavers.

I have no doubt that you have opinions on various matters, but I don't see why I should be required to have such on all the same topics. It is my opinion that Mansfield Park is the greatest of English novels; but not only do I not require you to agree, I don't even insist on your having an opinion on the matter if you don't feel like it.

I do agree that the Pakistani thread is producing far more heat than light on this one, and would be best left alone. It was not me who introduced it here. Wonder who it might have been...

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Oct 11 - 10:00 AM

"cited ~ NOT originated " "shooting the messenger".
And I repeat, there is no messenger nobody anywhere has attempted to implicate the whole Pakistani male population in cultural degeneracy apart from Keith; he has not produced one single example of anybody doing so; in fact, the several 'examples' he did put up state the opposite; that there are no cultural/racial conclusions to be drawn from the opinions offered
As has been pointed out by others, the implications of what he (and he alone - with your blessing) has claimed go far beyond the Pakistani population and can be applied to Muslims as a whole, including the Palastinians.
At the risk of incuring your wrath further - isn't this exactly what happened to the Jews under the Nazis?
On the basis of "scientific and academic evidence" proving that Jews were culturally and genetically degenerate they justified sending six million of them to the gas chambers.
Keith hasn't 'gone all the way' by any means, but it is a step on the road as far as I am concerned - his "my opinion" is profoundly racist and it is this you have given your blessing to by claiming it otherwise.
It is also you who has chosen to play the race card in this discussion on Palestine - shame on you.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 23 Oct 11 - 10:33 AM

---At the risk of incuring your wrath further - isn't this exactly what happened to the Jews under the Nazis? ---

NO

---It is also you who has chosen to play the race card in this discussion on Palestine---

WHERE?

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Oct 11 - 10:50 AM

"WHERE?"
It is you who has resorted to "anti-Semite" and "Jew baiter" to my suggestion that there are echoes (no more than that) of Nazi behaviour in what has happened in Israel - do you want a list of the massacres, the wall, the persecution, the evictions, the humiliation....... again?
"NO"
Did not the Nazis attempt to prove with "scientific" and "academic" research that the Jews were inferior thus making it unmportant what happened to them?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Oct 11 - 11:15 AM

NO?????
From Wiki under Nazism
Jim Carroll

"Nazism advocated the supremacy of an Aryan master race over all other races.1   - Nazis viewed the progress of humanity as depending on the Aryans and believed that it could maintain its dominance only if it retained its purity and instinct for self-preservation.|12j They claimed that Jews were the greatest threat to the Aryan race.'13* They considered Jews a parasitic race that attached itself to various ideologies and movements to secure its self-preservation, such as: capitalism, democracy, the Enlightenment, industrialisation, liberalism, Marxism, parliamentary politics, and trade unionism.'1''* To maintain the purity and strength of the Aryan race, the Nazis sought to exterminate or impose exclusionary segregation upon "degenerate" and "asocial" groups that included: Jews, homosexuals, Romani, blacks, the physically and mentally disabled, Jehovah's Witnesses and political opponents.|15J"

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 23 Oct 11 - 01:04 PM

"Did not the Nazis attempt to prove with "scientific" and "academic" research that the Jews were inferior thus making it unmportant what happened to them?"
,..,.,,.,.,.
Yes.

And? ~~

Are you suggesting some such research regarding the Palestinian Arabs has been carried on in Israeli universities?

If so, please quote me some sources and thesis titles; & name some of the academics involved and their universities or academic institutions.

If not, then what the blazes are you wittering on about this time, you contemptible antisemitic little organism?

