Palestine (continuation)

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Nov 11 - 01:32 AM

Lox. What soldiers? What testimonies?
Don, I share your disgust at the attacks on mostly young conscripts who were just trying to do their best for everyone.
I know a veteran in the Hertford branch of my Regimental Association.

It was cruel, unjustified and a betrayal, but let us save the word "terrorism" for those cowardly murderers who attack helpless civilians for some political objective..

The smoke was dispensed from air-burst shells.
It would not penetrate roofs or walls.
In the video it can be seen bouncing off roofs.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 Nov 11 - 03:43 AM

You have been a mealy-mouthed apologist for Israeli massacres of non-combatants throughout these threads and here you continue to attempt to trivialise the deliberate use of chemicals on civilians, including hospital patients, women and children - do you have nothing to say about the horrific injuries inflicted by your 'smoke bombs'?
"But for the missiles, none of it would have happened."
Unfortunately, without the missiles the Palestinians would have been driven out of Palestine altogether by the same type of ethnic cleansing that is proposed for the Bedouins - something else your Israiliphobia has prevented you from condemning.
A another piece of sordid blackmail from yesterdays Irish Times aimed at starving the Palestinians into submission, an act of revenge because a democratically taken vote didn't go Israeli's way.
Explain away - or ignore, as you usually do
Jim Carroll

ISRAEL CRITICISED FOR KEEPING PALESTINIAN TAX FUNDS
MARK WEIS: in Jerusalem
ISRAEL HAS decided to continue withholding tax funds it collects on behalf of the Palestinians which were frozen last month after the UN cultural organisation Unesco accepted Palestine as a full member.
Yesterday's decision by the security cabinet to keep the €73 million collected in October came despite warnings from defence minister Ehud Barak and intelligence officials that the cash-strapped Palestinian Authority may be forced to withhold salaries from its security forces, endangering West Bank stability.
Israel decided to withhold the transfer of tax revenues, which it collects monthly on behalf of the Palestinians under the terms of the Oslo peace agreements, after denouncing the Unesco membership bid as a "unilateral Palestinian manoeuvre that further removed chances of reaching peace through direct negotiations". Israel also accelerated construction of 2,000 West Bank homes. The Israeli punitive measures were condemned by Washington and the EU. (my emphasis).
Yesterday's move came as the quartet of peace mediators - the US, the EU, Russia and the UN -failed to get Israel and the Palestinians to renew direct peace talks.
Former British prime minister Tony Blair "called upon the parties to create a conducive environment for restarting talks and urged them to refrain from provocative actions", the quartet said.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Nov 11 - 04:01 AM

Where " massacres" are denied, not being prejudiced, I need evidence.
You have been unable to find any, and I suspect there is none.
That does not make me "a mealy-mouthed apologist."

It is a lie that I have trivialised injuries.

"Unfortunately, without the missiles the Palestinians would have been driven out of Palestine "

Such an absurd claim deserves no serious reply!

The democratic vote elected a group who took Gaza to war with Israel.
Israel is entitled to impose a blockade, providing it continues to allow humanitarian supplies as required by International Law

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 Nov 11 - 05:26 AM

"I need evidence"
Who the hell do you think you are to "need evidence" of what has been long established by independant enquiries carried out by international bodies - for someone who is a self-confessed ignoramuous on the subject, you seem to have an extremely inflated opinion of yourself.
You have been given page after page of solid evidence you have ignored.
Tou could take classes in holocaust denial
Not that you'd be interested - a view from biased Vermont   
http://www.vtjp.org/background/gazaweapons.php
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Nov 11 - 06:16 AM

long established by independant enquiries carried out by international bodies

I challenge that it has.
I would regard that as good evidence if true.

without the missiles the Palestinians would have been driven out of Palestine altogether
A serious reply.
The missiles are just hate weapons, to terrorise ordinary Jewish families in nearby towns.
Parents put their children to bed, and send them to school, knowing that someone will try to kill them and might get lucky today.

They serve no strategic, or even tactical purpose.
Not even Hamas would make the claim you did.

McGrath and Lox might lack the guts to contradict Jim Carroll, but they will not support such a claim.

Making such a claim shows that you are so deranged by hate that you can not be rational where Jewish people are concerned.
Not even murdered ones.
Not even children.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Nov 11 - 06:49 AM

Jim, your Vermont piece was written during the conflict before the facts about the munitions were established.

Here are UK's reasons for not supporting membership.
Al Jazeera

William Hague, the British foreign secretary, said on Wednesday that his government had decided to abstain from voting in the hope that it would help bring Palestine and Israel back to the negotiating table.

"We will not vote against the application because of the progress the Palestinian leadership has made towards meeting the criteria," Hague said, speaking to the British parliament.

"But nor can we vote for it while our primary objective remains a return to negotiations through the Quartet process and the success of those negotiations."

Hague said the Palestinian Authority "largely fulfills the criteria for UN membership," but granting it the status would impede its "ability to function effectively as a state".

The Palestinian campaign, launched with a dramatic speech by President Mahmoud Abbas at UN headquarters in September, has fallen onto hard times in recent weeks.

While the speech was warmly received, the Palestinians have struggled to muster the nine votes needed in the 15-member Security Council to approve their bid for membership as a state.

