Palestine (continuation)

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Nov 11 - 06:46 AM

Lox, he said "Israel Defense Forces enter Gaza in response to these acts "

"These acts were thus prior to the incursion but after the ceasefire.

We both know that the cease fire broke down without needing to consult experts anyway.

When after the ceasefire were Finkelstein's quotes made Lox?
It was not broken at once.

A year later?
A week?
The next day?
Later the same afternoon?

We do not have the quotes in context or any idea when they were made, so they shed no light at all.

Finding an "expert" for or against Israel does not further this debate one inch Lox.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Nov 11 - 06:49 AM

Pipes' piece is 2006, so you are right, it does not refer to the 2008 ceasefire.
My other comments stand.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 03 Nov 11 - 07:06 AM

Keith ~ I early learned that trying reason against the entrenched, dont-confuse-me-with facts, assumptions of Colostolox the ShitbagShouter is a waste of effort. IIWY I shouldn't waste another moment on him,

~M~

Note to Al, Kevin and some others who appear ill-at-ease with my mode of referring to this gadfly-Catter: OK, I drop the piggidroppings bit; but considering the time and emphasis and pertinacity he has expended,unapologetically & motivelessly SFAICS,(if any motive he consistently refuses to divulge it despite frequent enquiries) on accusing me, inaccurately, of stinking due to an ill-fitting colostomy bag, and explicitly expressing his delight at its having irritated me, I feel my "Colostilox the ShitbagShouter" to be a completely concise, compact, coherent, congruous, convenient, correct, compatible cognomen. Any objections to that one ~~ tough-ɷɷ!

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 03 Nov 11 - 07:35 AM

I think it has to be assumed that one purpose of many of the actions of the Israel regime (extending settlements, carrying out some military actions) is to ensure that the conflict is continued.

The same would appear to be the case for those firing missiles from Gaza. Whether these are under the control of Hamas has never been satisfactorily proved.

It takes two to tango. Two partners.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Lox
Date: 03 Nov 11 - 08:26 AM

There is only one source of factual evidence here on the subject of the 2008 ceasefire and that is The Israeli Foreign office report on the ceasefire, as reported by a proven expert in the field.

Those are the facts.

MtheGM is busy stirring his bitter soup and as such remains a waste of time.

And Keith says the following.

"We both know that the cease fire broke down without needing to consult experts anyway."

Mm hmm ... and who broke it?

Well according to the only evidence on here it was not Hamas.


Oh no ... wait ... keith posted some 'expert testimony' ... but it turned out to be irrelevant ... at which point he decides conveniently that we don't need any ...

"When after the ceasefire were Finkelstein's quotes made Lox?"

He has provided this information in many speeches including the one posted and has also published it, every time quoting his source as the Israeli foreign ministry report.

"Finding an "expert" for or against Israel does not further this debate one inch Lox. "

Oh really? But I guess it did when Jack Straw and Lord Ahmed supported your views about Pakistanis eh? ...

... but then of course you were only reporting their "expert" testimony weren't you ... impartially like ...

...Despite their having never been recognized as having any expertise ...

As for 'pro Israel/anti Israel', Finkelstein is a Pro Israeli Jew - who recognizes that current Israeli Government policy is damaging Israels interests in an unprecedented way whilst also engaged in the murder of palestinian civilians including thousands of children.


I am astonished at your double standards and farcical dishonesty.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Nov 11 - 08:55 AM

So when were Finklestein's quotes made Lox?
Exactly how long after the ceasefire?

Who first broke the ceasefire?
It depends what actions you consider a breach.
There will never be agreement on it.