Honestly, Carroll ~~ your statements are getting more bizarre and uncontrolled and incoherent by the second. I genuinely think you are losing it.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Oct 11 - 02:58 PM

"Are you suggesting some such research regarding the Palestinian Arabs has been carried on in Israeli universities? "
No - of course I'm bloody not, and well you know it (are you really suggesting that your reaction would have been as bland as this if I had made such an obscene suggestion)
I am making the point that presenting 'the enemy' (in this case Muslims) as degenerates, parasites, a threat to our way of life, our children.... whatever give the option of dealing with them in any way you wish.
The Nazis depicted the Jews (after "scientific research by doctors such as Mengele) as racially inferior parasites who threatened the German way of life - giving themselves the right to slaughter 6m of them.
Keith presents all male Pakistani Muslims in Britain as potential perverts who have to guard against their "cultural implants" to stop themselves from having sex with underage girls - that is the enormity of the statement he made (him, nobody else); that is the depth of his racism - and your nodding it though as not racist.
Please don't insult what little intelligence I might have.
"I genuinely think you are losing it."
And I genuinely think that you are living proof that a good education might pass on knowledge but it does little for common sense (or compassion, for that matter).
Were you aware that you always bluster and tell people not to make fools of themselves whenever you find yourself in a corner
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 23 Oct 11 - 03:08 PM

No, I don't. You are perfectly welcome to make a fool of yourself if you choose. So carry on. You are doing a great job.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 23 Oct 11 - 08:09 PM

Weird. Maybe I should join in on my sort of understanding of Keith's "all (male Pakistani Muslims)" actually referring to "ALL"

but on the past history, that seems to bring around reports of complaints and eventual thread closure...

I've let this go a few days now without responding...

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Mrrzy
Date: 23 Oct 11 - 08:19 PM

Um, so, is Libya falling, or rising, good or bad for the Palestiens' desire for statehood? Will these new springing Arab gov'ts have automatic seats at the UN?

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 24 Oct 11 - 11:22 AM

""It is my policy to make no further response than this to posts which are purely abusive, as I take yours to be.""

Suits me fine, as I have finished what I have to say to you, but in the light of that response from you, and your feelings that what I said was abusive, you might be well advised to examine your recent, purely abusive posts to Jim, and consider how you justify this sudden dislike of what you have been so diligently dishing out.

Don't bother to reply, I'm not interested. But you might want to apologise to Jim.

Not very likely though, now the urbane mask is off.

Bye now
Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Stringsinger
Date: 24 Oct 11 - 11:33 AM

Norman Finkelstein and Noam Chomsky have it right. This isn't a personal issue that some on Mudcat have wanted to make it. It's not about silly squabbling.

The Zionist Movement has been corrupted as has the financial and political system in the U.S.

The Palestinians are reacting because their backs are up against the wall.

Violence and terrorism are not right. They're not moral.

The "Authoritarian" model of governance is doomed to failure.

Blame doesn't solve anything. A deeper understanding about tribalism and the role of ideology is needed to solve this issue.

I would like to see more intelligent discussion of this issue and less reactionary name-calling.

Otherwise what's the point of this thread?

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: GUEST,Mrr at work
Date: 24 Oct 11 - 04:23 PM

I wonder sometimes, Stringsinger!

So, my question repeats: Is the arab spring thing good for the Palesteins, or not?

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 25 Oct 11 - 03:25 AM

Away from this thread for a couple of days. Now find myself greatly exercised as to what DonT is getting so aerated about. I mean, what put-in of his if I speak my mind to J Carroll on a point between Jim and me, that Don should get his knickers in such a twist? Why any of his big bizniz?

And isn't he being a bit patronising to Jim? Does he really believe poor little J need D's mighty assistance because incapable of fighting his own corner? Ah diddums. (Not but what the confused, indeed near-gibberish, self-contradictions of JC's last 2 or 3 posts might perhaps lend some credence to such a view; but I somehow doubt if that is the point Don meant to make!).

His sobriquet does seem well chosen, mind:

What you see ~~

         ~an aggressive ill-mannered, irrational, officious prodnose ~

~~is indeed what you get, eh Catters?

WYSIWYG! LoL!

