Palestine (continuation)

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Nov 11 - 05:35 AM

Not "high and mighty" Lox.
I just challenged him to show his unbiased, liberal credentials.

BTW, you were wrong about Jim when you said, "There is nobody here defending the rockets." but you chose not to comment.
I challenge you to state your opinion of Jim's position.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Nov 11 - 06:20 AM

As I said - leaflets to clear a city???
Like to comment on the atrocities?
"Colostolox!?
Still in the schoolyard Mike?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Nov 11 - 06:59 AM

The whole city was not attacked.
Installations were, as per the warning.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Lox
Date: 14 Nov 11 - 07:26 AM

That's not how IDF soldiers described it Keith.

Not that you care.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Nov 11 - 07:34 AM

You bottled the challenge then Lox.
Disappointing but not surprising.
The Gazan incursion has been debated to bits on old threads.
What about the membership application?

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Nov 11 - 07:39 AM

"The whole city was not attacked."
You've had the descriptions - these were massacres
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Nov 11 - 07:45 AM

Whose descriptions?

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Lox
Date: 14 Nov 11 - 10:10 AM

"You bottled the challenge then Lox."

What are you on about you freak.

You want me to speak for Jim?

Thank you but I think that honour is his.


And what is this nonsense ... you see my failing to speak on jims behalf as somehow failing to meet some kind of challenge, while you weasel out of an argument you have lost by trying to suddenly change the subject.

Its all falling apart for you mate - I've enjoyed watching Kevin patiently disintegrate your position ... assuming there was ever any integrity to begin with.


"whose descriptions"

Israeli soldiers.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Nov 11 - 10:37 AM

Lox, I did not ask you to speak for him.
I said, "BTW, you were wrong about Jim when you said, "There is nobody here defending the rockets." but you chose not to comment.
I challenge you to state your opinion of Jim's position. "

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Nov 11 - 10:40 AM

OK Lox.
I'll bite.
What IDF soldiers and what did they describe?

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Nov 11 - 10:49 AM

""There is nobody here defending the rockets." "
I have made my position clear on the rockets - I have never supported violence in any form from any group, but I have agreed with you that "everyone has a right to defend themselves"
You, on the other hand, continue to support massacres of civilians by war criminals
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Nov 11 - 12:04 PM

How do you construe firing missiles loaded with ball-bearings at people's homes and schools as "self-defence"???
It is not.
It is offensive.
It is murder.
Trying to stop it is self-defence.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Nov 11 - 04:26 PM

"It is offensive - It is murder."
Of course it's offensive - but if it is murder it is a fraction of what Israel has done to the civilians of Palestine - which you continue to ignore.
Israel came into being through acts of terrorism - as with the measures Palestine is adopting to defend itself.
Israel's present terrorism is directly related to expansionism - this includes the mass expulsion of whole cultures.
You've seen the casualty figures for the Gaza incursion, including women, children and hospital patients - self defence - I don't think so.
You accused Hamas of hiding behind hostages, yet refuse to comment on the Israeli 'human shields' - war crimes, plain and simple.
And the deliberate chemical attacks mentioned in the Guardian report - self defence?
Don't accuse anybody here of bias while you go on giving your uncritical support to state terrorism directed at civilians
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Nov 11 - 04:37 PM

"Israel came into being through acts of terrorism - as with the measures Palestine is adopting to defend itself."

I am no expert, but Teribus and Michael both utterly refute that claim.

"Israel's present terrorism is directly related to expansionism - this includes the mass expulsion of whole cultures."

You have made that one up all on your own!

"You've seen the casualty figures for the Gaza incursion, including women, children and hospital patients - self defence - I don't think so."

If only they had not fired those murderous missiles, day after day, week after week, year after year, IT WOULD NEVER HAVE HAPPENED!

"You accused Hamas of hiding behind hostages, yet refuse to comment on the Israeli 'human shields' - war crimes, plain and simple."