I did put up a number of experts on the prejudice thread.
They knew about BP culture because they were part of it.
I was not aware of anyone contradicting them.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 03 Nov 11 - 08:58 AM

This, from Lox, is a perfectly tenable view
~~As for 'pro Israel/anti Israel', Finkelstein is a Pro Israeli Jew - who recognizes that current Israeli Government policy is damaging Israels interests in an unprecedented way whilst also engaged in the murder of palestinian civilians including thousands of children.~~

But as to this otoh
~~MtheGM is busy stirring his bitter soup and as such remains a waste of time.~~

Well, see what I mean? Al, Kevin ~ you've been busy defending the little ShitbagShouter: let's hear it for him again, shall we? ···

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: GUEST,livelylass
Date: 03 Nov 11 - 09:46 AM

Lox: "As for 'pro Israel/anti Israel', Finkelstein is a Pro Israeli Jew - who recognizes that current Israeli Government policy is damaging Israels interests in an unprecedented way"

Quite. Which is precisely the same position maintained by Chomsky likewise (influential to Finklestein's own perspective and work). But those who denounce both as 'leftist traitors' or 'self-hating Jews' or invoke some other form of ad hominem abuse, never acknowledge this clearly stated 'pro-Israel' position.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 03 Nov 11 - 11:27 AM

I dislike stuff like "MtheGM is busy stirring his bitter soup" as much as I do "little Shitbag Shouter", and I would never dream of defending either.

But that quote from Lox does indeed seem tenable to me, though expressed in an inflammatory way. Israel's Government policy does indeed damage the interests of the Israeli people, Jewish or non-Jewish (and I note that you, MtheGM has indicated that you judge it that way), and it has indeed led to the death of thousands of children over the years.

The crucial difference here should be between those who think that violence in this conflict is justified, at least by one side which they favour, and those who do not.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Nov 11 - 12:10 PM

The crucial difference here should be between those who think that violence in this conflict is justified,

Some would say that violence is never justified.
I believe it is not justified by hate or revenge.
I think that the rocketing of towns, and suicide bombing of buses full of people going to school and work, are motivated by hate and revenge.

I believe that violence can be justified in self defence.
I believe a degree of violence is acceptable to prevent or reduce such attacks ,though not indiscriminate violence.
You can argue that Israel's action have been disproportionate, and we could debate that.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 03 Nov 11 - 03:03 PM

Talk of self-defence in this context is misleading. The violence is self-defeating to ordinary people on both sides. It serves to ensure that the violence by the other side continues. I suppose it is possible that that is not the intended outcome, but the longer this process continues the less likely that seems likely to be true.

That is particularly true when it comes to acts which appear deliberately intended to ensure that a ceasefire breach is escalated.

Non-violent resistance by Palestinians can be a real threat to the status quo, which is why those who attempt to act in this way,including Israeli supporters.

It does not seem like a matter of disproportion, but of calculation.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 03 Nov 11 - 03:09 PM

I don't have all the facts, but putting those settlers in as human shields is wrong wrong wrong. Some are from other countries, if I understand correctly, and their hyperenthusiasm is being exploited. If you need a DMZ, use it for grazing or national parks or green space or water storage or something but not for something designed to get people, especially children, killed.   mg

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 03 Nov 11 - 03:22 PM

I accidentally deleted a bit if my last post. Here goes again:

Talk of self-defence in this context is misleading. The violence is self-defeating to ordinary people on both sides. It serves to ensure that the violence by the other side continues. I suppose it is possible that that is not the intended outcome, but the longer this process continues the less likely that seems likely to be true.

That is particularly true when it comes to acts which appear deliberately intended to ensure that a ceasefire breach is escalated.

Non-violent resistance by Palestinians can be a real threat to the status quo, which is why those who attempt to act in this way, including Israeli supporters, meet a brutal response.

It does not seem like a matter of disproportion, but of calculation.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Lox
Date: 03 Nov 11 - 03:30 PM

Indded it is hard to see how evicting residents of East Jerusalem and housing settlers there, or indeed evicting farmers on the west bank and building settlements there constitutes self defence.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Lox
Date: 03 Nov 11 - 03:33 PM

As for the notion that the Gaza Massacre of 2008-2009 was self defence, Finkelsteins collection of Israeli Soldiers eyewitness testimonies pretty clearly demonstrates what an utter nonsense that idea is.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 03 Nov 11 - 04:17 PM

Bloody Sunday was "self defence" too. So was the Iraq War.