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Oct 11 - 04:21 AM

"But you might want to apologise to Jim."
Thanks Don, but I would have settled for a few straight answers instead of the dishonest evasiveness to explain what is open State terrorism backed up by superpower bullying.
"now the urbane mask is off."
Somewhat reminiscent of 'Lord of the Flies'
"Were you aware that you always bluster and tell people not to make fools of themselves whenever you find yourself in a corner"
"No, I don't. You are perfectly welcome to make a fool of yourself if you choose. So carry on. You are doing a great job."
Classic - if you'll be Morcambe I'll be Wise (or vise versa - take your pick.)
Friends have suggested that the greatest contribution to anti-Semitism since WW2 has been the behaviour of the Israeli Governments and their supporters - the crouching behind the dead of Auschwitz that has gone on here has illustrated that fact perfectly.
Try answering a few points Mike.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 25 Oct 11 - 04:50 AM

-- to explain what is open State terrorism backed up by superpower bullying.--

Once again, Jim, please take the point that I do not disagree with you as to this point. I am trying to explain nothing - certainly nothing which, as in this instance, I deprecate as much as you do. I pointed this out to you before, with special ref to its beginning for me with those destroyed olive groves those years ago ~~ & YOU HAD THE GRACE THEN TO APOLOGISE FOR HAVING MISREPRESENTED MY POSITION, which you are now, here, back to doing..


Friends have suggested that the greatest contribution to anti-Semitism since WW2 has been the behaviour of the Israeli Governments and their supporters

Agreed. I repeat: I am no longer one of their supporters.

- the crouching behind the dead of Auschwitz that has gone on here has illustrated that fact perfectly.

I am not so crouching: simply averring a strong feeling that you are not paying their memory sufficient respect with some of your invidious comparisons and locutions ~~ hence my accusations of antisemitism, which I have already said above is probably as overstated as some of your assertions [tho, as to 'playing the race card', would point out that one can only play the cards one has been dealt!].

Try answering a few points Mike.

Well there you are: I think everything I have written above {none of them for the first time} is an answer to your points. If insufficient, then please specify which of your points I haven't answered & ~~ so long as not provocatively framed in terms which invite Eric'n'Ernie-dom ~~ I will do my best endeavours to address them.

Feel bound to add that your post about Nazi aims supported by pseudo-scientific research being exactly comparable to Israeli ones, which you rejected by asserting that you bloody-well hadn't meant that, & accused me of insulting your intelligence by thinking you had, still strikes me, as expressed, as susceptible to no other interpretation. Perhaps you would address that point with some more convincing arguments than a mere "bloody well", which really didn't cover the case at all.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Oct 11 - 06:24 AM

"Feel bound to add that your post about Nazi aims supported by pseudo-scientific research being exactly comparable to Israeli ones"
Where have I EVER suggested such research - my point was denigrating whole cultures - by Keith?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 25 Oct 11 - 06:49 AM

"On the basis of "scientific and academic evidence" proving that Jews were culturally and genetically degenerate they justified sending six million of them to the gas chambers."

"From Wiki under Nazism
"Nazism advocated the supremacy of an Aryan master race over all other races.1   - Nazis viewed the progress of humanity as depending on the Aryans and believed that it could maintain its dominance only if it retained its purity and instinct for self-preservation.|12j They claimed that Jews were the greatest threat to the Aryan race.'13* They considered Jews a parasitic race that attached itself to various ideologies and movements to secure its self-preservation, such as: capitalism, democracy, the Enlightenment, industrialisation, liberalism, Marxism, parliamentary politics, and trade unionism.'1''* To maintain the purity and strength of the Aryan race, the Nazis sought to exterminate or impose exclusionary segregation upon "degenerate" and "asocial" groups that included: Jews, homosexuals, Romani, blacks, the physically and mentally disabled, Jehovah's Witnesses and political opponents.|15J"