Britain's announcement comes a day after a similar statement by France.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 Nov 11 - 07:27 AM

And still you act as apologist for the slaughter of civilians
Try this one
Jim

Israelis Forbid War Crimes Investigation in Jenin
The nation founded on exploitation of a martyr complex over war crimes, now blocks investigation of its own crimes against humanity
Compiled by Michael A. Hoffman II
Worried that a UN investigation could form the basis for war crimes prosecutions against Israeli soldiers, the Israeli government announced April 30, 2002 that it wouldn't allow a U.N. investigation in Jenin, a Palestinian refugee camp that is overseen by UN agencies, within occupied territory that by treaty is controlled by the governing Palestinian Authority. Nonetheless, the Israeli security Cabinet--led by Prime Minister Ariel Sharon--voted against letting the investigation proceed.
The UN investigators were to be led by former Finnish President Martti Ahtisaari. The 20-member UN commission was charged with assessing the civilian death toll from the April 2002 Israeli attack on Jenin, where hundreds of civilians were killed during three weeks of assaults by jets, helicopters and bulldozers in a "zone" closed to the media by the Israeli army.
"There are lots of accusations, lots of rumors, and we don't know what is true and what is not, and I really thought it was in everyone's interest to clarify this matter as soon as possible," said UN Secretary General Koffi Annan.
John D. Negroponte, the U.S. ambassador to the world body, said the United States is opposed to the Jenin war crimes inquiry. Though the United States was the original sponsor of the Security Council resolution endorsing the Jenin investigation, American diplomats had come to view the UN inquiry as "a divisive and potentially dangerous distraction."
From the Israeli viewpoint, cancellation of the U.N. investigation would be preferable to an investigation it feared would reveal the extent of the war crimes committed by Israeli forces while the media and aid groups were banned from the area.
"Whatever penalty Israel will pay (in terms of lost prestige) is less than the cost of a report that is one-sided and uses terms such as 'war crimes," said Gerald Steinberg, a political scientist at Bar Ilan University in Tel Aviv.
Annan sent a letter to the Israeli government April 27 assuring the Israelis that their soldiers and others interviewed by the fact-finding team would be guaranteed anonymity, and that there would be no transcripts that might be used in war crimes prosecutions.
In recent weeks the Israelis also refused entry into Jenin by a team of U.N. human rights investigators led by former Irish President Mary Robinson, the U.N. high commissioner for human rights, and Felipe Gonzalez, a former Spanish prime minister.
The Israeli cabinet decision reflected a consensus among Israelis that the United Nations is biased against the Jewish state and that any U.N. inquiry into war crimes in the Jenin camp would inevitably end badly for Israeli public relations and Israel's image. One senior Foreign Ministry official said Israel had been wary of the war crimes investigation from the start. "We have every right in the world to be extremely suspicious about anything that comes out of the U.N.," said the diplomat. "We may be paranoid, but we have good reason to be."
As the U.N. undersecretary-general for political affairs, Kieran Prendergast, noted to the council April 30, the investigation was originally endorsed "on the basis of assurances of full Israeli cooperation" from the Israeli foreign and defense ministers. But when the UN named a team dominated by specialists in international law and war crimes, the Israelis retracted their promise of support. Israeli officials were also outraged by the remarks of Terje Roed-Larsen, the U.N. envoy to the Middle East, who described "horrifying scenes of human suffering" at the Jenin camp. Prendergast said that "with every passing day it becomes more difficult to determine what took place on the ground in Jenin."
In Jerusalem, Foreign Minister Shimon Peres said he feared that the UN Security Council would "interpret our refusal as if we were scared that they might discover something." In an interview with Israeli radio, Peres said he told Secretary of State Colin Powell by telephone on April 29: "Our army is still fighting....What do you want, for us to put them on trial? Tell our soldiers that they should show up [to testify] with a lawyer?' We have no intention of letting [Israeli] soldiers be investigated or even give testimony..."
Saeb Erekat, a Palestinian official said, "I think this is equivalent to giving Sharon the license to do it again, to kill again and to commit slaughter again." On April 30, the group Physicians for Human Rights issued a preliminary forensic assessment of Jenin's dead and wounded, referring to the deliberate targeting of Palestinians civilians and blocked access to medical care.
Sharon, who was found by an Israeli commission to have been "indirectly responsible" for a 1982 massacre at the Sabra and Shatila refugee camp, took a defiant tone. To him and other senior Israeli officials, the United Nations inquiry is a case of selective investigation, to be followed by spurious prosecution. "No attempt to tarnish our name or to put us on trial before the world will succeed," Sharon said.
The Israelis sought to have American Major-General William Nash, of the Council of Foreign Relations (CFR), appointed to head the U.N. probe. The position of the CFR is that the Israelis should have been allowed to determine the make-up of the commission: "There should have been more consultation with the host government (Israel) before appointing the members," said David Philips, Nash's deputy at the CFR. "The composition of the initial group created the impression that the mission was being politicized."
Numerous war crimes investigations were conducted in Germany, Poland and Japanese colonies after World War Two, and more recently in the Balkans with regard to ethnic cleansing; and in Rwanda where genocide was determined to have been committed. War crimes investigations held in Germany and Japan after World War II set the standard for such proceedings, establishing the principle that soldiers must be held responsible for atrocities committed during war. Since then, a series of Geneva conventions have defined violations in three categories:
WAR CRIMES, such as mistreatment of prisoners and targeting civilians.
CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY, such as deportation and murder of civilian populations, and racial, ethnic and political persecution.
GENOCIDE, defined as "deliberately inflicting on a group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part.
Several Western governments have also established permanent tribunals for the investigation of elderly persons, many of them refugees from Communism, accused of having committed war crimes against Jews 60 years ago. For example, in the US, the Office of Special Investigation (OSI), was established in 1979 as part of the Department of Justice to investigate "war criminals living in the United States."
The OSI drove Andrije Artukovic, former minister of the interior of Croatia back to Communist Yugoslavia. The OSI deported Catholic Bishop Valerian Trifa back to Communist Romania. Arthur Rudolph, the distinguished NASA rocket scientist, was also investigated and driven out of the US as a "war criminal." In the cases of Alfred Deutscher and Michael Popczuk, the men committed suicide after being targeted by the OSI.
Claims that these war crimes investigations were politicized and tainted by pro-Communist or Zionist bias were dismissed out of hand as an obstruction of human rights and humanitarian and international law.
The traditions about war crimes committed against Jews is central to the maintenance of the Israeli state, a sly tool for obtaining Palestinian land and for portraying a nuclear power with a penchant for pulverizing dark-skinned civilians as a "victim of intolerance." Billions of dollars have been paid by Europeans--and continue to be paid-- to the Israeli government and its agencies as "war crimes reparations."
The Israelis, however, regard themselves as immune from international prosecution for war crimes or responsibility for reparations to Palestinians. On April 28, 2002 the Associated Press reported Foreign Minister Shimon Peres as declaring, "Israel won't sit in the place of the accused. Israel will sit in the place of the accuser."
The AP dispatch added that the Israeli foreign minister described charges of Israeli war crimes in Jenin as,"baseless blame, almost a blood libel, on Israel."
Very few Americans would support "incursions" into the predominately black ghetto of Los Angeles by tanks, helicopter gunships, D-9 armored bulldozers and F-16 jet fighters if a minority of African-Americans were planting suicide bombs in white areas. If the US military were to bulldoze and bomb black ghettos into a moonscape of rubble, with whole families buried beneath the wreckage, as collective punishment of all blacks for the actions of a few terrorists, most Americans would revolt at the injustice and virtual genocide such attacks would represent.
But so warped is the distorting prism of Jewish supremacy in the American media, that the monstrous Israeli policy of collective punishment of the entire Palestinian people is repeatedly upheld by Congress and the White House, in defiance of the Geneva Convention and the definition of war crimes imposed by the Americans themselves after WWII.
The current propaganda line describes a war against the Palestinian people in terms of a struggle against "terrorists," with the racist implication that all Palestinian people are terrorists, men, women and children. A similar racist innuendo was maintained by the American media with regard to the Vietnamese people during the early days of the American war in Southeast Asia.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 Nov 11 - 07:33 AM