I'm trying to think of a war that wasn't claimed to be "self-defence" by whoever started it...

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Lox
Date: 03 Nov 11 - 04:40 PM

Funny - Keith supports those notions as well to the absolute bitter end ...

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Lox
Date: 03 Nov 11 - 04:46 PM

The Guardian today reported on the possibility of a war in Iran.

Lets not be under any illusions as to the reason why though.

Here's US Spokesman John Bolton Admitting All Of These Wars Are For Oil

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Nov 11 - 05:14 PM

Kevin, I am not aware of anyone claiming Bloody Sunday was self defence.
I am surprised you thought it helpful to open that can of worms.

When Israel removed its troops and settlers from Gaza, the rain of missiles began.
Would you deny them the right to take action to reduce the attacks on their citizens?
How is it not self defence, provided it is not indiscriminate or disproportionate?
How is launching a missile loaded with ball bearings indiscriminately at a town self defence?

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Nov 11 - 05:37 PM

I'm trying to think of a war that wasn't claimed to be "self-defence" by whoever started it...

Do Hamas claim that their operations against the people living in Israel are "self defence" Kevin?
I think they claim it is to further their stated aim of destroying the state of Israel.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Nov 11 - 03:50 AM

"Kevin, I am not aware of anyone claiming Bloody Sunday was self defence."
For decades the excuse given for the slaughter of 13 unarmed civil rights demonstrators, (plus 14 wounded), by British troops was that some of the demonstrators were armed and that there were IRA snipers in the vicinity - now admitted to be a lie.
I believe you've even put forward similar excuses for the massacre yourself (another lie, no doubt).
Not surprised you don't want to open that particular "can of worms".
It is common for belligerant and agressive forces to make such claims and treat civilian casualities as 'expendable' - the Americans have even invented a phrase for it - "collateral damage".
You have also attempted to excuse this in the past by describing the Gazans as 'Hamas hostages' who 'got in the way of Israeli fire'.
The deliberate targeting of civilians by Israeli troops has bacome commonplace - one Israeli ex-minister has been declared a war criminal and is unable to enter Britain because of such actions.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 04 Nov 11 - 06:28 PM

I imagine that Hamas would say that they were defending the people of Palestine against the Europeans invaders who have displacd them and who continue to subjugate them, or something like that.

It's always "self defence". Settlers in America were engaged in self defence against the Native Americans. And the Native Americans were engaged on self-defence when they attacked the settlers.

In the cobntext of America the imbalance of power and numbers was so great that the "self-defence" of the settlers pushing west was able to be "successful." But in the context of Palestine/Israel and the Middle East that is not the case. "Self defence" can pretty certainly be recognsed to be self-defeating in the long run - for both sides.

Peole who support the violence carried out by either side are no true friends to that side. People who oppose it are no enemies.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Lox
Date: 04 Nov 11 - 06:59 PM

You don't have to imagine it McGrath - there is a mountain of evidence all over the net showing that people in Gaza view the rockets as the only alternative they have.

I am not commenting on whether this is right or wrong, I am just saying that it is what people living in Gaza say - they are defending themselves.

Do I feel its right to fire rockets at civilians? No I don't. I think it is unacceptable.

But from an academic point of view, I tend to be inclined to see it the way finkelstein does - that it is a form of protest where there are no alternatives that work, and the only other apparent option is to bend over and take it.

Peaceful protest happens every day in Gaza and is met with violence every time, yet both the large scale peaceful proesting and the disproportionate and often lethal response generally goes unreported.

Violence is inflicted against palestinians by settlers every day in East Jerusalem and on the west bank against farmers and their property and crops, and the IDF stands by and watches and allows it, and it goes unreported.

If you are slowly being strangled and nobody is helping, you will eventually start kicking.

The rockets have succeeded in keeping the issue in the news and the world is paying attention to the debate.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Nov 11 - 05:49 AM

We will have to disagree on that.
I do not accept that indiscriminately firing rockets specifically constructed to cause damage to people, in their homes and schools, is a legitimate form of protest.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Nov 11 - 06:20 AM

I would have posted this reply here, but the thread had been closed.