If it happened it was a war crime, plain and simple.

"And the deliberate chemical attacks mentioned in the Guardian report - self defence?"

You made that up too Jim.
None are mentioned.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 14 Nov 11 - 06:06 PM

""Don ~ Does it not occur to you that there might just, perish the thought, be the minutest touch of reverse tu-quoque-dom in your posts and responses?""

No Sir, it does not, and for good reason.

I have repeatedly condemned the rockets, while remaining of the opinion that the actions of those Palestinians, while reprehensible, are perhaps understandable.

At no time has Keith stated, or even hinted, that Israel too is acting in a thoroughly reprehensible manner.

At no time has Keith stated, or even hinted, that the Palestinians too might feel that they are defending their country.

The difference between us is that I believe that both sides need to wind their necks in, and Keith, along with the Zionist lobby in the US, believes that Palestine must roll over and permit Israel to treat it as a overspill for housing surplus Israelis.

My concern is that Israel's refusal to give a single inch will give rise to a conflagration which might well result in the annihilation of the Palestinians, or the Israelis, or both and a lot more besides.

Don T.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 14 Nov 11 - 06:20 PM

""Accepted practice is to evacuate civilians from military installations when hostilities are imminent.""

Now you are really scrabbling around underneath the barrel.

Schools, shops, homes, hospitals and UN depots are now "military installations" because the IDF want to pour incendiaries and heavy artillery into them.

And with the IDF running riot in the area, where do you suppose the civilians would take cover?

Don T.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 14 Nov 11 - 06:39 PM

"""Israel came into being through acts of terrorism - as with the measures Palestine is adopting to defend itself."

I am no expert, but Teribus and Michael both utterly refute that claim.""

You are no expert! That at least is one true statement from you.

It is only five years since I attended the funeral of an uncle who was based in Palestine after WW2. People used to turn away when they caught sight of his face, and he suffered agonies all his life after one of the Irgun Zwei Leumi action groups headed by Menachim Begin poured petrol over the tent where he and five comrades were sleeping.

He was closest to the opening, and the only survivor, and remarked on several occasions that his mates were the lucky ones.

Teribus and Michael don't know everything.

Don T.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 14 Nov 11 - 07:28 PM

--Teribus and Michael don't know everything.--
.,,.,..,.,
I certainly make no claims to know everything; but I think Keith does not entirely understand my position. I do, however, know that the activities of the Stern Gang & Irgun in the late days of the Mandate were indeed explicitly terrorist, as I have in fact never denied, Keith. The great disappointment was that, after the successful defence of 1948, they consolidated as respectable politicians [no novelty in post-colonial situations after independence ~ cf Kenyatta, e.g.] with enough electoral support to have to form part of every government coalition; and eventually to emerge as the dominant party under Begin & his successors, leading to the present lamentable situation.

~M~

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 15 Nov 11 - 12:45 AM

Let us take a look at what Lox regards as so subtle and profound

McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Nov 11 - 03:21 PM

The violence carried out by whoever was firing those primitive rockets in the general direction of places where civilians were living was criminal, as well as foolish.

The violence carried out by the IDF in attacking civilian areas throughout Gaza with hi-powered and hi-tech weapons was criminal on a far larger scale.

Selective justification of such violence is shameful.

Of course Kevin is wrong isn't he, he is deliberately canting the table to covince everyone that apples are oranges.

In what respect is Kevin wrong?

Well the first part is correct, Hamas and those who share their views do deliberately target and launch missiles, rockets and mortar rounds at civilian areas with the deliberate intent of causing as many deaths as they possibly can - That is criminal and has been condemned as a crime against humanity by the UN and other Humanitarian Agencies.

The second bit is where Kevin deliberately misrepresents:

The violence carried out by the IDF in attacking civilian areas throughout Gaza

The IDF did not attack civilian areas throughout Gaza, they attacked psoitions within civilian areas where Hamas and their allies chose to hide, but the IDF attacks were directed against combatants - had things actually been described as stated by the likes of MGOH; Carroll and Lox then surely the casualty lists would have been much higher.