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1937387.stm
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Nov 11 - 07:37 AM

Jim, how about providing some evidence, like those "independent enquiries" you keep inventing, for all the "massacres" you have already accused Israel of, before dredging up yet another bit of ancient history to demonize them with.

Any thoughts on the membership application at all Jim?

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Nov 11 - 07:41 AM

Jim,

Please note the date of the claim in your post- an be aware that the report WAS made, clearing Israel.

Now, please address MY questions of


"Date: 10 Nov 11 - 02:04 PM

McGrath,

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

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

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


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

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


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


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


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

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Nov 11 - 07:45 AM

From Wiki.

Israel denied charges of a massacre, and a lone April 9 report in the Israeli press stating Foreign Minister Shimon Peres privately referred to the battle as a "massacre"[75] was immediately followed by a statement from Peres expressing concern that "Palestinian propaganda is liable to accuse Israel that a 'massacre' took place in Jenin rather than a pitched battle against heavily armed terrorists."[76]

Subsequent investigations and reports by the United Nations, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Time Magazine, and the BBC all concluded there was no massacre of civilians, with estimated death tolls of 46–55 people among reports by the IDF, the Jenin office of the United Nations, and the Jenin Hospital.[77] A team of four Palestinian-appointed investigators reporting to Fatah numbered total casualties of 56,[65] as disclosed by Kadoura Mousa Kadoura, the director of Yasser Arafat's Fatah movement for the northern West Bank.

The UN report to the Secretary General noted "Palestinians had claimed that between 400 and 500 people had been killed, fighters and civilians together. They had also claimed a number of summary executions and the transfer of corpses to an unknown place outside the city of Jenin. The number of Palestinian fatalities, on the basis of bodies recovered to date, in Jenin and the refugee camp in this military operation can be estimated at around 55."[2] While noting the number of civilian deaths might rise as rubble was cleared, the report continued, "nevertheless, the most recent estimates by UNRWA and ICRC show that the number of missing people is constantly declining as the IDF releases Palestinians from detention."[2] Human Rights Watch completed its report on Jenin in early May, stating "there was no massacre," but accusing the IDF of war crimes,[78] and Amnesty International's report concluded "No matter whose figures one accepts, "there was no massacre."[3] Amnesty's report specifically observed that "after the IDF temporarily withdrew from Jenin refugee camp on April 17, UNRWA set up teams to use the census lists to account for all the Palestinians (some 14,000) believed to be resident of the camp on April 3, 2002. Within five weeks all but one of the residents was accounted for."[79] A BBC report later noted, "Palestinian authorities made unsubstantiated claims of a wide-scale massacre,"[13] and a reporter for the Observer opined that what happened in Jenin was not a massacre.[80]

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: bobad
Date: 16 Nov 11 - 07:49 AM

"Israelis Forbid War Crimes Investigation in Jenin
The nation founded on exploitation of a martyr complex over war crimes, now blocks investigation of its own crimes against humanity
Compiled by Michael A. Hoffman II"

"Michael Anthony Hoffman II, (born 1954, New York), is an American journalist, conspiracy theorist and Holocaust denier who describes himself as a "heretical writer." Hoffman is the managing editor of the newsletter Revisionist History."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_A._Hoffman_II

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Nov 11 - 07:58 AM

And still you act as apologist for the slaughter of civilians
Try this one
Jim

We did Jim, and there WAS NO MASSACRE.
Your frantic Googling for any evidence of Israeli massacres only produced an old bit of propaganda, which you swallowed without question as usual, and you are again revealed as a hate filled, demented bigot.