"can be applied to Muslims as a whole, including the Palastinians"

~~~ and who, in your view, would be thus applying it, within the context of this thread, but the Israelis?

If I have confused separate discourses here, then of course I apologise & withdraw that particular accusation. It has all, IMO, got a bit confused ~~ largely due, as I feel bound to say, to your [& no-one elses's that I can see] having insisted on muddying the flow of the thread by dragging Keith/Pakistanis-in-Bradford into the argument where they don't really fit. This is a peculiar King Charles' Head obsession of yours, Jim, which is making the whole argument peculiarly difficult to follow.

I am BTW somewhat exercised, as to how your belittling by inappropriate language & comparisons of the fate & sufferings of 6,000,000 victims of the Nazis, sits with your accusation that, in some way, my education has deprived me of "compassion" ~~ an odd bit of chippy reverse-snobbery, that strikes me as!

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Oct 11 - 08:23 AM

You now appear to be deliberately misinterpreting what I have said.
I pointed out that Keith, with your support, had claimed that a whole culture was infected with a cultural implant that made them potential paedophiles.
I put forward as a comaprison the denigration of the Jews with scientific and academic research - which you - exraordinarily denied happened
"---At the risk of incuring your wrath further - isn't this exactly what happened to the Jews under the Nazis? ---
NO"
It was comparison in the denigration of a whole culture - by Keityh.
I do not believe you to be stupid so I can only believe your "misiterprertation" to be deliberate in order t prove my "anti-Semitism and offset your own racism
Jim Carroll.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 25 Oct 11 - 08:52 AM

Well, the "denigration of a whole culture" (which I did not 'support' Keith over, simply pointed out that he hadn't said what you claimed & even if he had he was perfectly entitled to express an opinion without being insulted by agenda-driven obsessive lefties like you raking up irrelevancies from other threads because that's the sort of obscurantist drivel they imbibed with their mother's milk) is NOT the same thing as what the Nazis did to the Jews ~~ or can you point to any pseudo-scientific research into Pakistani brain-patterns carried out by qualified scientists in laboratory conditions to demonstrate that they have all got to GO because Mein Führer doesn't like them? Followed by their corpses being piled in mountains because there was nowhere to put them.

You are a doctrinaire booby, Carroll, & I hereby vow & swear not to waste another single pressure on a typing-finger attempting to dispute your fatuities.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 25 Oct 11 - 08:56 AM

& DonT, you other silly little swine, that is your cue to jump in and say I am a horrible person to bully your poor precious ickle Jimmy!

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Mrrzy
Date: 25 Oct 11 - 01:05 PM

Well, for those of us actually interested in the thread, what are we thinking about statehood for the Palesteins? Should it be up to the Israeallahs or not?

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Lox
Date: 25 Oct 11 - 01:18 PM

The highest respect that can be shown to the dead of Auschwitz is not to pussyfoot around the subject of their deaths, but to do what not enough people did for them which is to recognize poisonous racist and imperialist ideologies, policies and political processes and call them out.

The fundament of Nazism was singling out vulnerable groups and scapegoating them, and the notion that one group of people is superior and has a greater right to territory, resources and human rights that another.

So where this occurs, the point must be made, out of respect for the dead of auschwitz, that that kind of ideology is responsible for the deaths of millions and is contrary to all standards.

So when Keith singles out Pakistani males as being unique for ALL possessing a tendency to sexually abuse children, he must be told NO!

He must be told this out of respect for the dead of Auschwitz.

If he and others are not told this and not reminded of what crimes those kind of racist views have led to in country after country, from Spain to cambodia, then we are ignoring the cries of the dead and then we are truly showing them a lack of respect.

They did not die so that we would censor ourselves, but so we would speak out!

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: GUEST,livelylass
Date: 25 Oct 11 - 02:36 PM

Mrzzy I've attempted to redirect discussion of the actual topic here, I've no idea if it'll help in the face of this incessant onslaught though:

thread.cfm?threadid=141076&messages=6


Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Mrrzy
Date: 25 Oct 11 - 01:05 PM

Well, for those of us actually interested in the thread, what are we thinking about statehood for the Palesteins? Should it be up to the Israeallahs or not?

