BS: Israel condemned by UN

Subject: RE: BS: Israel condemned by UN
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Mar 13 - 09:22 AM

"Your whole post is utter bollocks as usual, and far to much bollocks to deal with it all yet again."
So of course you are not going to deal with it.... didn't think for one moment that you would, so well just have to remain in the dark as to why it is "utter bollocks"
In the light of Israel's record of slaughtering refugees and other civilians, the PLO were within their rights to attempt to protect the most vulnerable from Israeli terror. I'm certainly not happy with them being there and have never defended that fact, but even if you are right that makes the killing of civilians by the Israelis the slaughter of hostages, nothing else.
Bruce
Can I remind you that, just as you have failed to explain how self-defence can possibly mean killing civilians or the age of an atrocity makes it irrelevant - you have yet to tell us why pointing out oppressive behaviour by one state excuses similar behaviour by another - and I don't suppose you ever shall
"Liars" - repetitive again - can you manage something a little more turn-onable
Jim Carroll
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Israel condemned by UN
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Mar 13 - 09:47 AM

Whoops - two signatures
Won't bother signing this to make up for that

HEALTH
• Arab citizens of Israel can expect to live shorter lives than Jewish citizens (about four years less) and face significantly higher mortality rates, particularly after the age of 60. The rate of infant mortality among
Palestinian citizens is approximately double that among Jewish citizens, and higher still among the Arab Bedouin population in the Naqab (Negev), where it reaches more than 15 per 1,000 live births.
• While Israeli law provides that equitable, high-quality health services should be provided to all residents of Israel, various barriers —including the lack of clinics and hospitals in Arab towns and villages and limitations
on mobility —mean that Palestinian citizens are frequently unable to exercise their right to the highest sustainable standard of health.
• The health situation is most critical in the unrecognized Arab Bedouin villages in the Naqab, where health services are either limited or non-existent. The inadequate provision of health services in the unrecognized villages is a deliberate policy of neglect on the part of the state, which is seeking to evacuate them and relocate their residents, in part by creating intolerable conditions.

Subject: RE: BS: Israel condemned by UN
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Mar 13 - 10:01 AM

So of course you are not going to deal with it.... didn't think for one moment that you would, so well just have to remain in the dark as to why it is "utter bollocks"

I don't do long posts because no-one ever reads them, so if you want me to respond to a point, do not bury it in a vast heap of lurid accusations all of which I have already rebutted anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: Israel condemned by UN
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 25 Mar 13 - 11:00 AM

""I don't do long posts because no-one ever reads them, so if you want me to respond to a point, do not bury it in a vast heap of lurid accusations all of which I have already rebutted anyway.""

No you haven't. You don't actually know the meaning of rebuttal.

Saying ""That's not true"", ""That's a lie,"" or ""Israel denies that"", is not a rebuttal.

You have to offer convincing (not unequivocal) evidence, which we have repeatedly done and you have not.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Israel condemned by UN
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Mar 13 - 11:05 AM

If you had unequivocal evidence of the lurid accusations you make against Israel, not just me but the world would believe them.
If!

Subject: RE: BS: Israel condemned by UN
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Mar 13 - 11:07 AM

or convincing evidence.

Subject: RE: BS: Israel condemned by UN
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Mar 13 - 11:28 AM

Denial is not rebuttal - you have now been given a load of information on the conditions which are forced on ethnic minorities in Israel which you are totally ignoring and, as Don pointed out you have done so throughout this thread - once again you are lying
"the world would believe them."
The informed world does - it is only the US and its hangers-on which have constantly defended them - which you have already agreed is a fact
Haven't got one eighth the way through the Inequality Report yet - more to come, as I'm sure, you're pleased to hear
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Israel condemned by UN
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Mar 13 - 11:32 AM

The informed world does - it is only the US and its hangers on

Like Ireland?
Would your country be on such warm friendly terms with a state guilty of apartheid, crimes against humanity and civilian massacres?
Of course not.
It is all bollocks and only you bigots inside your bubble of hatred believe all that stuff.

Subject: RE: BS: Israel condemned by UN
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Mar 13 - 02:10 PM

"It is all bollocks and only you bigots inside your bubble of hatred believe all that stuff.
I DON'T THINK I have ever encountered such a level of blind racist hatred and disregard for human life, and support for persecution, war crimes and atrocities as I have from you.
I am appalled that the forum supervisors have allowed you to use this site as a platform for your truly toxic views for as long as they have.
Your cowardice in avoiding all the facts that have been put up for you without even attempting to dispute them says everything that needs to be said about you and your persistent public lying shows you appear not to have a shred of self respect
You said once you were a Christian and a teacher - god help us all - especially the kids you might have influenced
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Israel condemned by UN
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Mar 13 - 04:04 PM

Keith
I was meaning to mention this earlier, but now you seem to have abandoned all pretence of argument and resorted to calling us all bigots and naive moronic racists, I'll do so here if I have your full attention.
Several times, here and elsewhere, you have snidily suggested that I might come from somewhere other than England "Jim, both our countries restrict the freedom of nomadic people"
You even referred to me as "an outsider" on one thread.
You do this in an attempt to undermine what I have to say; it a racist attitude which implies that foreigners have no right to offer an opinion, or that their word is to be trusted less than that of a WASP.
To clarify once more - for the last time I hope.
I was born in England, I carry a British Passport and am a fully fledged British citizen.
My parents were born in Britain, my father in Scotland, my mother in Liverpool; my grandparents, - all four of them, were born in Liverpool and as far as I know their parents were.
I moved to Ireland a dozen years ago to top-and-tail thirty years research work we did on Irish songs and singers and to see if there was anything more to be gathered.
Any Irish connections my family may once have had goes back to the Famine.
You appear to want to instigate a race purity test on contributors to this forum, as well as using it to promote your vomit-provoking views - don't do it again.
I trust this will be the last time I need to mention this nasty little tactic of yours.
Jim Carroll

Speaking of which:
Case Study: The Zubeidat family—"socially unsuitable" to live in Rakefet
Ms. Fatina and Mr. Ahmed Zubeidat are a married Arab couple. They graduated from the College of Architecture at the Bezalel Academy of Arts and Design in Jerusalem with distinction, and they are both pursuing careers as architects. After marrying in 2006, the couple applied to live in the community town of Rakefet, located in Misgav
in northern Israel. The Zubeidals were looking for a small town wilh a high level of services in which to raise their future children. An admissions committee operates in Misgav, which required the couple to take an acceptance test. The committee included a representative from the Jewish Agency. Following an interview with the couple, the committee rejected their application on the humiliating grounds of their "social unsuitability". After being approached by the Zubeidats, Adalah filed a petition on their behalf to the Supreme Court in September 2007
demanding the cancellation of admissions committees.Adalah argued that the actions of these committees contradict the right of citizens to choose their place of residence. Adalah further argued that the criterion
of "social suitability" is arbitrary and open to wide interpretation. In October 2007, the court issued an injunction ordering Rakefet to set aside plot of land for the Zubeidat family pending a final decision on the petition. The petition remains pending.
Ibid

Subject: RE: BS: Israel condemned by UN
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Mar 13 - 04:15 PM

I remembered all that about you.
You and I are ethnically identical so you can hardly accuse me of racism towards you, silly.
When I say "your country" that is just shorthand for "your adopted country."
I am amazed I had to spell that out as if it was an issue!