As to warnings issued, the IDF used every means possible to warn the civilian population of Gaza of intended attacks and operations. Such means included telephone, SMS, radio, loudspeakers and yes leaflets. Now were they (the IDF) deliberately attacking civilians and civilian areas as Kevin is trying to convince us of - then nothing would have been done.

Not that subtle or profound at all Lox, just typical misrepresentation.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Nov 11 - 01:42 AM

Haaretz, 2 Jan 2009
The Israel Defense Forces has unveiled a new tactic meant to reduce civilian casualties, calling houses before they are to be targeted in order to give inhabitants time to flee the attack.



Palestinians reported that in some cases, the caller leaves a message on their voice mail warning that the IDF will bomb any house where weapons are rockets are found and the owners of the houses will be the ones to suffer the consequences.

The IDF has also used a sound bomb to warn civilians before striking homes.

The IDF has also used what they are calling "roof knocking" operations, in which they inform the residents of suspected buildings that they have 10 minutes to leave the premises. In some cases, residents of suspected houses have been able to prevent bombing by climbing up to the roof to show that they will not leave, prompting IDF commanders to call off the strike. In these cases, Channel 10 reported Thursday, the IAF sometimes launches a relatively harmless missile at the corner of the roof, avoiding casualties but successfully dispersing the crowd.

It appears that the "roof knocking" technique was used in the assassination of Hamas leader Nizar Ghayan Thursday, but Ghayan decided to stay indoors with his family, and the army opted to bomb the house anyway.

Sources familiar with Ghayan's record said he was one of the people who encouraged Gazans to climb on rooftops to prevent bombings.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Nov 11 - 03:59 AM

Michael, are you saying that this is an accurate statement?
"Israel came into being through acts of terrorism"

Given that the were acts of terror committed by Jews and Arabs.
Don's story is indeed one of very many.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Nov 11 - 04:32 AM

Keith - you are the only one here who had continually defended the deliberate and long term killing of civilians - both by denying that it has taken place, then (somewhat contradicting yourself) by admitting it had but it was all Hamas' fault for being in the area.
Nobody has gone to the lengths you have to defend war crimes; not even Terrytoon, (who sometimes comes ofver as a latter day Mr Chips in his efforts to talk down to people - or talk them down).
I wonder which particular moral code you claim to subscribe to!!

"You made that up too Jim., None are mentioned. "
Another report for you to ignore!
Jim Carroll

Israel and the white heat of justice
A political solution for Gaza must not preclude the investigation of war crimes, including Israel's use of white phosphorus
John Palmer guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 21 January 2009 12.30 GMT