But as far as your question goes, considering the US are the alien power intervening so consistently in this Middle-East matter, I think the real question is "should it be up to the US or not?" Particularly as Chomsky puts it, as the Obama administration's actions this year in respect of Palestine are not only in opposition to the US's own publicly declared position but also in opposition to "overwhelming international consensus".

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Oct 11 - 02:59 PM

"Should it be up to the Israeallahs or not?"
No it should not, any more than it should be up to the US driven by political and economic self interest.
If there is to be any sort of peace in the Middle East it has to be arrived at to the satisfaction of all and on equal terms - an unsatisfactory treaty in Ireland is still chalking up the dead 90 years after the event.
"You are a doctrinaire booby, Carroll,"
Progress up from a "Jew-baiting anti-Semite" I suppose.
"I hereby vow & swear not to waste another single pressure on a typing-finger attempting to dispute your fatuities."
Looks like we're finished here Livelylass - fingers crossed
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 26 Oct 11 - 04:41 AM

One more quote from my favourite novelist


"Elinor agreed with it all, for she did not think he deserved the compliment of rational opposition."
― Jane Austen, Sense and Sensibility Vol II, ch xiv

and now I have done.

Adieu, thread.

~Michael~

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 26 Oct 11 - 05:18 AM

Oh ~~ & just one more: try this for size, you heap of stinking swine:~~~~~~~~~~

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BSoLN77fBn8&feature=related

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Lox
Date: 26 Oct 11 - 05:22 AM

Not sure how posting actual Nazi propaganda helps to further your agenda, but I hope at least that it makes you feel better.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 26 Oct 11 - 05:31 AM

Lox as ever


"did not ... deserve[d] the compliment of rational opposition."

Mind still obsessed with colostomies & such is it, Lox, you foul farting fool?

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Lox
Date: 26 Oct 11 - 05:43 PM

How Reassuring,

I see you have returned to your normal pre 2011 abusive self - it didn't take long.

Your brief flirtation with manners has obviously gone off the rails.

One thing remains consistent however, your inability to answer intelligently ...

... by which I don't mean stringing together lots of long flowery words in a flourish of onanistic self congratulation, but rather actually engaging with the subject.

Oops - silly me - for a second there I credited you with the capacity to comprehend coherent thought.

How funny!

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 27 Oct 11 - 12:12 AM

ColostoLox:

Who started this "abuse" then, you foul little fink?

Reminder: You suddenly, remember, in the middle of a perfectly ordinary correspondence, turned on me and accused me of wearing "an ill-fitting colostomy bag". A fine example of the "coherent thought" which you have the pompous effrontery to enjoin on others. Why should I be expected to forget or condone such an outburst, you immoderate idiot? The subject I am at present 'engaging with' is the extent to which any comment by such a fine example of "abusiveness" should be taken.


✌✌✌✌✌✌✌✌✌✌

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 27 Oct 11 - 05:44 AM

For any who haven't followed all this: on 27 Jan 11, in middle of a thread and with no provocation, Lox posted this as tailpiece to a post on the Muslim Prejuidice thread ~~


MtheGM as usual dribbles into his bib with glee after regurgitating the same dull quip as usual, I just hope that with this level of over excitement his colostomy bag is properly attached.

I requested elucidation, but nothing was forthcoming but more such, e.g. on 30 Jan -

MtheGM on the other hand seems to have begun contributing to this thread for one purpose only and it clearly has nothing to do with any of the subjects being discussed. What a pathetic excuse for a man. I bet he smells funny too

Still no explanation ~~ & as to any hint of an apology... Hohoho!

And now, because I remind him of this, he has the all-fire gall to accuse me of abuse.

I mean, I ask you,, what is he like? Potty-mouthed liile ratfink.

~Michael~

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 27 Oct 11 - 05:56 AM

And I said then and I say again now, this should not have been tolerated. Why was nothing said to him for addressing a fellow Mudcatter in such abusive and purposely insulting terms {to say nothing of the implied insult to any Catters who do happen to be unfortunate enough to be colostomy-dependent - I expect some are}? I said then, and I say again now, I am sure this must this have been a clear breach of the rules & he should have been at least cautioned, if not kicked off the Cat altogether.

Where were the mods? Why was nothing done? I should still like to know.

Anybody listening?

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Lox
Date: 27 Oct 11 - 12:10 PM

nope

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Mrrzy
Date: 27 Oct 11 - 12:32 PM

Hee hee hee, at least the posters are getting a sense of humor!

---

Please continue in the new thread (click). Thanks.
-Joe Offer-