Well done Jim!

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Nov 11 - 09:47 AM

fyi...

"The United States extended de jure recognition to the Government of Transjordan and the Government of Israel on the same day, 31 January 1949.[30] Clea Bunch said that "President Truman crafted a balanced policy between Israel and its moderate Hashemite neighbours when he simultaneously extended formal recognition to the newly created state of Israel and the Kingdom of Transjordan. These two nations were inevitably linked in the President's mind as twin emergent states: one serving the needs of the refugee Jew, the other absorbing recently displaced Palestinian Arabs. In addition, Truman was aware of the private agreements that existed between Jewish Agency leaders and King Abdullah I of Jordan. Thus, it made perfect sense to Truman to favour both states with de jure recognition."[31]"

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 Nov 11 - 09:52 AM

"propaganda"
Piss off ho;ocaust denier - examples of attacks on civilians in abundance in all the exaamples provided which yo continue to suppport
AND STILL YOU ARE ON YOUR OWN IN THIS
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Nov 11 - 09:55 AM

Jim,

Please address either the thread topic, or the questions directed at you.

Otherwise, we will have to think that you care nothing for the people of either side, just your own bigotry.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Nov 11 - 09:56 AM

should have been "peoples", ie, Palestinians and Israelis.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: GUEST,keith A
Date: 16 Nov 11 - 10:14 AM

It was propaganda Jim.
The Palestinians just lied.
There was no massacre.
See the independent reports by international bodies.
Unlike your ones, these do exist.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Nov 11 - 10:48 AM

'twas me.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 Nov 11 - 01:47 PM

""Michael Anthony Hoffman II,"
And by emulating the Hoffmans of this world's behaviour of holocaust denial by denying proven massacares by Israelis, the point you are making is that basically there is no difference between your stance and his.
His descriptions match the official ones - the enquiries into the massacres, the trustworthy news reprots from The Times, the Guardian, the BBC, the United Nations - all of these are not holocaust deniers. Scumbags like him don't have to make it up any more - you are doing their job for them.
You can't complain about their holocaust denying if you are doing exactly the same thing yourselves.
I picked my example directly off Wikipaedia without having any idea who Hoffman was - it was one of many I could have chosen - I've already given quotes from The United Nations which Keith dismisses out of hand (I doubt if he even read it.
You people in your support for State terrorism have made as great a contribution to Anti-Semitism as a thousand Hoffmans ever could.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 Nov 11 - 02:38 PM

"There was no massacre" - which massacre is that, Keith? It gets copnvoluted trying to ffollow this. There have undoubtedly been more than enough massacres which have indubitably taken place, signed sealed and delivered, and links to information about these have been propvided.

And please don't pretend ("might lack the guts to contradict Jim Carroll,") that I have not stated on several occasions in this thread that I think the use of missiles is wrong, and also tends to hurt Palestinians, since it helps the Israel government to justify its own reliance on far greater levels of violence than the Palestinians have ever been able to deploy. I disagree with Jim on this point.

I suppose, insofar as the use of the missiles may have encouraged this behaviour on the part of Israel, behaviour which I believe threatens the future survival of the country, it might be possible to argue that, in the long run, the missiles will turn out to have damaged Israel rather than helped it - but obviously I wouldn't see that as "justifying" such use. "In the long run" we are all dead, after all.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 Nov 11 - 03:49 PM

"Please address either the thread topic, or the questions directed at you."
Well addressed - I seem to remember you are the clown who suggested that the Palestinians had nor right to live in Palestine legally - have I got the right eejit?
Take your pick from below.
Jim Carroll

The King David Massacre
The Massacre at Baldat al-Shaikh
YEHIDA MASSACRE
KHISAS MASSACRE
QAZAZA MASSACRE
The Semiramis Hotel Massacre
The Massacre at Dair Yasin
NASER AL-DIN MASSACRE
THE TANTURA MASSACRE
BEIT DARAS MASSACRE
THE DAHMASH MOSQUE MASSACRE
DAWAYMA MASSACRE
HOULA MASSACRE
SHARAFAT MASSACRE
Salha Massacre
The Massacre at Qibya
KAFR QASEM MASSACRE
Khan Yunis Massacre
The Massacre in Gaza City
AL-SAMMOU' MASSACRE
Aitharoun Massacre
Kawnin Massacre
Hanin Massacre
Bint Jbeil Massacre
Abbasieh Massacre
Adloun Massacre
Saida Massacre
Fakhani Massacre
Beirut MassacreJibsheet Massacre
Sohmor Massacre
Seer Al Garbiah
Maaraka Massacres
Zrariah Massacre
Homeen Al-Tahta Massacre
Jibaa Massacre
Yohmor Massacre
Tiri massacre
Al-Naher Al-Bared Massacre
Ain Al-Hillwee Massacre
OYON QARA MASSACRE
Siddiqine Massacre
AL-AQSA MOSQUE MASSACRE
THE IBRAHIMI MOSQUE MASSACRE
THE JABALIA MASSACRE
Aramta Massacre
ERETZ CHECKPOINT MASSACRE
Deir Al-Zahrani Massacre
Nabatiyeh (school bus) Massacre
Mnsuriah Massacre
The Sohmor Second Massacre
Nabatyaih Massacre
Qana Massacre
Trqumia Massacr
Janta Massacre
24 Of June 1999 Massacres
Western Bekaa villages Massacre:

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Nov 11 - 03:55 PM

"There was no massacre" - which massacre is that, Keith?