04 Nov 11 - 04:57 PM

there were IRA snipers in the vicinity - now admitted to be a lie.

Now known to be true.

I believe you've even put forward similar excuses for the massacre yourself (another lie, no doubt).

No, I have never claimed it was self defence.
Who here ever has?

The deliberate targeting of civilians by Israeli troops has bacome commonplace

I am not aware of this, please substantiate.

The deliberate targeting of civilians by Palestinian fighters has been a commonplace for years.
Do you need that substantiated?

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Nov 11 - 06:31 AM

From BBc site yesterday, why Britain France and Germany will not support application.

The UN diplomat said Britain, France and Colombia stated their positions in a private meeting of the Security Council committee dealing with the Palestinian application.

The diplomat said Germany also declared it could not support the Palestinian bid, without clarifying whether it would abstain or vote against.


In real terms this does not matter, because the Americans have already made it clear they would veto the Palestinian request.

But in political and moral terms it does: the Palestinians were hoping to show they could isolate the Americans by getting majority support on the Security Council. That looks unlikely now.

A source in Britain's Foreign Office says William Hague will explain the decision to parliament on Wednesday.

Britain and France support Palestinian statehood in principle.

But they have expressed concern that a Palestinian bid to become a UN member state right now could harm chances of reviving the peace process.

There is also general concern here that a Palestinian confrontation with the Americans on this issue could ignite violence in the Middle East.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 Nov 11 - 07:02 AM

If David Cameron and William Hague say something, it must clearly be correct...
.....................
"No, I have never claimed it was self defence.
Who here ever has?"

It is completely irrelevant what you or anybody there might have said or failed to say. What is relevant is that the British Government did repeatedly back the claim that the soldiers on Bloody Sunday were defending themselves.

The point I was making is that "self defence" is always used to justify violence. It may well be that this is a perfectly sincere claim - but that does not mean it is an accurate expression. "Self defence" which results in continuing and escalating violence in response is no defence. And that is the situation in the Holy Land.

It is true that, as Lox wrote their, non-violent resistance by Palestinians (often with the backing of Israeli sympathisers) is met by violent repression, and goes unreported. But that does not mean that violence is a better alternative. The rockets fired at random merely provide a useful diversion which takes attention away from more relevant forms of resistance, and provides an opportunity for Israel's revanchists to strike once more, and so guarantee that the conflict continues to be carried out in their language

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Nov 11 - 07:37 AM

We agree that claims of self defence are sometimes spurious.

It is spurious claim it is self defence when you commit atrocities against ordinary families.

It is reasonable to claim that actions taken to prevent atrocities being committed against your people, are self defence.
(IMO)

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Lox
Date: 05 Nov 11 - 07:40 AM

Well Keith,

Once again, you have neglected to read before responding.

I didn't say Rockets were a legitimate form of protest - I recognized that it may be the only action available to Palestinians.

As I said, "Do I feel its right to fire rockets at civilians? No I don't. I think it is unacceptable."

But I am at a loss to suggest an alternative given that negotiation and peaceful protest, not to mention sticking to the terms of the ceasefire and according to Israel doing their very best to uphold it, seem to be doing nthing to either win sympathy or to release the stranglehold that Israel is inflicting.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Nov 11 - 07:58 AM

"there were IRA snipers in the vicinity - now admitted to be a lie."
Stop editing out what I said.
"For decades the excuse given for the slaughter of 13 unarmed civil rights demonstrators, (plus 14 wounded), by British troops was that some of the demonstrators were armed and that there were IRA snipers in the vicinity - now admitted to be a lie."
It was a lie that the presence of snipers was the reason for the massacre - that's what I said and that's what I meant - and that's what the Saville report said.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 05 Nov 11 - 09:44 AM

"demonstrators were armed and that there were IRA snipers in the vicinity - now admitted to be a lie."
It was a lie that the presence of snipers was the reason for the massacre - that's what I said and that's what I meant - and that's what the Saville report said."""""
.,,.
Without getting too much involved in this particular aspect of the controversy, which is one of my 'can see both sides' comment-inhibitory situations; I think in interest of justice that it was, to say the least, a bit ambiguous as to what part of it you were denouncing as a lie, Jim.