Subject: RE: BS: Israel condemned by UN
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Mar 13 - 04:35 PM

No it wasn't Keith - you referred to me as "an outsider"; a deliberate attempt to demean what I said - you've done it on many occasions.
As I said "You do this in an attempt to undermine what I have to say; it a racist attitude which implies that foreigners have no right to offer an opinion, or that their word is to be trusted less than that of a WASP."
It is a racist, dishonest and cowardly cowardly tactic that has no place in open debate.
Why should it have any relevence to any debate - don't do it again.
Stop lying
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Israel condemned by UN
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Mar 13 - 05:48 PM

I do not remember referring to you as an outsider, unless it was when you were trying to tell us who live here what signs are common here.

All this is just another utterly pathetic attempt to demonize me because your ludicrous claims do not stand up and are believed by no-one except a bunch of bigots within a bubble of hate.

Subject: RE: BS: Israel condemned by UN
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 26 Mar 13 - 09:22 AM

You make unreasonable demands for "unequivocal" evidence from any critics of Israel, but accept Israel's protestations of innocence without any evidence at all.

Even juries only have to judge "beyond reasonable doubt". You set yourself above legal standards accepted throughout the civilised world.

You are BIASED!

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Israel condemned by UN
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Mar 13 - 09:46 AM

Equivocal evidence is "open to two or more interpretations and often intended to mislead; ambiguous."
Of course I will not accept that.

but accept Israel's protestations of innocence without any evidence at all.

AGAIN, I do not accept any such thing.
I just say, if something is denied, it must be shown to be true.
Unequivocally.

Subject: RE: BS: Israel condemned by UN
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 26 Mar 13 - 12:38 PM

B'Tselem, Israeli Human Rights organisations and numerous Israeli soldiers deny Israel's protestations of fairness and innocence.

You call them liars.

Where is your unequivocal evidence that they are lying.

Sauce for the goose mate!

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Israel condemned by UN
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 Mar 13 - 12:56 PM

Yet you do not offer a shred of evidence to back up your own claims, "unequivocal" or otherwise.
Isn't that a bit er…. "biased" or does that mean we can reject everything you claim – if not, why not?
Jim Carroll

CASE STUDY:
The attempted evacuation of the unrecognized village of Atir-Umm al-Hieran On 30Julv 2009, the Beer el-Sabe Magistrates' Court ordered the eviction of a number of residents from their homes in the unrecognized village of Atir - Umm al-Hieran in the Xaqab. The order is the latest in a series of eviction proceedings aimed at uprooting the village in preparation for the establishment of a new town named "Hiran," planned exclusively for Jewish residents. The land designated for Hiran includes the land on which Atir - Umm al-Hieran is located. A report by the Israel Land Administration (ILA) identifies the Arab Bedouin inhabitants of the area as a "special problem" that may affect the establishment of Hiran.137 Atir - Umm al-Hieran was established by order issued by the Israeli military governor in 1948, after the military forces had forcefully evicted
its residents from their homes and land in Wadi Zuballa. The tribe was prevented from returning to live or work on the land. This transfer was not the first time that the villagers were evicted from their homes: they were displaced in 1948 to Hirbat al-Hanzail and then to Kokheh and Abu Kaff. In 1956, the villagers were displaced for the third time to Wadi Atir, where they live today, having received assurances from the military governor that they would be permitted to remain on the land permanently. The people established the village and built permanent brick and cement homes, and worked to rebuild their familial and social lives, which had been disrupted by each expu Ision. Today, 150 families made up of around 1,000 people live in the village, all members of theAbu al-Qia'an tribe. Adalah has been defending residents of Umm al-Hieran against attempts to expel and dispossess them since 2004. On 21 October 2009, Adalah submitted an appeal against the Beer el-Sabe Magistrates' Court to the Beer el-Sabe District Court.135 In the appeal, Adalah demanded the cancellation of the eviction orders and a halt to the evacuation of the entire village.139

Another tool that the State of Israel has begun to employ for the purpose of "Judaizing" the land in the Naqab and "protecting state lands" is the establishment of what are known as "individual settlements." These settlements are inhabited, in general, by single Jewish families, which are provided with hundreds and sometimes thousands of dunams of land for their exclusive use. There are around 60 individual settlements in the Naqab, stretching over 81.000 dunams of land.14-' The government's "Wine Path Plan" seeks to establish individual settlements by retroactively legalizing these existing settlements and allowing for the construction of a number of new ones, thereby distributing vast and lucrative portions of land in the Naqab exclusively to Jewish citizens.1'1 This policy prevents equal access to the land for the entire population of the Naqab. On 30 March 2006, Adalah submitted a petition to the Supreme Court demanding the cancellation of the "Wine Path Plan".1'2 The court ruled on 15 June 2010 to uphold the planning authorities' decision to establish individual settlements, finding that the decision to approve the plan fell within planning policies and that the court had no authority to intervene. The court did not address the petitioners' arguments concerning the disparate impact of the plan, and specifically the unequal distribution of land and the discrimination against the Arab Bedouin unrecognized villages entailed by the plan. Meanwhile, on 12 July 2010, the Knesset approved a new law to legalize individual settlements retroactively, including those that lie outside the Wine Path Plan.143
Following its recent review of Israel, the UN Human Rights Committee recommended that Israel "respect the Bedouin population's right to their ancestral land and their traditional livelihood based on agriculture."144
(ibid)

Subject: RE: BS: Israel condemned by UN
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Mar 13 - 02:18 PM

But I have not made claims Jim.

YOU make lurid claims that the whole world knows are not true.
I just ask for a reason why you expect anyone to believe them.

Subject: RE: BS: Israel condemned by UN
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Mar 13 - 05:59 PM

B'Tselem, Israeli Human Rights organisations and numerous Israeli soldiers deny Israel's protestations of fairness and innocence.

You call them liars.

Fairness Don.
States can only aspire to it.
Those who criticises Israel for insufficiency of fairness are free to do so, but as Bobad reminds us, most Israeli Arabs find Israel a good place or even the best place to be, and Freedom House identified it as "the only free country in the Middle East and North Africa"!

Innocence Don.
Israel does not claim to be innocent of any mistake or misjudgement.
It does deny the lurid crimes you accuse it of, and the above to not support you except a number of soldiers unrepresentative enough to be highly suspect.