The latest massacre Jim has accused Israel of.
Just this afternoon.
Massive cut and paste job.
You can not have missed it.
He was looking for evidence against Israel, and thought he had finally found some.
But it was all just another lie told to discredit Israel.

Jim, I read all your stuff but can not remember a UN piece supporting your view of a disputed issue.
I doubt I am alone.
Can you remind us please.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Nov 11 - 04:08 PM

Jim, how about providing some evidence, like those "independent enquiries" you keep inventing, for all the "massacres" you have already accused Israel of, before dredging up yet more disputed bits of ancient history to demonize them with.

Any thoughts on the membership application at all Jim?

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 Nov 11 - 05:53 PM

No problems with the other massacres then, Keith? A bit hard sorting through the pile and working out which one it is you don't think can be proved to have happened.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 16 Nov 11 - 06:08 PM

""I cannot help feeling even so, however, that the small but intransigent Palestinian element, their equivalent of those erstwhile Stern & Irgun perpetrators, would maintain even after statehood their influence, and their determination to bring about Israel's complete destruction; and most probably would, as Begin's lot were not, be the first government elected for the new state. Statehood would surely constitute, to put it quite mildly, a most extreme danger to Israel, and to the peace of the area and the world?""

It is worth pointing out, I think, that there is no real evidence that the authors of the rocket attacks have any more political influence than, for example the "Real IRA" in Northern Ireland, and it is also a fact that Hamas only controls the Gaza strip, and as yet their writ doesn't run in the whole of Palestine.

IMHO it is very unlikely that Hamas will ever control the whole country, and statehood confers both benefits and responsibilities.

Palestine as it is now really has little to lose in its efforts to survive. As a recognised state its actions would be much more severely circumscribed by the likelihood of sanctions.

I see more benefits than problems in recognising it as a sovereign state, and the greatest,again IMHO, would be the prevention of further provocative acts by the IDF.

The simplest and best way to stop the rockets is to remove any reason or excuse for their continuation.

After all, Israel too would feel the benefit of THAT.

Don T.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 16 Nov 11 - 06:15 PM

""The smoke was dispensed from air-burst shells.
It would not penetrate roofs or walls.
In the video it can be seen bouncing off roofs.""

How then did it burn patients within the Hospital, which has been attested to by doctors and other eye witnesses?

And killing those young (as you pointed out National Servicemen aged between 18 and 20, and totally lacking in combat experience) was indeed terrorism, however much YOU may disagree.

The British government thought so too, and called it such. I reckon they knew more about it than you.

Don T.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 16 Nov 11 - 06:36 PM

""Jim, how about providing some evidence, like those "independent enquiries" you keep inventing, for all the "massacres" you have already accused Israel of, before dredging up yet another bit of ancient history to demonize them with.""

That piece of ""ancient history"" is newer than my car Keith, and given the sources of the comment very relevant to your demands for evidence.

You will of course dismiss it (in fact you already have) because no evidence will ever penetrate your hard wired inability to see both sides of the matter (more an inability to recognise that there are two sides in fact).

Israel's government and military want no part of any peace with Palestine. They want to provoke a situation in which they can claim justification for taking it over at whatever cost.

If you don't believe that, how about showing one shred of convincing evidence that Israel wants a peaceful settlement.

Now there's a challenge you'll never be able to meet.

Don T.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Lox
Date: 16 Nov 11 - 07:10 PM

BB - you corrected yourself by replacing "People" with "Peoples".

In fact, you would have been more acurate the first time.

They are all just people.

Even the palestinians.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Nov 11 - 01:31 AM

Don, these events may be recent compared to your car, but not to the subject of this or the original thread.
This one came with a special plea, but Jim has his own agenda on this forum and makes every thread into Jim propaganda.

Kevin, why don't you and Jim start a "massacres" thread?

Besides making up your mind on the application without evidence, you do the same with "massacres" because of your prejudice.
You and Jim were certain about the camp massacres but have put up NOTHING (despite Jim's bluster) to refute Israel's version.

Gaza is on the list, but no evidence Israel acted illegally.

It is easy to put up a list of 20 allegations, but much harder to provide evidence, never mind proof.

If you want to debate "massacres" put up one at a time with evidence for and against.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Nov 11 - 03:52 AM