Article history UN secretary general visits Gaza Strip and city of Sderot, in southern Israel, as part of Middle East peacekeeping tour Link to this video Amnesty International has now joined the United Nations and Human Rights Watch in accusing the Israeli government of breaking international law outlawing the use of white phosphorus shells in the middle of highly populated areas of Gaza. The UN secretary general, Ban Ki-Moon, has condemned Israeli attacks on UN humanitarian centres in Gaza as "outrageous" and has called for an independent, international inquiry.
Meanwhile a senior minister in the Israeli government has been quoted in the Israeli newspaper Haaretz as saying that when the full extent of the destruction brought on Gaza becomes known "I will not be taking my holidays in Amsterdam". This possibly "humorous" observation referred to the possibility that leaders of the Israeli government may yet be arraigned before the International Criminal Court in The Hague – or a similar tribunal - to answer charges of war crimes.
Indeed some 300 human rights organisations have already prepared an initial 37-page dossier to be presented to the court. At the same time, in a move which could be equally damaging to the international standing of the Israeli government, a number of United Nations humanitarian agencies have insisted that there must be an independent, internationally approved, legal inquiry into the prima facie evidence of crimes committed. It is clear now that Israeli shelling and missile attacks – including those on UN facilities used as shelters for civilians during the war – have taken many hundreds of innocent civilian lives.
There is one obvious problem with taking steps to ensure that those responsible for the horrific massacres of civilians in Gaza are held accountable for their actions: Israel is not a member state of the ICC. The initial reaction of the ICC has been that it is therefore not open to the court to examine these charges. According to some senior French jurists, however, it should still be possible for the ICC to pursue named individuals for alleged crimes committed in Gaza.
There is also a precedent for the ICC to be asked by the United Nations to conduct such a trial – namely the current hearings into crimes against humanity allegedly committed by forces under the control of the government of Sudan in Darfur. It may be possible for the UN to establish a specific war crimes tribunal to hear the charges arising out of the actions of the Israeli forces in Gaza. After all, something very similar happened after the atrocities committed during the wars in the former Yugoslavia and the Rwanda genocide.
The Israeli government has denied that it was responsible for any war crimes committed during the course of its three-week campaign in Gaza. Interestingly, however, the Israeli prime minister, Ehud Olmert has expressed "remorse" for what happened to the civilian population of Gaza. One obvious question is: what does he feel guilty about? Some Israelis may also argue that Hamas has also committed crimes worthy of international condemnation. But, of course, it open to them to present such a legal dossier to the ICC authorities in the Netherlands.
Obviously, a UN mandate for a legal inquiry into alleged Israeli war crimes would only come about if the Obama administration decides not to use its veto in the UN Security Council. But by allowing a legal investigation to proceed, the US would send the clearest possible signal that it intends to exercise far greater even-handedness between Israel and the Palestinians than it has ever done in the past. Moreover, the incoming administration is under growing pressure to sanction an inquiry into possible criminal action by the Bush administration in its use of torture.
No doubt, the British government, among others, will say that the priority of the international community must be to underpin the current ceasefire with a permanent peace agreement which provides for a two-state solution. But there is no reason why the push for a permanent agreement should exclude the rule of law from operating without inhibition. After all, this was the case in the former Yugoslavia.
According to Israeli opinion polls, the present coalition government is heading for defeat in the general election in three weeks' time. The responsibility for negotiating a permanent peace settlement is likely to fall to an even more right-wing government, led by Binyamin Netanyahu.
That said, an inspiring feature of the feature of the worldwide demonstrations against Israel's Gaza offensive has been the prominent role played by Jews and Jewish organisations in the protests. Organisations like Jews for Justice for Palestinians, along with a small but heroic opposition to the massacres in Israel itself. Israeli human rights activists have also now launched a website to identify alleged Israeli war criminals and assist their transfer to the jurisdiction of the ICC.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 15 Nov 11 - 05:15 AM

Keith: It would be idle to deny that such "acts of terrorism" as the murder of Lord Moyne, the British representative minister, & his unfortunate non-politically involved driver, a simple corporal of the RASC, by two members of the Stern Gang [Lehi], on 6 Nov 1944; and the blowing up of the King David Hotel, then a mandatory Govt HQ, in Jerusalem by Irgun Zvai Leumi on 22 July 1946 with loss of 91 lives; were important factors in the complex of incidents which led up to the ending of the British Mandate and British withdrawal, the UN partition decision, and the declaration of the State in 1948.

These are only two of the most blatant and memorable examples of the violent campaign that some of the Jews of then Palestine waged during the 30s & 40s. The extent that the State came into being 'through' such acts is an imponderable; but, I repeat, they are among the factors that historians and political analysts will have to take into consideration regarding the emergence of Israel as a geographical and political entity.