Subject: RE: BS: Israel condemned by UN
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Mar 13 - 08:12 AM

"But I have not made claims Jim."
Your whole case is made up of unqualified claims
"I just ask for a reason why you expect anyone to believe them."
Because they are researched and documented facts – reason enough for you? Obviously not.
If you don't accept this you have been given ample opportunity to disprove them – you haven't even tried to, instead you have just denied them without offering any proof. Your refusal to link your statements underlines the fact that most of them are no more than your own inventions and your promise to respond to requests for clarification then refusing to do so when challenged underlines your open dishonesty.
Your claim that nobody believes them is an open insult to all who have opposed you here, that is just about everbody.
You may have had the support of a couple of people on some minor points, but your obnoxious support for massacres (by pretending that Israel played no part in them), or the poisoning or proposed poisoning of ethnic communities (by either claiming that they hadn't happened, or by totally ignoring them) is your alone - if this is not true, show what support you have been given on your major claims – Sabra/Shatila, Bedouins, chemical warfare.....
As for "the whole world..." if Israeli atrocities aren't accepted universally, why have the US found it necessary to bail them out with a veto each time (you've already agreed that they have).
You have been given solid, researched and documented evidence which you have either denied without evidence or totally ignored.
You seem to have adopted the meglomanic stance that your denying evidence out-of-hand constitutes some sort of proof.
That evidence stands as undisputed fact, by you or anybody – even Israel hasn't responded to the Inequality Report which confirms the Israeli State and indisputably "Apartheid" .
I fully realise that you are not reading what is being put up – you haven't responded to the vast majority of them; fine, I didn't think for a moment you would.
However, I will continue to put them up for general reading and will do so for as long as you drag this thread out.
I am grateful to you for giving me the opportunity to do so
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Israel condemned by UN
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Mar 13 - 08:54 AM

Your claim that nobody believes them is an open insult to all who have opposed you here, that is just about everbody.

A few Mudcat Lefties plus Don is not "everybody" Jim.
You really are in a bubble of illusion.
Consider the EU, including your current state of residence.
They imposed sanctions on Syria early on when it was guilty of far less than you accuse Israel of.

Why no sanctions?
Why such friendly relations?

Likewise Scandinavian states.
Likewise any liberal democracy.
NOBODY believes your lurid accusations except, as I said, a bunch of bigots in a bubble of hatred.

Subject: RE: BS: Israel condemned by UN
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 27 Mar 13 - 09:33 AM

""the only free country in the Middle East and North Africa"!""

Not if you are an Israeli Bedouin, or other Arab citizen, apparently:-

Oh yes! I apologise for making you read one of Jim's posts, but if you don't, you won't know what I'm talking about, so how about reading it this time?

""The attempted evacuation of the unrecognized village of Atir-Umm al-Hieran On 30 Julv 2009, the Beer el-Sabe Magistrates' Court ordered the eviction of a number of residents from their homes in the unrecognized village of Atir - Umm al-Hieran in the Xaqab.

The order is the latest in a series of eviction proceedings aimed at uprooting the village in preparation for the establishment of a new town named "Hiran," planned exclusively for Jewish residents.

The land designated for Hiran includes the land on which Atir - Umm al-Hieran is located.

A report by the Israel Land Administration (ILA) identifies the Arab Bedouin inhabitants of the area as a "special problem" that may affect the establishment of Hiran. Atir - Umm al-Hieran was established by order issued by the Israeli military governor in 1948, after the military forces had forcefully evicted its residents from their homes and land in Wadi Zuballa.

The tribe was prevented from returning to live or work on the land.

This transfer was not the first time that the villagers were evicted from their homes: they were displaced in 1948 to Hirbat al-Hanzail and then to Kokheh and Abu Kaff.

In 1956, the villagers were displaced for the third time to Wadi Atir, where they live today, having received assurances from the military governor that they would be permitted to remain on the land permanently.

The people established the village and built permanent brick and cement homes, and worked to rebuild their familial and social lives, which had been disrupted by each expulsion. Today, 150 families made up of around 1,000 people live in the village, all members of the Abu al-Qia'an tribe.

Adalah has been defending residents of Umm al-Hieran against attempts to expel and dispossess them since 2004.

On 21 October 2009, Adalah submitted an appeal against the Beer el-Sabe Magistrates' Court to the Beer el-Sabe District Court. In the appeal, Adalah demanded the cancellation of the eviction orders and a halt to the evacuation of the entire village.""

Explain to me Keith, if you wouldn't mind, how this fourth eviction after a promise of permanent residence is fair.

Is this what you have repeatedly described as ""they can't just be allowed to settle wherever they like""

Seems to me they'll only be allowed to finally settle once they've evntually been pushed across the border.

That takes care of the real fairness of a "Fair Israel".

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Israel condemned by UN
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Mar 13 - 09:35 AM

Australia for instance.
No friend of countries guilty of apartheid or massacres.


Australia and Israel share a close relationship with significant people-to-people and commercial links. Australia established diplomatic relations with Israel in 1949. The Australian Embassy in Tel Aviv, and the Israeli Embassy in Canberra, were both opened in 1949.

Political overview

The State of Israel is a robust parliamentary democracy. The Knesset (parliament) is made up of 120 members elected every four years on the basis of proportional representation. The Prime Minister is a member of the Knesset, although Ministers need not be. The President is the Head of State, a largely ceremonial role, and is elected by a secret Knesset vote for a single seven-year term.

The current Israeli Government is led by Prime Minister Netanyahu. Netanyahu's Likud party heads a coalition of parties (Yesh Atid, Jewish Home and Hatnuah) after the January 2013 elections.

Bilateral relationship

Australia has warm and close relations with Israel, which are supported strongly by Australia's active Jewish community. The relationship has a strong historical dimension, dating back to the First World War when Australian forces fought in the region, including in modern-day Israel, alongside their Allied Counterparts against the Ottomans. Australia was the first country to vote in favour of the 1947 UN partition resolution.

Australia and Israel have a healthy commercial relationship with two-way trade worth $907 million (2011-2012). Our major merchandise export to Israel is coal ($56 million) followed by live animal trading ($54 million) and pearls and gems ($15 million – all figures 2011-2012). There are opportunities for Australian companies to take greater advantage of Israel's knowledge-based technologically advanced economy – particularly in areas of biotechnology, ICT, education and training. Investment is also growing. We encourage Israeli companies to view Australia as a regional base and as a supplier of sophisticated goods and services.

Updated March 2013

Subject: RE: BS: Israel condemned by UN
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 27 Mar 13 - 09:41 AM

""Israel does not claim to be innocent of any mistake or misjudgement.

It does deny the lurid crimes you accuse it of, and the above to not support you except a number of soldiers unrepresentative enough to be highly suspect.""

Not good enough!

Show your unequivocal evidence for claiming those Israelis lied, or at the very least give a credible explanation of exactly what they have to gain by blowing the whistle on the massacres.

You set the standards for us. Now let's see you live up to them.

I'm betting you can't, and will simply continue to waffle.

If I'm right your credibility is gone!!