"Jim, how about providing some evidence, like those "independent enquiries" "
You've had your evidence 100 time over Keith; you don't read most of what other people put up and you reject what little you do read out-of-hand if it doesn't happen to fit with your own twisted bigotry and racism - you're noted for it - it has been pointed out to you a dozen times over by others.
Massacres such as Sabra and Shatila are enquired into, published and proven beyond doubt - they are an established part of history. If you are going to dispute such events without debate, without, qualification, without even knowledge of the subject in hand (which you admit, as you have on other subjects when you have resorted to false claims that "I didn't say it - it was somebody else") I can't see why anybody should waste time trying to change the yawning gap that passes for "your mind".
As I said - do your own homework.
Your classic, also out-of-hand dismissal of the international bodies, the UN and UNESCO, representatives of a large slice of the civilised world, as "biased" stand as a monument to your own viciously narrow way of looking at life.
As far as I'm concerned, it is enough that your support for the use of chemical weapons in built-up areas, for ethnic cleansing, for the destruction of homes and annexation of land, for starving a whole, already impoverished population into political submission, for the expulsion of an entire ethnic group, for the slaughter of women and children, for the acceptibility of the killing of hostages, for the day-to-day humiliation and persecution of the citizens of an entire city..... is added to your "all male Pakistanis are cultural perverts", "Travellers are prominent in keeping slaves", "there is nothing wrong with holding inflamatory sectarian marches in the middle of peace negotiations".... right down to your hint that maybe immigrants with aids should not receive medical treatment.... are now an archived and accessible part of your C.V. - just like Sabra and Shatila are part of Israel's.
As far as I can see, you've summed up your attitude to all debate with your also classic "I'm just putting Israel's" point of view, and then going on to accuse those who oppose you (just about everybody here) as "prejudiced" - YOU REALLY COULDN'T HAVE MADE THAT ONE UP IF YOU WERE A SCRIPTWRITER FOR MONTY PYTHON!!!
In your defence, I don't think I've ever come across anybody who is prepared to put the time and effort into your racism, bigotry and xenophobia that you have shown yourself willing to - keep up the good work.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: GUEST,keith A
Date: 17 Nov 11 - 04:05 AM

You have NOT provided evidence for any of your claims.
I do not call all opponents prejudiced, only those who make up their minds without evidence.
I did not dismiss UN Gen. Council or UNESCO., I just pointed out that liberal democracies are hugely outnumbered and outvoted on those fora.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Nov 11 - 07:07 AM

All lies again then Keith - thank you for making my point so succintly
Have a good rally
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Nov 11 - 07:43 AM

Not ALL lies Jim.
It is true I have only put the Israeli position.
There are plenty of you busy putting only the Palestinian view.
That alone does not demonstrate prejudice.

Remember how you and Kevin decided Israel was wrong to oppose membership without even finding out their reasons?
Prejudice.
Similarly there is nothing I have seen, certainly nothing produced by you, to refute Israel's version of Sabra and Shatila
But you "know" they did it!
Prejudice.

(Last post was me)

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: beardedbruce
Date: 17 Nov 11 - 08:09 AM

Ni, Jim.

I am the person who pointed out that your post of

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Jim Carroll - PM
Date: 16 Nov 11 - 07:27 AM

ignored the fact that the UN DID conduct the investigation, and found NO MASSACRE.

I am also the person who asked if you wanted the Israelis to treat the Palestinians as the Palestinians have treated the Jews in their territories, and gotten no reply.

I am also the person who asked if you wanted the Israelis to treat the Palestinians as the Arab nations have treated them ( from 1948 to present), and gotten no answer.

I am also the person who asked why the ethnic cleansing of Jews form the West Bank ( 1948-1967) gave them NO right to go back, but the Palestinians who left Israel ( a minority) get the right that YOU deny to Jews?

I am also the person who thinks that you are a blatant bigot who could not care less about the Palestinian people, or anyone else, as long as you can demand that Jews be killed. Otherwise, you would acknowledge that SELF_DEFENSE ( that you calim is OK) would let the Israelis randomly bombard Gaza with antipersonnel rockets directed at the civilian population- WHICH THEY HAVE NOT DONE.

Israel has acted, in general, in accordance with the laws of war: When they have not they should, and generally HAVE, been taken to task over those actions.- The Palestinians have repeatedly violated those laws AS STATED BY THE UN, yet you say that is OK as long as Jews get killed.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: beardedbruce
Date: 17 Nov 11 - 10:40 AM

Lox,

"
From: Lox - PM
Date: 16 Nov 11 - 07:10 PM

BB - you corrected yourself by replacing "People" with "Peoples".

In fact, you would have been more acurate the first time.

They are all just people.

Even the palestinians."

True.

A pity Jim does not believe that the same rules he puts on Israel do not apply to the Palestinians- If there were not attacks ON Israel, there would be none on Gaza.


As for the Palestinians, they have chosen to smuggle ( into Gaza) rockets and material to make them, rather than food and medicines. IMO, Israel has no responsibility to give them what they have chosen NOT to bring in themselves.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: beardedbruce
Date: 17 Nov 11 - 10:44 AM

Still waiting on your twist of what happened in 1949...



"The United States extended de jure recognition to the Government of Transjordan and the Government of Israel on the same day, 31 January 1949.[30] Clea Bunch said that "President Truman crafted a balanced policy between Israel and its moderate Hashemite neighbours when he simultaneously extended formal recognition to the newly created state of Israel and the Kingdom of Transjordan. These two nations were inevitably linked in the President's mind as twin emergent states: one serving the needs of the refugee Jew, the other absorbing recently displaced Palestinian Arabs. In addition, Truman was aware of the private agreements that existed between Jewish Agency leaders and King Abdullah I of Jordan. Thus, it made perfect sense to Truman to favour both states with de jure recognition."[31]" "

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Nov 11 - 02:23 PM

Remember how you and Kevin decided Israel was wrong to oppose membership without even finding out their reasons?
Prejudice.

Since most countries see Palestinian statehood as right and proper, the onus for coming up with reasons why they are allwrong rests with those who oppose membership. In the absence of such reason to oppose statehood would appear to involve prejudice.