~M~

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Nov 11 - 10:06 AM

Without taking this too far off thread - the presence of 2 snipers (one of them possibly Martin McGuinness) - it has been a long-running issue in defence of the Bloody SUNday massacre; - would have been a bit daft to suggest, particularly in the light of past arguments.
It's all in one sentence, which Keith chose to cut in half - nowt ambiguous about it.
Having dismissed the massacres and human rights atrocities carried out by Israel as lies, turning chemical weapons into fireworks, ignoring Israel's proposal to drive the Bedouins out of their homeland..... Keith appears to e going through a straw-grasping stage.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Nov 11 - 10:16 AM

If David Cameron and William Hague say something, it must clearly be correct...

How glibly you dismiss this information.
It is fair to say, Kevin, that you, Lox and Jim have given unequivocal support for the membership application.

A couple of days ago, you admitted that you had no idea what reasons Israel was putting forward against it, and not one of your team was able to enlighten you either.

You did not need to know.
If Israel is against it, you are for it, and vice versa.

How can we not see this as blind, irrational prejudice against Israel?

I am sure that the governments and diplomatic corps. of Britain, Canada, France and Germany have looked at both sides, and guess what?
They agree with Israel.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Nov 11 - 10:19 AM

"Having dismissed the massacres and human rights atrocities carried out by Israel as lies, turning chemical weapons into fireworks, ignoring Israel's proposal to drive the Bedouins out of their homeland..... Keith appears to e going through a straw-grasping stage."

I have no reply!

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 Nov 11 - 11:23 AM

So far as I can see the only reason presented by Hague or anyoner else for opposing Palestrinian membership of the UN is that the Israeli government are against it.   

However a recent public opinion poll indicated that as much as 70 per cent of Israelis would be willing to accept such statehood.

So that counts as "blind, irrational prejudice against Israel"...

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Nov 11 - 11:27 AM

I imagine those Israelis have looked at both sides and come to a rational decision based on the evidence as they see it.
Unlike those here.
Hague has not given his reasoning yet.
Wednesday in Parliament.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Nov 11 - 11:30 AM

However a recent public opinion poll indicated that as much as 70 per cent of Israelis would be willing to accept such statehood.

Please clarify if the poll was about this issue of UN membership.
Statehood is the long term goal of everyone isn't it?

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 Nov 11 - 01:51 PM

You must have some reason for opposing Palestinian statehood over and above the fact that the present Israeli government is opposed to it, Keith.

Or rather, if that is your only reason, it would seem to indicate a measure of blind, irrational prejudice.
............................

As for "Statehood is the long term goal of everyone isn't it?" The continued\extension of the illegal settlements in the West Bank would appear to throw doubt on that. It would appear the the Israeli government may be hoping to achieve something on the lines of pseudo-states comparable to the Bantustans, or the Native American reservation, in patches of the West Bank divided by expanded settlements.

This would have the advantage over straight annexation of the West Bank that it would keep the Palestinian population out of the electorate.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Nov 11 - 01:52 PM

"Statehood is the long term goal of everyone isn't it?"
Statehood should be left to the UN - not 2 self-interested nations Israel (aggressively expansionist) and the US (financially and politically predatory) especially as the human rights records of both leave much to be desired.
United Nations responsibilty should never be allowed to be hi-jacked by financial, political and military bullying
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Mrrzy
Date: 05 Nov 11 - 02:48 PM

You said it, Jim Carroll!