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Israel condemned by UN
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Mar 13 - 12:08 PM

"A few Mudcat Lefties plus Don is not "everybody" Jim."
It's certainly everybody on this thread.
You have no idea what my political views are – my arguments on this subject are based entirely on my humanitarian beliefs – if this makes them "Leftie" than it is to the left's credit that they are humanitarians – and I would rather be described as being of the left than a rabid right..
"when it was guilty of far less than you accuse Israel of."
I see very little difference between the crimes of Syria (who you proposed to sell riot equipment to) and Israel.
"Why no sanctions? Why such friendly relations?"
For the same reason Britain hosted an arms fair to sell to some of the most human rights states (and described as such by you) when the Arab Spring protests were underway, or why they sold sniper rifle ammunition to Syria (identified as such by you) which was possibly used on the citizens of Homs….. or why they sold havy artillery ammunition to Colonel Gadaffi which was used on the protestors, or trained his son to take over if he left office and all the other horrific trading partnerships the west accommodates – pragmatism.
As that nice Mr Cable said "we sometimes trade arms with states with questionable human rights records" ( or words to that effect) That's business
Israel has only avoided being tried as war criminals because of the support given to them by US vetoes – you've acknowledged how many that have used in their support.
"NOBODY believes your lurid accusations"
Then they've stayed remarkable silent on this thread
And as for your "robust parliamentary democracy" – see below from The Inequality report – sponsored by that well known leftie organisation Christian Aid – which shows beyond doubt that Israel is an Apartheid state capable of extreme oppressive behaviour towards ethnic minorities
Jim Carroll

THE CRIMINALIZATION OF POLITICAL ACTIVITY
• The criminal justice system is regularly used as a means of delegitimizing political acts and expression by Palestinian citizens. Along with ordinary citizens and political activists, Arab political leaders have been indicted
for activities and speech critical of state policy that falls within the scope of their work as elected political representatives.234 Recent cases include the following:
• In November 2009, the Attorney General indicted Arab MK Mohammed Barakeh, the leader of the Democratic Front for Peace and Equality (al-Jabha/Hadash) in relation to four separate incidents that occurred at demonstrations over the course of the previous three years. The demonstrations in question were peaceful protests against the Israeli Separation Wall being constructed in the West Bank, the Second Lebanon War of 2006, and the lack of accountability for the October 2000 killings.
Mr. Barakeh's participation in these demonstrations fell within his role as an MK and political leader of the Arab minority in Israel. MK Barakeh, who has attended hundreds of demonstrations at which he mediated between protesters and the police, took a leading role in mediating with the police or the military on behalf of protestors and in some instances was attacked by the police and the military. Police officers later submitted false complaints against him for assault, which form the basis of the charges against him. The evidence on which the indictment is based has been completely refuted by MK Barakeh and is insufficient to convict him; the indictment simply seeks to criminalize his legitimate political activities as an MK and undermine the political participation of the Arab minority in Israel as a whole.-32
• The Knesset House Committee voted to strip the parliamentary immunity of Arab MK Sa'id Naffaa of the Tajammoa/Balad political part}' (National Democratic Assembly) on 26 January 2010. The move paved the way
for the Attorney General to indict him criminally for various political offenses surrounding a visit he made to Syria in September 2007 as part of a delegation of Druze making a pilgrimage to Druze holy sites in Syria,
considered an " enemy state" under Israeli law. MK Naffaa arranged for a group of 2S0 Druze religious clerics to make a pilgrimage to holy sites in Syria after they were repeatedly refused a permit by the Interior Minister.
MK Naffaa argues that the clerics were unfairly and arbitrarily denied their religious freedom. He is also accused of contact with a foreign agent.
According to one of his assistants, who was interrogated by the GSS, MK Naffaa discussed the feud between Fatah and Hamas with Talal Naji, a Syrian leader of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and
attempted to meet with Hamas leader Khaled Meshal in Damascus. MK Naffaa denies meeting either man. MK Naffaa maintains that his visit was entirely political in nature and that the Knesset's actions seek to prevent
him from fulfilling his role as anMK.23* Adalah has learned that MK Naffaa
has been indicted.23'
• The first case in which an indictment was filed against an MK for political speech was that of former MKDr. Azmi Bishara, then head of theNDA-Balad part}'. Dr. Bishara was charged under The Prevention of Terrorism Ordinance (1948) with two counts of allegedly "supporting a terrorist organization," namely Hezbollah. In two speeches, Dr. Bishara analyzed the factors that led to the end of the Israeli occupation of South Lebanon and spoke about the realities of the Israeli occupation of the OPT and the right to resist it. He was also charged under The Emergency Regulations (Foreign Travel) (1948) for organizing a series of visits for elderly Palestinian citizens of Israel who wished to travel to Syria to visit refugee relatives. The indictments followed a vote to strip MK Bishara of his parliamentary immunity, which protected him from indictment, by the Knesset in November 2001, a move
hitherto unprecedented in Israeli politics. Adalah represented MK Bishara in the criminal indictments filed against him. The Magistrates' Court in Natzerat Illit decided unanimously to dismiss the criminal charges against him for the Syria visits case in April 2003. In November 2003, however, the Nazareth Magistrates' Court decided not to dismiss the indictments for political speech. In February 2006, following a petition filed by Adalah, 233
the Supreme Court unanimously ruled the decision to remove Dr. Bishara's immunity illegal and dismissed all charges against him for his political speeches.
• In addition to these indictments, on 7 June 2010 the Knesset House Committee voted to revoke the parliamentary privileges of MK Haneen Zoabi (NDA-Balad). The decision was approved by the Knesset plenum later in July 2010. MK Zoabi participated in the Gaza Freedom Hotilla and was a passenger on the Mavi Marmara. As MK Zoabi enjoys parliamentary immunity, she was not detained, but she was subjected to an extensive interrogation. Her description of the attacks contradicts the Israeli government's official version of the events,23" and she has called for an international, independent inquiry into the attacks. As a result, MK Zoabi has lost her diplomatic passport, any privileges in overseas travel enjoyed by MKs, and the right to have the Knesset cover her legal fees should her immunity be revoked for the purposes of criminal prosecution. The vote followed several stormy sessions in the Knesset during which MK Zoabi was branded a "terrorist" and "traitor" by fellow parliamentarians
and subjected to racist and sexist remarks and physical threats.240 Various Israeli ministers and MKs have called for the revocation of her Knesset membership, for her to be criminally prosecuted, and even for her Israeli citizenship to be revoked, as proposed bv the Interior Minister, Eli Yishai.241*42

Subject: RE: BS: Israel condemned by UN
From: beardedbruce
Date: 27 Mar 13 - 12:23 PM

"It's certainly everybody on this thread.
"

Nope.


"As Joe so eloquently told you Jim, "you are a fucking liar.""