The only reason you have indicated for opposing statehood appears to be that the Israel government is opposed to it. That's not in itself a reason.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Nov 11 - 02:49 PM

I did not express an opinion on UN membership, and I do not oppose statehood.

Israel was known to be against it.
You admitted not knowing their reasons, but you said they were wrong anyway!

We now know UK, Europe and Canada do not support membership, and they are certainly not prejudiced against Palestine.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Nov 11 - 03:23 PM

"ignored the fact that the UN DID conduct the investigation, and found NO MASSACRE."
I know that massacres did take place in Palestine in 1948 - back in the late sixties we recorded an old WW1 soldier in Liverpool and following the interview his son told us that he and his mates were on the point of embarking for Britain from Palestine when word came that Jewish freedom fighters were rampaging through some villages and clearing out the occupants by throwing hand grenades into the houses. There was a near mutint because some of the soldiers wanted to go back to stop what was happening, but were ordered on board ship by the officers - which pretty well fits in with the Wiki account of Deir Yassin - and also the fictionalised sequence in the television serial 'The Promise' earlier this year.
You want to prove that these were not massacres - feel free.
But to be frank - I have no interest in re-fighting battles that were fought when I was seven years old - I only raised the matter because some arsehole claimed that there had been NO MASSACRES WHATEVER
I am more concerned with the killings that are taking place now, and in seeing peace brought to the Middle East in my lifetime.
I don't think this is going to be achieved by slaughtering non-combatants, the use of chemical weapons and heavy artillery indiscriminately in built up areas, building Berlin-type Walls, starving people already impoverished into submission, stealing taxed gathered under an international agreement, ethnically cleansing a country of entire communities..... or, for that matter, seizing land on the say-so of a two thousand year ild fairy story.
"as long as you can demand that Jews be killed."
Don't you dare pull the "anti Semite" stunt with me - its already been tried on this thread to the disgrace of the person/people who used it - it's hard nosed pricks like yourself who have disgraced the Jewish people by your strutting Zionism and skulking behind the dead of Auzchwithz - you shame the six million by your very presence - you disgrace to the people you claim to support - piss off you twisted perv.
Jim Carroll   

The Deir Yassin massacre took place on April 9, 1948, when around 120 fighters from the Irgun Zevai Leumi and Lohamei Herut Israel Zionist paramilitary groups attacked Deir Yassin near Jerusalem, a Palestinian-Arab village of roughly 600 people.[1] The assault occurred as Jewish militia sought to relieve the blockade of Jerusalem during the civil war that preceded the end of British rule in Palestine.[2]
Around 107 villagers were killed during and after the battle for the village, including women and children—some were shot, while others died when hand grenades were thrown into their homes.[3] Several villagers were taken prisoner and may have been killed after being paraded through the streets of West Jerusalem, though accounts vary.[4] Four of the attackers died, with around 35 injured.[5] The killings were condemned by the leadership of the Haganah—the Jewish community's main paramilitary force—and by the area's two chief rabbis. The Jewish Agency for Israel sent Jordan's King Abdullah a letter of apology, which he rebuffed.[2]
The deaths became a pivotal event in the Arab-Israeli conflict for their demographic and military consequences. The narrative was embellished and used by various parties to attack each other—by the Palestinians to besmirch Palestine's Jewish community and subsequently Israel; by the Haganah to play down their own role in the affair; and later by the Israeli Left to accuse the Irgun and Lehi of violating the Jewish principle of purity of arms, thus blackening Israel's name around the world.[6] News of the killings sparked terror within the Palestinian community, encouraging them to flee from their towns and villages in the face of Jewish troop advances, and it strengthened the resolve of Arab governments to intervene, which they did five weeks later.[2]

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 17 Nov 11 - 06:46 PM

""Otherwise, you would acknowledge that SELF_DEFENSE ( that you calim is OK) would let the Israelis randomly bombard Gaza with antipersonnel rockets directed at the civilian population- WHICH THEY HAVE NOT DONE.""

True BB, they didn't ""randomly bombard Gaza with antipersonnel rockets directed at the civilian population-"", they used White phosphorus, heavy artillery and aerial attacks, all very deliberately and efficiently aimed.

Nothing the least bit random. They knew exactly who was collecting all that crap.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

""A pity Jim does not believe that the same rules he puts on Israel do not apply to the Palestinians- If there were not attacks ON Israel, there would be none on Gaza.""

There are other ways of attacking a neighbour than guns you know. Every time Israel expands its settlements in its neighbour's territory, that is an attack.

And that has not stopped even during ceasefires when no rockets were being fired. So Israel has never stopped attacking and shows no sign that she ever will.

Don T.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Nov 11 - 01:41 AM

to be frank - I have no interest in re-fighting battles that were fought when I was seven years old - I only raised the matter because some arsehole claimed that there had been NO MASSACRES WHATEVER
I am more concerned with the killings that are taking place now,

Not true Jim.
It was YOU who kept dragging us back to these events.
And, NO-ONE is claiming no massacres.

Your latest one.
An act of terror by terrorists, not IDF or Israel.
They only claimed to be acting for Israel, as all the IRAs claim to be acting for Ireland.

Sabra Shatila.
Fiske walked around the camps in the immediate aftermath talking to survivors.
Not one implicated Israelis.
Why?
He saw the remains of parachute flares, and wrongly thought they were dropped from aircraft.
Any soldier would tell him they never are.
They are from hand launched rockets and mortars, which the militia itself would have.