Arthur Koestler's novel "Thieves In The Night"(1946 - pre-Israel & set back in late-30s), though a work of fiction, gives something of an account of the background of events which led some to feel that such means were necessary if the British were ever to be dislodged from the Mandatory stranglehold which many saw them as keeping on the region: with its turning away of 'illegal' Jewish refugee immigrant ships ~ some even sent back to what by then was known to be the Nazi persecution occurring in Europe, or, later, the passengers and crew interned in camps in Cyprus. It was a complex situation, from which few emerged with credit. Koestler gives a reasonably balanced view (tho my then prominent in the Zionist movement father always denied this) of what went on in the late-30s — early-40s, leading to various sorts of impasse. Worth a read if you can get hold of a copy.

~Michael~

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Nov 11 - 05:27 AM

Michael, I did know about the acts of terror, but it is wrong to say they created Israel.
Israel came into being through acts of UN, not terror.

Keith - you are the only one here who had continually defended the deliberate and long term killing of civilians - both by denying that it has taken place, then (somewhat contradicting yourself) by admitting it had but it was all Hamas' fault for being in the area

Not true Jim.
If the act is denied by Israel I have asked for evidence.
You were unable to provide any.

I accept that civilians were killed in the Gaza incursion, but believe that Israel acted within International Law.
That is disputed, but again hard evidence from your side was not provided.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 15 Nov 11 - 05:34 AM

I might add the hanging by Irgun of two British sergeants on the night of 11th/12th July 1947, Clifford Martin and Mervyn Paice; + the booby-trapping of their bodies resulting in serious injuries to those cutting them down. And the killing by a postal-bomb of the brother, Rex, of Major Roy Farran, whose initial was the same so the wrong one opened it, 3 May 1948; followed on 11 May 48 by a letter bomb addressed to Sir Evelyn Barker, former Commanding Officer in Palestine, being detected in the nick of time by his wife.

They meant business, you know. There are plenty in Israel now, Keith, I wouldn't mind betting, who will maintain that it was "through" such activities that the State came into being.

~M~

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 15 Nov 11 - 05:43 AM

I did not maintain that they, alone, 'created" Israel, Keith; but they can't be disregarded as an important element in the complex of events leading up to its "creation". In particular, I repeat, they were important factors in bringing about the British withdrawal, without which the UN resolution would arguably never have happened.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Nov 11 - 06:36 AM

To be pedantic, attacks on military targets are not acts of terror.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Nov 11 - 07:38 AM

"If the act is denied by Israel I have asked for evidence."
You have been constantly given evidence which you deny outright (or ask for again thne deny) or totally ignore) such as the direct use of White phosphorus on civilians.
You might believe that Israel acted within International law, others, including the UN think different - perhaps they should defer to you!
You keep claiming ignorance on these subjects - what knowledge do you possess to reject those involved in on-the-spot decision making
As I said, you are alone in your defence of atrocities.
Arthur Koestler's novel "Thieves In The Night"
As did the more recent televised novel 'The Promise' earlier this year.
Terrorism as part of national liberation is common - South Africa, Ireland, even the US.... state terrorism is different.
Thanks for the heads up about 'Theives in the Night' - recently acquired a copy but not got round to reading it yet.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Nov 11 - 08:05 AM

I did not deny "the direct use of White phosphorus on civilians"

As your own cut/paste confirmed it was not in weapon form.
It was a smoke munition.

I asked for evidence of the camp massacres.
You provided nothing despite repeated requests.
You will not even tell us who is suuposed to have produced the "independent enquiry" you kept claiming exists.
A figment of your imagination I think.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Nov 11 - 09:00 AM

I have tried and failed to think of any actual evidence provided by you.
I believe you are driven only by prejudice.

From "Canada Free Press" on UN membership.

, the committee members considered whether the existing Palestinian governing entity met the criteria for statehood, was peace-loving, and was willing and able to carry out the obligations contained in the Charter.

By all objective measures, the Palestinians fail on all counts. But the UN is anything but objective when it comes to the Palestinian issue.

For example, regarding the criterion of statehood, the 1933 Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States is generally considered as the best source for defining the international law standard. It is referenced in the admissions committee report.