"However, I will continue to put them up for general reading and will do so for as long as you drag this thread out.
"

That is certainly your right- as is the right of others to point out you have made claims without support, and ignored the statements that "Israel bears responsibility as the occupying power, but is not directly responsible for " the massacres you keep bringing up

Subject: RE: BS: Israel condemned by UN
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Mar 13 - 12:41 PM

"That is certainly your right- as is the right of others to point out you have made claims without support, and ignored the statements that "Israel bears responsibility as the occupying power, but is not directly responsible for " the massacres you keep bringing up"
As Keith rightly said, "denial is nothing without evidence (or words to that effect
Can you provide evidence to show that Israel did not provide illumination to allow the killing to go on through three nights, arm the killers, provide the transport, having been informed on the first day of the killing refused to intervene while at the same time demanding that any weapons possessed by the refugees should be handed over, actually turn back into the hands of the killers refugees attempting to escape, stood by and watched the massacre take place, bury the 'evidence' with their clearly marked bulldozers ....
Then having been found fully culpable by an independent enquiry they elected the man found to be in charge as prime minister - a war criminal as the head of State.
All these facts are documented - if you have any quibble with any of them, produce evidence to the contrary - Keith refuses to do so.
BTW Keith, you failed to link your Australian quote (as usual) and neglected to say it was from The Australian Department of Trade and Industry - as I said - pragmatism.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Israel condemned by UN
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Mar 13 - 12:53 PM

Jim, that statement is official. It is linked to from their embassy website.

All that stuff you accuse them of at Sabra they readily admit because it was about a legitimate military operation, except " bury the 'evidence' with their clearly marked bulldozers ..."

That is just another lie.

Subject: RE: BS: Israel condemned by UN
From: beardedbruce
Date: 27 Mar 13 - 01:13 PM

Jim,

"Can you provide evidence to show that Israel did not provide illumination to allow the killing...
"
They provided illumination: YOU are stating it was to allow killing- Please provide some factual basis. Why could it not have been providing light to allow the refugees to move around and get away from the LEBANESE who where attacking them?


"refused to intervene while at the same time demanding that any weapons possessed by the refugees should be handed over,

IF they were refugees, they had no right to weapons: If they were Palestinian resistance who had weapons, they were in combat and either disarmed or were targets.


" actually turn back into the hands of the killers refugees attempting to escape, "

They turned them back, but can you show that they knew it was to be killed? What percentage of those in the camp were killed, and how does that compare with other inter -Arab fighting, such as between Hamas and the PA?



"stood by and watched the massacre take place,

How could they have seen what was going on IN the camp when they remained outside?



"bury the 'evidence' with their clearly marked bulldozers ...."

They gave the use of ONE bulldozer to the militia to help it remove the Palestinian fighters from the camp.



"Then having been found fully culpable by an independent enquiry .."

As culpable AS THE OCCUPYING POWER. The Militia was determined to have committed the acts, and I see NO comment from you about their subsequent inclusion in the Lebanese government. If you can't be bothered to criticise them, how do you justify attacking Israe for it, unless you hold Jews to a different standard than you hold Christians? BOTH peoples are racially related to each other, and native to the region.


"they elected the man found to be in charge as prime minister - a war criminal as the head of State."

As opposed to the Palestinians who selected their war criminals as a government? Yet you have shown support for that. Must be because he was Jewish, and the Palestinian war criminals were not...

"All these facts are documented - if you have any quibble with any of them, produce evidence to the contrary - Keith refuses to do so."


See above.

Subject: RE: BS: Israel condemned by UN
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 27 Mar 13 - 01:27 PM

As I thought, no response from our resident anti Arab apologist for Israel.

No suggestion of any basis for his claims that witnesses lied!

Of course not!

He always gets very shy when challenged to apply, to himslf, the same standards on which he insist for us.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Israel condemned by UN
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 27 Mar 13 - 01:55 PM

""They provided illumination: YOU are stating it was to allow killing- Please provide some factual basis. Why could it not have been providing light to allow the refugees to move around and get away from the LEBANESE who where attacking them?""

OH PUHLEASE! Make up your mind. If they didn't know about the killing why would they need to do that?

You get more off the plot with every post.

""They turned them back, but can you show that they knew it was to be killed? What percentage of those in the camp were killed, and how does that compare with other inter -Arab fighting, such as between Hamas and the PA?""

What did you just suggest as a reason for lighting up the sky?

The percentage is irrelevant and so are comparisons. IT WAS A MASSACRE!   DUH?

"stood by and watched the massacre take place,

""How could they have seen what was going on IN the camp when they remained outside?""

Well, they lit the whole scene lke a football stadium, so whether it was for your reason, or ours, they must have known that the Lebanese were going berserk. What did they think the Phalangists were doing, playing chess?

"""bury the 'evidence' with their clearly marked bulldozers ...."

They gave the use of ONE bulldozer to the militia to help it remove the Palestinian fighters from the camp.""

But they didn't find Palestinian fighters, who had already left. But the people they DID find weren't removed by that dozer. They are still there, under the stadium hastily erected to conceal their mass grave.

You asked what proportion died! Easy answer, ask the bulldozer driver.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Israel condemned by UN
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Mar 13 - 02:13 PM

"They provided illumination: YOU are stating it was to allow killing"
No - the witnesses stated that it did provide illumination for three nights of killing - eye witnesses, the only independent enquiry and the most comprehensive book on the massacre.
If you have any evidence to counter this, please provide it. If you dispute official reports and surveys it is your job to provide evidence to the contrary
Even by Israeli law, they were guilty of a war crime - see above.
"IF they were refugees, they had no right to weapons"
No weapons whatever weapons were found and at that stage of the massacre when the Israelis were demanding them they would have been disarming massacre victims so that they could not defend themselves - this was their intention.
"They turned them back, but can you show that they knew it was to be killed?"
All reports, including the only independent enquiry, says that they were made aware of what was happening withoin hours of the start of the massacre - see above.
"hey gave the use of ONE bulldozer to the militia"
That is the claim of the Israeli inquiry into itself - eye witness reports, including the two nurses, claim they saw bodies being bulldozed into the ground; this was also included in the only independent report.
"As culpable AS THE OCCUPYING POWER."
Nope - actually part of the massacre, even naming Begin as the main culprit
"As opposed to the Palestinians who selected their war criminals as a government?"
Even if there were true it is irrelevant - war crimes are not excusable because others carry them out - start a thread on PALESTINE
"See above."
Like you, Keith has refused to supply links or provide documented evidence to his claims - see above (the entire thread)
You bottled out of becoming involved in this part of the discussion once before NOW YOU ARE BEHAVING JUST LIKE KEITH AND MAKING UNLINKED AND UNQUALIFIED CLAIMS - TWO OF A KIND, AS THEY SAY IN CARDS - WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE FOR ALL THIS?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Israel condemned by UN
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Mar 13 - 03:45 PM

eye witness reports, including the two nurses, claim they saw bodies being bulldozed into the ground;
That was a lie the first few times Jim.
Now it is a FUCKING LIE.
The nurses saw NO SUCH THING.
Last time you told that LIE you said you would be happy to provide the reference, and I challenged you on it.
STILL WAITING.