But you still blame Israel in the absence of any evidence at all.
Just as you did the massacre at Jenin, which did not actually happen at all.
Just made up lies.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Nov 11 - 03:04 AM

"Not true Jim."
And it is you who persists on claiming that they never happened, ignoring the proof you are given here and that which is largely accepted by the world and demanding yet more - it is you, not me (nor anybody else who has had stood up to your 'dripping tap' style of argument, who has taken sides - the side of a terrorist state with ethnic cleansing in mind.
"And, NO-ONE is claiming no massacres."
"No massacres" were your EXACT WORDS. Or were you only "quoting reliable experts"?
"Not one implicated Israelis."
The Israelis ,DROVE THE KILLERS TO THE MURDER SITE, THEY OPENED THE GATES TO ALLOW THEM ACCESS TO THEIR VICTIMS, THEY PROVIDED ILLUMINATION SO THE KILLERS COULD CARRY OUT THEIR WORK EFFICIENTLY, THEY STOOD BY WHILE THE KILLING WENT ON KILLING AND THEY HELPED BURY THE BODIES UNDER WHAT IS NOW THE STADIUM. THERE IS EYE WITNESS EVIDENCE THAT THEY WERE IN THE CAMPS WHILE THE SLAUGHTER TOOK PLACE - ONE WOMAN DESCRIBED HOW SHE SAW THE SOLDIERS STANDING BY WITNESSING THE WOMEN WHO WERE BEING HERDED AWAY TO BE RAPED THEN MURDERED. THE MASSACRE WOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN ABLE TO TAKE PLACE WITHOUT THE FULL AND ENTHUSIASTICE PARTICIPATION OF ISRAELI TROOPS - THAT IS THE VERY LEAST OF THEIR IMPLICATIONS IN MASS MURDER AND IT IS FULLY ACCEPTED THAT THIS IS WHAT THEY DID - WHICH OF THESE ACTIONS DO YOU CLAIM DID NOT TAKE PLACE ?
You remain a sordid little holocaust and ethnic cleansing supporter; once again, thanks fort the confirmation.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Nov 11 - 03:18 AM

Jim, what is the source for that tale told in red capitals?
Tell us why we should believe any of it please.

"And it is you who persists on claiming that they never happened,"

Not true. I am just asking for the evidence you should have.

"ignoring the proof you are given here "

Sometimes posts go missing Jim.
None has appeared.

"and that which is largely accepted by the world"

I challenge that. Please justify.


" "No massacres" were your EXACT WORDS."

Lie.
I said "No massacre" about Jenin, which was true.
You were wrong to cite that massacre because it never happened.
Just made up lies.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Nov 11 - 05:12 AM

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 19 Oct 11 - 08:38 AM

No chemical weapons at all.
No massacres at all.
Which illustrates perfectly why there is no point whatever in responding to your Zionist propaganda - you lie - this was a statement you made before the Janin massacre was even a twinkle....
I really can't see why you take part in these debates - you admit ignorance on the subjects yet you dont read what others have to say you appear not even to read your own posts in order to allay that ignorance.
You've lied about this - you lied about taking your information about culturally perverted Pakistanis from "experts" - you singularly have ignored requests to provide a quote of anybody else saying it - if this is not true - PUT UP YOUR QUOTE
It all seems a gigantic ego trip to you.
As far as the Sabra Shatila massacre massacre is concerned - it's been put up to you - they are the findings of everybody except the Israelis - which you have admitted is the case you are batting for - LOOK IT UP FOR YOURSELF
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 18 Nov 11 - 05:36 AM

"a sordid little holocaust and ethnic cleansing supporter;" were words you used of Keith a couple of posts back, Jim. I have, as you will have observed, not contributed to this thread of late; but feel bound to remind you, yet again, that "holocaust" has become a word of very specific meaning, whatever its original connotation of sacrifice: and it is impolitic of anyone to use it of just any politically or racially motivated killing. This is especially the case on your part, considering the resentment expressed by you about some of BB's accusations, [and some of mine same way back, for that matter, since withdrawn]. You have seen before that flinging this word around unthinkingly, in particular in regard to Israeli actions, is liable to lay you open to certain suspicions which you have repeatedly stated do not apply to you: so why persist in giving further rise to them?

It is, note again please, widely regarded as an antisemitic act to use that word in relation to Israel. If you persist in doing so, conclusions as to your bona fides are bound to be drawn.

~Michael~

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Nov 11 - 06:06 AM

And I continue to remind you mike that you have been found supporting Keith's anti Pakistani racism while objecting to the same aimed against Jews.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Nov 11 - 06:17 AM

As far as the Sabra Shatila massacre massacre is concerned - it's been put up to you - they are the findings of everybody except the Israelis

All you have put up to support this is a Wiki page.
That page warned that no citations had ever been provided for the claims of Israeli complicity.
You dishonestly and deceitfully deleted those warnings from your cut and paste.

There is no doubt the massacre happened.
Israel acknowledges it.
I gave their version an no-one has provided anything to refute any part of it.
If you have something now, post it!

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Nov 11 - 06:42 AM

No Keith - you've had it LOOK for IT YOURSELF
I assume that your silence on the other two issueds is an admission that you have lied and now intend to attempt the divert the topic onto another track
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Nov 11 - 06:47 AM

I have made clear by repeated statements that I do not deny massacres, or even Israeli participation.
Being open-minded and unprejudiced, I ask for evidence.
That has been my case throughout.

The "NO MASSACRES" post (month ago different thread) was in the context of Israeli guilt for Sabra Shatila, as my very next post makes clear.
I only had time for a quick post. This was the clarification.

Keith A of Hertford - PM
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.