The Montevideo Convention declares that in order for an entity to be considered a state under international law it should possess a permanent population, a defined territory, effective government control and the capacity to enter into relations with other states.

Given the prevailing support in the United Nations for a two-state solution based on the pre-1967 lines, with East Jerusalem as the capital of the independent state of Palestine, there was little discussion in the report about the lack of secure and recognized boundaries agreed upon with Israel pursuant to negotiations, as called for by Security Council Resolution 242. This failure to meet the defined territory statehood requirement should be enough to disqualify the Palestinian UN application since it does not meet the first threshold of statehood. Instead, according to the report, the committee members "stressed that the lack of precisely settled borders was not an obstacle to statehood."

Some committee members did express doubts regarding the Palestine Authority's control over all current Palestinian territory and governance of the entire Palestinian population, in light of the fact that Hamas is the de facto authority in the Gaza Strip and is in control of forty percent of the population of Palestine. However, other committee members were reported to be of the view that "the Israeli occupation was preventing the Palestinian government from exercising full control over all of its territory." In other words, this point of view held that Hamas's bloody coup in Gaza, throwing out the members of Abbas's government and Fatah Party, was somehow all Israel's fault. By laying the blame on Israel, the Palestinians get a free pass for their own inability to demonstrate the capacity for self-government under a single authority.

With regard to the UN Charter's requirement that an applicant be "peace-loving," the view was expressed, according to the report, "that Palestine fulfilled this criterion in light of its commitment to the achievement of a just, lasting and comprehensive resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict." However, this was disputed by some committee members who pointed to Hamas's refusal to refrain from the threat or the use of force in the conduct of its international relations.

The Palestinians' supporters dismiss the relevance of Hamas's actions because they were not those of the Palestinians' recognized governmental authority - the Palestinian Authority or PLO. This circular reasoning ignores that attempts are underway to bring Hamas into a unity government without requiring it to first renounce all acts of terrorism and recognize Israel's right to exist.

The majority of UN members fall hook, line and sinker for the Palestinians' victimhood narrative, casting Israel as the villainous oppressor. The truth is precisely the opposite. The Palestinians want a state of their own with the inalienable right of self-determination to decide its character, but continue to reject the Israelis' own inalienable right of self-determination to live securely in the manner they choose to live - as a Jewish state.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Nov 11 - 10:13 AM

"I have tried and failed to think of any actual evidence provided by you."
And there is perfect evidence that you atre totally prejudiced and why it is a total waste of time putting up anything - you either don't read it or taotally ignore it.
It is you who has claimed that you are only prutting forward Israel's case - an acceptence of prejudice
"It was a smoke munition."
And the photos of horrific burns to childrens faces provided were cause by them playing with matches - smoke munitions my arse!
More evidence of your self imposed ignorance in order to support war crimes
You're a immoral mess Keith
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Nov 11 - 10:23 AM

Smoke munitions are dangerous, though obviously far, far less so that weapons.
YOU provided an expert statement that they were smoke munitions not weapons.

We disagree on what constitutes "evidence"
You posted a Guardian piece on 14th Nov. as evidence, but the first sentence gave it away.
It was about "allegations" against Israel made in the immediate aftermath of the incursion.
These were never substantiated, so you could produce no actual evidence.

I dismiss nothing, but being objective, open minded and unprejudiced, I need some evidence before making up my mind on disputed issues.
Obviously, it is much simpler for you.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Nov 11 - 10:33 AM

Jim Carroll - PM
Date: 28 Sep 11 - 03:54 AM
.
.
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.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Nov 11 - 11:35 AM

"primarily" being the operative word - pointed at human beings, they cause horrific injuries.
You claim everybody who opposes your defence of Israel (which is just about everybody) to be prejudiced yet you have conceded no wrongdoing on the part of Israel whatever - despite the evidence placed before you.
You even continue to defend the use of white phosphorus by attempting to give the impression it is harmless - this despite the horrific photographs of maimed children with faces "burned to the bone" - to quote a description by a Gazan doctor.
What kind of sicko are you?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Nov 11 - 11:45 AM

The doctor in question pointed out to the BBC interviewer that the White Phosphorus was being used within the confines of a hospital - you've been told this before - yet still you persist on claiming this shit harmless.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Nov 11 - 11:55 AM

It is a lie that I have described it as harmless.
You did not mention that I deplored its use and said it may have been illegal.