Flares.
You do not need flares to massacre civilians.
It would have happened anyway.
Siegel describes watching the flares.
She said each was followed by "light artillery" shots.
She said it was otherwise silent.No firing.
" No screams. No cries for help."

Subject: RE: BS: Israel condemned by UN
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Mar 13 - 03:54 PM

Don.
But they didn't find Palestinian fighters, who had already left.

There were reports of fighting. Exchanges of fire.
If there were none, they were still expected.
NYT states that IDF came under fire AFTER the PLO were supposed to have withdrawn.
The Phalange were sent in by IDF to clear the camps of fighters.

Re your demands for unequivocal evidence.
He who makes outrageous accusations should provide the unequivocal evidence, not demand it of someone asking why to believe it.

Subject: RE: BS: Israel condemned by UN
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Mar 13 - 04:18 PM

No-one believes tese ludicrous accusations except te bigots in teir bubble.
No decent country would have warm and close relations wit a state tat massacred civilians.
Not Irlend.
Not Austtralia.
Not Denmark.

"Relations between Denmark and Israel are good and widespread, which means that the Embassy is met with friendship, interest and openness in the Israeli society. This in turn gives us the best possible platform for carrying out our mission in a professional way.

We work to strengthen the already good relations between Denmark and Israel – be it in the sphere of business, culture or climate change and environment.

We keep the Danish Government and Danish institutions updated on the political situation in Israel and the region.


I have been told that during then foreign minister Poul Hartling´s visit to Israel in 1970 he stopped an 8 year old boy in the streets of Haifa asking him what he knew about Denmark. The boy answered: "You have [Hans Christian] Andersen and you saved the Danish Jews during the war."

This was back in the seventies. Hans Christian Andersen speaks for himself. The rescue operation of the Danish Jews in October 1943 is still commemorated in Israel, in Denmark and elsewhere. Within just a few days more than 7.000 Jews were illegally sailed to safety in Sweden.

In the new millennium Danish – Israeli relations are much more than Hans Christian Andersen and the rescue of the Danish Jews. There is no getting round innovation when it comes to increasing competitive power and growth. Denmark can learn from Israel as a start-up nation, which means that the cooperation between Denmark and Israel is flourishing.

Subject: RE: BS: Israel condemned by UN
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Mar 13 - 04:36 PM

By tehe way Bruce - you have been given links to the most comprehensive study of the massacre
"SABRA & CHATILA - INQUIRY INTO A MASSACRE by Amnon Kapeliouk"
He was a Jewish citizen of Jerusalem, an acedamic; his work is annotated throughout and his sources are impeccable
Keeith dismisses the little bit he has read as "unreliable" (without explanation, of course) and has refused to read all of it because it is "too long"
It is corroborated by Robert Fisk's two major articles and also my the eyewitness testimonies of nurse, Ellen Siegel and Dr Ang Swee Chai.
Keith vaccilates between Seigal seeing nothing and the next minute "she was on top of the hospital building and taking long walks, viewing it all"
His most disgusting rejection of eyewitness evidence was that of traumatised Israeli soldiers who were there - he describes them as "unreliable".
"There were reports of fighting. Exchanges of fire."
There were no such reports - produce them if there were - otherwise you are lying again
"You do not need flares to massacre civilians"
Bloody nonsense - there was no street lighting Witnesses, including Ellen Seigal described it as being "as light as day"
"The Phalange were sent in by IDF to clear the camps of fighters."
The fighters had left long ago - none were found, there was no armed reesistance - the Israeli commandants were fully aware of this and if they hadn't been it was straightforward mass murder to send in a fanatical religious sect whose leader had recently been assassinated into a camp of unarmed refugees - this even contravened the Israeli constitution which makes it an act of murder.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Israel condemned by UN
From: Stringsinger
Date: 27 Mar 13 - 04:51 PM

The whole world knows what Israel did in their assaults on the Palestinian people. To say otherwise is to show insanity on this issue. Despite the evidence clearly shown by Jim Carroll and others on this thread, there are those hard-nosed individuals who would perpetrate the bloody Israeli propaganda and thereby contribute to no solution to the peace process between Israel and the Palestinian people.


"He who makes outrageous accusations should provide the unequivocal evidence, not demand it of someone asking why to believe it."

He who denies unequivocal evidence when shown to him has a strong bias against such credible evidence and if shown to him wouldn't make any difference.

Subject: RE: BS: Israel condemned by UN
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Mar 13 - 05:23 PM

Keith vaccilates between Seigal seeing nothing and the next minute "she was on top of the hospital building and taking long walks, viewing it all"
You lie again.
You put in quotes what I never said.
Do you deny she reported what she saw that night from the top of the hospital?
Answer please.

His most disgusting rejection of eyewitness evidence was that of traumatised Israeli soldiers who were there - he describes them as "unreliable".
Why did they not come forward, like many of their comrades, until long after the events and the enquiries?

There were no such reports - produce them if there were - otherwise you are lying again
The militia took casualties.
Siegel reports sounds of fighting.
If there were none, they were thought to be present.

Bloody nonsense - there was no street lighting Witnesses, including Ellen Seigal described it as being "as light as day"
You do not need flares or street lights to kill indiscriminately in a crowded camp.
Siegel said it was silent under the flares, except for "light artillery."
Deny that Jim?

The fighters had left long ago - none were found, there was no armed reesistance
Evidence Jim?
I have given you mine.
Anyway, they were thought to be there if they were not.

Your ludicrous, lurid accusations are believed by no-one outside your bunch of bigots in your bubble of lies.
Ireland, Australia and Denmark and every other decent nation would have no truck, never mind close and warm relations with a state guilty of such things.

Subject: RE: BS: Israel condemned by UN
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Mar 13 - 03:52 AM

No free, informed nation believes those lurid, ludicrous lies.

"Today, the relations between Finland and Israel cover practically all walks of life, from diplomacy and trade to cultural and scientific co-operation and tourism. Finland's membership in the European Union (since 1995) has added an important dimension to the Finnish-Israeli relations. In addition to official contacts, numerous non-governmental organisations and individuals play a role in enhancing ties between Finns and Israelis. Annually, some 10,000 Finns visit Israel, with Jerusalem being the favourite destination. "

Subject: RE: BS: Israel condemned by UN
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Mar 13 - 05:19 AM