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Nov 11 - 04:14 PM

Just seen that Israel has arrested 2 aid ships (1 Irish) attempting to break the blockade - probably the crudest and earliest form of repression is trying to blackmail the population as a whole (men, women and children) into submission by cutting off everyday essentials for living. At least they haven't killed anybody, like they did last time, but it's early days yet.
No what were people saying about Palestinian aggression!!!
"It is reasonable to claim that actions taken to prevent atrocities being committed against your people, are self defence."
Yeah - right!!!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 Nov 11 - 04:51 PM

actions taken to prevent atrocities being committed against your people, are self defence

But not when the effect is to make such atrocities more likely to happen.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Nov 11 - 02:09 AM

You must have some reason for opposing Palestinian statehood over and above the fact that the present Israeli government is opposed to it, Keith.

Or rather, if that is your only reason, it would seem to indicate a measure of blind, irrational prejudice.

I have no opinion about it.
I would need to know more, because I am not driven by blind, irrational prejudice

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Nov 11 - 03:44 AM

"because I am not driven by blind, irrational prejudice"
Sabra and Shatila and other massacres, white phosphorus, murderous incursions into Gaza, maintaining a cowardly blockade, expulsion of the bedouins....... (not to mention cultural implants)
Hmmm
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Nov 11 - 04:28 AM

Jim, on all those issues I simply put the Israeli side of the story.
The side you do not want to know, hear or think about.

Sabra and Shatila for instance.
I asked you what evidence you had for your assertions, and I posted the Israeli version of events.
Where is the prejudice?
I also reminded you of another massacre at the camps carried out by a Muslim militia, but you expressed no opinion about that one.

White phos. for instance.
I merely provided factual information, and the only opinion I expressed was to deplore its use in Gaza.
Where is the prejudice?


Kevin, that survey was absolutely nothing to do with the issue of membership, but you dropped it in as if it was.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Nov 11 - 05:17 AM

The survey appears to indicate that in opposing recognition of Palestine as a member state of the UN and UNESCO the Israeli government (and the USA etc) are not acting in accordance with majority Israeli opinion.
...........................

I have no opinion about it. I somehow think you deceive yourself there, Keith.

It would still be interesting to have some suggestion of any grounds for the Israeli government's opposition which hold water. "We want to be able to use the issue to negotiate with" is not a very good argument, especially in the context of extensions of settlements, which appears to be a way of blocking negotiations.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Nov 11 - 07:05 AM

"Jim, on all those issues I simply put the Israeli side of the story.
"
You now appear to be moving into "Itwasn't me that said it but some eminent expert" mode
You have conistently argued Israels case, you have defended massacres facilitated by Israeli "a failure to prevent", have openly denied that documented massacres even happened, you have downgraded and ignored the effects of chemical weapons used on civilians as smokescreens, you have ignored the fact that an Israeli minister has been found a war criminal and us unable to enter Britain, you have ignored the attempts to starve the Palestinians into submission, you have defended the US veto at the Untited Nations
Don't you dare claim that I don't want to know the Israeli case - I know it and I believe them to be a terrorist state committing atrocities against civilians for over sixty years - and unlike you, I find that fact unaccebtable.
I don't give a toss for either Israeli or Palestinian extremeism - unlike you, I have never supported either, though I have at one time or another, tried to understand both.
My main concern is ending this bloodshed, and that will not be achieved by backing one side against the other
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Nov 11 - 07:16 AM

Kevin, I can assure you I have no opinion on the membership.

Jim,
You have conistently argued Israels case,
I have tried to put the Israeli case to provide a measure of balance.
you have defended massacres facilitated by Israeli "a failure to prevent",
No I have not.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Nov 11 - 07:20 AM

The survey appears to indicate that in opposing recognition of Palestine as a member state of the UN and UNESCO the Israeli government (and the USA etc) are not acting in accordance with majority Israeli opinion.

I do not agree that the survey about future statehood can be extrapolated to prior membership.

The Israeli government is answerable to its people, and will have to seek re-election by them, unlike certain other governments.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Nov 11 - 08:19 AM

"No I have not."
Oh for ****'* sake - YES YOU HAVE
You've even gone as far as to say that there were "no massacres"
Want me to dig that one out?
Jim Carroll