I only accuse people of prejudice if they reach conclusions about disputed issues without any rational reason or evidence for it.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Nov 11 - 12:11 PM

Yet you continue to present it as;
"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."
Why????????????????
A baseball is a piece of sporting equipment - smash somebody around the head with it and it becomes a deadly weapon - White Phosphorus pointed at humans is "A POTENTIALLY DEADLY WEAPON - ESPECIALLY USED IN THE CONFINES OF A HOSPITAL - WHICH ONCE AGAIN YOU MAKE NO REFERENCE TO
You continue to argue for it as a smokscreen
Why??????????????
You are a sicko in the extreme
ARE YOU DENYING THE USE OF IT AGAINST CIVILIANS AS HAS BEEN CLAIMED CONTINUOUSLY - BY HUMAN RIGHTS GROUPS AMONG OTHERS -IF SO, WHAT EVIDENCE DO YOU OFFER THAT THEY ARE LYING - PREJUDICE?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Nov 11 - 02:53 PM

The munitions were not weapons, as your expert confirmed.
I do not accept they were "used against civilians."
I believe they were used to provide a smoke screen.
That is entirely consistent with the evidence.

It should not have been used for that in a civilian area.
That would be illegal, but because Hamas had illegally positioned itself in a civilian area, it is not straightforward.

I deplore the fact that they used it, but might feel differently if a son or daughter of mine died because they could not be screened from their enemies.

You have claimed without evidence that it was used against civilians.
Prejudice.
You have described it as a chemical weapon when it was not a weapon at all.
Demonization.
I think you even described it as genocide.
Wild, hysterical hyperbole.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 15 Nov 11 - 03:02 PM

""Israel came into being through acts of terrorism"

Given that the were acts of terror committed by Jews and Arabs.
Don's story is indeed one of very many.""

Who did the Israeli voters put in power at the first election of that state Keith?

Begin and his coterie of fellow terrorists!

In what way then is it inaccurate to state that the State of Israel was born out of terrorism?

Don T.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Nov 11 - 03:10 PM

OK Don, but Gazans elected the internationally recognised terrorist organisation Hamas.
What does that make them?

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 15 Nov 11 - 03:51 PM

No they did not, Don ~~ they put in Ben Gurion, succeeded by Golda Meir. Begin came much later.

You have a good enough case without indulging in such gross inaccuracies.. easily avoidable by minimal checking.

~M~

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 15 Nov 11 - 03:59 PM

You can see from this wiki list that Begin was the 6th Prime Minister, 1977 ~~ 29 years after the State's declaration ~~

1.David Ben-Gurion
‎דוד בן-גוריון
2 Moshe Sharett
‎משה שרת
3 Levi Eshkol
‎לוי אשכול Mapai 26 June 1963
–
4 Golda Meir
‎גולדה מאיר Alignment

5 Yitzhak Rabin
‎יצחק רבין Alignment

6 Menachem Begin
‎מנחם בגין Likud 20 June 1977
–

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Nov 11 - 04:20 PM

And still you do not acknowledge maimed and slaughtered and maimed women and children (and old people if we are talking about hospitals) - you presumably think the medical staff are lying and the photographs are faked
Even if what you say about Hamas is true, you also sanction sanction the deliberate slaughter of hostages.
Well done that - whoops; nearly said man.
At least we have cleared up who's prejudiced
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Nov 11 - 04:44 PM

I told you I accept there were heavy civilian casualties.
The Haaretz piece I provided explains the extraordinary efforts of the IDF to minimise them.
But for the missiles, none of it would have happened.
The illegal use of human shields by Hamas was the cause of all those "maimed and slaughtered and maimed women and children (and old people if we are talking about hospitals)"

Whatever colour text you use, Israel was driven to act by the murderous rain of missiles on its people, and had to fight those responsible as they hid behind their own civilian population, and who then cynically exploited for propaganda their broken and burned bodies.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 15 Nov 11 - 05:17 PM

""To be pedantic, attacks on military targets are not acts of terror.""