Your claims waver from – the medical staff did not know the massacre was going on to - they could see everything but did not see Israeli soldiers there, to how could they see anything from an enclosed hospital – to they had an excellent view of the camp from the roof of the hospital – to they never left the hospital to – they took long walks – flexible evidence to suit all occasions, don't you think.
A small selection.
"She was in the hospital throughout the massacres, and was unaware of them."
07 Mar 13 - 02:57 PM
"She herself had seen no signs of the civilian massacre from the top of her hospital deep within the camp, or during her long walk out."
08 Mar 13 - 04:08 AM
"The "eye witness doctor" did not even see anything of the massacres. She was with Siegel in the hospital."
"07 Mar 13 - 02:57 PM
And as I came out of the hospital I saw groups of women and men and children all rounded up by soldiers and while I was passing them one woman tried to give me her baby"
14 Mar 13 - 03:39 AM
"Why did they not come forward,"
A They where traumatised by what they witnessed; fully covered in the story of the making of the film Waltz with Bashir, based on the experiences of one of those soldiers
My father was a prisoner of war in Spain - I found out last year that he was taken out regularly and placed in front of a mock firing squad then taken back to his cell. He never spoke about the war in Spain until five years after his release - he didn't talk to anybody for a year after he returned home.
His brother my uncle, was one of the soldiers who entered a Nazi concentration camp at the end of the war - he never spoke of it to anybody; he'd written down some of his experiences in a notebook which was found after his death
That's what happens in wartime.
B Some of the soldier witnesses said that they had seen their mates disciplined for speaking up; several of them were dismissed from the army - a disincentive to telling what had happened until it was long behind them.
Others, of course, felt a duty to their country but, being human beings, could only live with what happened for so long - that came out in their testimonies which you have been given, read them.
"The militia took casualties."
Where are the reports – you are just telling us what happened, as you have throughout this thread – EVIDENCE.
"Siegel reports sounds of fighting."
You have told us Seigal didn't even know the massacre was taking place – make up your ******* mind.
"Bloody nonsense - there was no street lighting "
DO NOT BE STUPID – MASSACRE IN THE PITCH DARK – THEY'D BE SLAUGHTERING EACH OTHER.
If they needed light to, as you so revealingly put it "seek out their enemies" they certainly needed it to slaughter their victims – UTTER NONSENSE.
"I have given you mine."
No you haven't – you have just told us, without evidence – what you claim happened – you have had our evidence several times – READ IT
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Israel condemned by UN
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Mar 13 - 06:01 AM


DO NOT BE STUPID – MASSACRE IN THE PITCH DARK – THEY'D BE SLAUGHTERING EACH OTHER.

Unless, who knows, they had torches and vehicle lights, or maybe even waited until it was daylight anyway.

Of all my actual statements you quote, do you challenge a single one Jim?

Every one stands up and can be substantiated, unlike your shit.

Subject: RE: BS: Israel condemned by UN
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Mar 13 - 06:04 AM

"Siegel reports sounds of fighting."
You have told us Seigal didn't even know the massacre was taking place – make up your ******* mind.

"fighting"
"massacre"
Not the same Jim.

Subject: RE: BS: Israel condemned by UN
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 28 Mar 13 - 06:17 AM

""He who makes outrageous accusations should provide the unequivocal evidence, not demand it of someone asking why to believe it.""

Like the outrageous accusation that everyone who criticises or exposes any Israeli crime, as in the case of Sabra/Shatila, of commission or omission, is a liar, a bigot, an antisemite, or all three?

When might we expect you to live up to the standards you demand of the rest of humanity?

When might we expect Israel to do the same?

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Israel condemned by UN
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 28 Mar 13 - 06:33 AM

""Why did they not come forward, like many of their comrades, until long after the events and the enquiries?""

You are either incredibly naive, or incredibly dim and I can't quite decide which.

If you are a soldier, blowing the whistle on your superiors is the road to a life of absolute hell, so of course they waited till they were out of the IDF to come forward. They also had families and pensions to protect.

You, mister, would have done exactly the same thing.

The fact that they did come forward after waiting so long, and express their horror, shows just how traumatic those events were, and an arrogant shit with an agenda calls them liars out of hand.

That says a lot more about you than about them.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Israel condemned by UN
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Mar 13 - 06:52 AM

"Not the same Jim."
Do not be stupid - there was no "fighting" going on - it was a massacre of unarmed people.
"Of all my actual statements you quote, do you challenge a single one Jim?"
I have consistently pointed out and am doing so again - your statements do not make any sense - they cancel each other out
Your stupidity about carrying our massacres in the dark is beyond belief - seeking out victims, butchering them, raping women and cutting their throats with torches in their hands - are you out of your mind?
"Unless, who knows, they had torches and vehicle lights, or maybe even waited until it was daylight anyway"
This, as you indicate "who knows?" is pure invention on your part,
There is something particularly revolting revolting about trying to implicate 3,500 massacre victims in terrorism by suggesting that they had arms to offer armed resistance.
There is something utterly stupid at suggesting that you have offered proof that there was armed resistance when all you have said is
"There were reports of fighting. Exchanges of fire.
If there were none, they were still expected.
NYT states that IDF came under fire AFTER the PLO were supposed to have withdrawn.
The Phalange were sent in by IDF to clear the camps of fighters."
Total 'making-it-up-on-the-spot claims in the face of dozens of documented reports to the contrary.
No evidence, no links, just unqualified statements by the perpetrators of the massacre - meglomania at its most extreme.
You really are out of your mind - and real sicko in the bargain.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Israel condemned by UN
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Mar 13 - 06:56 AM

Don, lots of soldiers testified at the time.
Virtually everyone has to serve so you get fruitloop and rabid politicos ex-soldiers.
Only a tiny number have claimed bad things and not until long after.

everyone who criticises or exposes any Israeli crime, as in the case of Sabra/Shatila, of commission or omission, is a liar, a bigot, an antisemite, or all three?

We KNOW that there is an industry out there making up lies about Israel.
Those people who "SAW" the Jenin massacre WERE liars because it never happened.

Subject: RE: BS: Israel condemned by UN
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Mar 13 - 07:16 AM

"making up lies about Israel."
"Also on this Friday, eyewitness reports confirmed for the first time that trucks filled with civilians had been seen heading for unknown destinations. A Danish television cameraman, M. Petersen, actually filmed the militiamen loading men, women and children aboard such trucks on the edge of Shatila. This was taking place only 400 meters from an Israeli position. Residents of the Lebanese villages of Shweifat and Hadath, south of Beirut, confirmed that at noon on Friday, three large trucks and two smaller vehicles loaded with civilians passed through their area. These people were never seen again. Similarly, survivors reported to the Red Cross in Beirut that members of their families had been loaded on trucks and taken to unknown destinations, never to return."
Amnon Kapeliouk

Subject: RE: BS: Israel condemned by UN
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Mar 13 - 07:38 AM

Israeli ignorance of the massacre
Jim Carroll

"Officers at the command post which overlooked the camps began receiving reports about developments inside the camps from the assailants themselves immediately after their entry into Sabra and Shatila. An hour after the Phalangists entered the camps, an Israeli officer stationed on the roof of the command post overheard a Phalangist officer radio his commander, also stationed on the roof, informing him that:

there were 50 women and children, and what should he do. The reply of Elie Hobeika [commander of the Phalangist forces operating inside the camps] over the radio was: 'This is the last time you're going to ask me a question like that, you know exactly what to do.' Then raucous laughter broke out among the Phalangist personnel on the roof. (Final Report, p.24).