Sheer sophistry Keith (as usual).

Irgun Zwai Leumi and the Stern Gang were not the standing army of any state, but rather civilian insurrectionists carrying out a prolonged and murderous campaign of terrorism against what was at the time the legitimate authority.

To talk about military targets is both inaccurate and disingenuous.

Those were YOUR countrymen burned to death in their tents.

Have you no shame?....Silly question really, as we already have ample evidence to the contrary.

Don T.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 15 Nov 11 - 05:40 PM

""Instead, according to the report, the committee members "stressed that the lack of precisely settled borders was not an obstacle to statehood.""

Nor should it be, since that lack is engendered by Israel's refusal to accept any limit to their continual incursions into what should be Palestinian territory.

""The majority of UN members fall hook, line and sinker for the Palestinians' victimhood narrative, casting Israel as the villainous oppressor. The truth is precisely the opposite. The Palestinians want a state of their own with the inalienable right of self-determination to decide its character, but continue to reject the Israelis' own inalienable right of self-determination to live securely in the manner they choose to live - as a Jewish state.""

The first sentence really supplied the best laugh I've had in weeks. The Israelis have been playing the "victim of oppression" card for so long that they have come to believe that it gives them the right to oppress whomever they choose, so the truth is emphatically NOT the opposite.

The last sentence is stunning in its lack of comprehension of the way things work.

If the UN agreed to Palestinian Statehood within a defined border it would give protection to the whole of Palestine, including the Gaza strip.

It would also give the same degree of protection to the State of Israel on the other side of said defined border.

Why is it that those who are anti Palestinian statehood cannot see what is right under their noses.

I know why Israel is against it......It would deprive them of the opportunity to annexe more territory for Israeli settlers to colonise.

Don T.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 15 Nov 11 - 05:47 PM

""I believe they were used to provide a smoke screen.
That is entirely consistent with the evidence.""

Tell us O Wise One, what is the reason for a smoke screen inside buildings, especially inside a hospital?

Are the Israelis so lacking in basic military skills that they inadvertently fired WP into the interior of buildings?

Don T.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 15 Nov 11 - 05:57 PM

""No they did not, Don ~~ they put in Ben Gurion, succeeded by Golda Meir. Begin came much later.""

Please accept my apologies Mike. I try hard not to equal Keith in the realm of false claims, but this time I did not research before posting. Begin was the 6th.

My only excuse is that I am getting very fed up of Keith claiming moral superiority, when he is the only poster on this forum who is still refusing to even countenance the possibility that there is fault on both sides.

The fact that Begin came to power at all is a sufficient indicator of the mindset of Israelis at the time and later. I believe that is a fair point, or at least worthy of sensible discussion.

Don T.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Lox
Date: 15 Nov 11 - 08:01 PM

"The Haaretz piece I provided explains the extraordinary efforts of the IDF to minimise them."

Testimony of IDF soldiers flatly contradicts this.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 16 Nov 11 - 01:22 AM

Apology accepted, Don; and I agree with you that it is a great shame that Israeli opinion ever swung Begin-wards & has pretty well consistently remained there since; which accounts for my present attitude of intense disappointment in the way the place hes developed and what it has turned into ~~ an aggressive olive-grove uprooter and hence oppressor of ordinary Arabs just trying to make a decent living with no particular political axe to grind. & note too my disagreements with Keith above as to the extent that actual terrorism was instrumental in bringing about Israel's very existence.

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?

~M~