A little later, the Israeli Division Intelligence Officer heard a Phalangist liaison officer tell one of his men inside the camps to "Do the will of God" to 45 people held by the Phalangists (Final Report p. 22). Then, two hours after the beginning of the massacre, the Phalangist liaison officer at the Israeli command post stated in the dining room that:

As a result of the Phalangists' operations up to that time [8:00 P.M., Thursday, September 16, 1982], 300 terrorists and civilians had been killed in the camps. (Final Report, p. 24)."
Ibid

Subject: RE: BS: Israel condemned by UN
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Mar 13 - 09:26 AM

"making up lies about Israel."
"Every one stands up and can be substantiated, unlike your shit."
No free, informed nation believes those lurid, ludicrous lies."
You are the only one here to have consistently failed or refused to give and evidence - you make up 'facts', you don't link your claims, you reuse to respond when you are requested to back up your statements, you contradict yourself to support your particular line, you have provided no factual basis whatever for YOUR statements.
You have been given the opportunity to substantiate your support for Israel - you haven't and you make it quite clear you have no intention whatever of doing so.
You are still on your own here - even your mate has done another runner when asked to back up his statements.
"Your ludicrous, lurid accusations are believed by no-one outside your bunch of bigots in your bubble of lies."
It is difficult to get an overall figure of how many times the US has supported Israel with its veto.
Up to 1992 the US had used its veto 32 times in support of Israel; between 2001 and 2011 it used another 11 times.
This is a list of those between 1972 and 2011 from the pro Israeli 'Jewish Virtual Library'
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/UN/usvetoes.html
Jim Carroll

"U.S. Middle East Policy
U.S. Vetoes of U.N. Resolutions on Behalf of Israel
By Donald Neff
Former Time Magazine Bureau Chief, Israel
This updated version was published in Fifty Years of Israel
Originally printed in Washington Report, September ⁄ October 1993

Donald Neff has been a journalist for forty years. He spent 16 years in service for Time Magazine and is a regular contributor to Middle East International and the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs. He has written five excellent books on the Middle East.
On March 17, 1970, the United States cast its first veto in the United Nations Security Council during the presidency of Richard Nixon, when Henry Kissinger was the national security adviser. It was a historic moment, since up to that time Washington had been able to score heavy propaganda points because of the Soviet Union's profligate use of its veto.

The first U.S. veto in history was a gesture of support for Britain, which was under Security Council pressure to end the white minority government in southern Rhodesia.
Two years later, however, on Sept. 10, 1972, the United States employed its veto for the second time—to shield Israel.1 That veto, as it turned out, signalled the start of a cynical policy to use the U.S. veto repeatedly to shield Israel from international criticism, censure and sanctions.
Washington used its veto 32 times to shield Israel from critical draft resolutions between 1972 and 1997. This constituted nearly half of the total of 69 U.S. vetoes cast since the founding of the U.N. The Soviet Union cast 115 vetoes during the same period.2
The initial 1972 veto to protect Israel was cast by George Bush [Sr.] in his capacity as U.S. ambassador to the world body. Ironically, it was Bush as president who temporarily stopped the use of the veto to shield Israel 18 years later. The last such veto was cast on May 31, 1990, it was thought, killing a resolution approved by all 14 other council members to send a U.N. mission to study Israeli abuses of Palestinians in the occupied territories. Then President Bill Clinton came along and cast three more.
The rationale for casting the first veto to protect Israel was explained by Bush at the time as a new policy to combat terrorists. The draft resolution had condemned Israel's heavy air attacks against Lebanon and Syria, starting Sept. 6, the day after 11 Israeli athletes were killed at the 1972 Munich Olympic Games in an abortive Palestinian attempt to seize them as hostages to trade for Palestinians in Israeli prisons.3 Between 200 and 500 Lebanese, Syrians and Palestinians, mostly civilians, were killed in the Israeli raids.4
Nonetheless, Bush complained that the resolution had failed to condemn terrorist attacks against Israel, adding: "We are implementing a new policy that is much broader than that of the question of Israel and the Jews. What is involved is the problem of terrorism, a matter that goes right to the heart of our civilized life."5
Unfortunately, this "policy" proved to be only a rationale for protecting Israel from censure for violating a broad range of international laws. This became very clear when the next U.S. veto was cast a year later, on July 26, 1973. It had nothing to do with terrorism. The draft resolution affirmed the rights of the Palestinians and established provisions for Israeli withdrawal from occupied territories as embodied in previous General Assembly resolutions.6 Nonetheless, Washington killed this international effort to end Israel's occupation of Palestinian lands.
Washington used the veto four more times in 1975-76 while Henry Kissinger was secretary of state. One of these vetoes arguably may have involved terrorism, since the draft condemned Israeli attacks on Lebanese civilians in response to attacks on Israel. But the three other vetoes had nothing at all to do with terrorism.
One, in fact, struck down a draft resolution that reflected U.S. policy against Israel's alteration of the status of Jerusalem and establishment of Jewish settlements in occupied territory. Only two days earlier, U.S. Ambassador William W. Scranton had given a speech in the United Nations calling Israeli settlements illegal and rejecting Israel's claim to all of Jerusalem.7 Yet on March 25, 1976, the U.S. vetoed a resolution reflecting Scranton's positions which had been passed unanimously by the other 14 members of the council.8
The two other vetoes during Kissinger's reign also were cast in 1976. One, on Jan. 26, killed a draft resolution calling for recognition of the right of self-determination for Palestinians. The other, on June 29, called for affirmation of the "inalienable rights" of the Palestinians.9
The Carter administration cast only one veto. But it had nothing to do with terrorism. It came on April 30, 1980, killing a draft that endorsed self-determination for the Palestinian people.10
The all-time abuser of the veto was the administration of Ronald Reagan, the most pro-Israel presidency in U.S. history, with the most pro-Israel secretary of state, George Shultz, since Kissinger. The Reagan team cynically invoked the veto 18 times to protect Israel. A record six of these vetoes were cast in 1982 alone. Nine of the Reagan vetoes resulted directly from Security Council attempts to condemn Israel's 1982 invasion of Lebanon, and Israel's refusal to surrender the territory in southern Lebanon which it still occupies today. The other nine vetoes shielded Israel from council criticism for such illicit acts as the Feb. 4, 1986, skyjacking of a Libyan plane.11
Israeli warplanes forced the executive jet to land in Israel, allegedly in an effort to capture Palestinian terrorist Abu Nidal. He was not aboard and, after interrogation, the passengers were allowed to leave.12 The U.S. delegate explained that this act of piracy was excusable "because we believe that the ability to take such action in carefully defined and limited circumstances is an aspect of the inherent right of self-defense recognized in the U.N. Charter."13
Other vetoes employed on Israel's exclusive behalf included the Jan. 20, 1982 killing of a demand that Israel withdraw from the Golan Heights it had occupied in 196714; the April 20, 1982 condemnation of an Israeli soldier who shot 11 Muslim worshippers at the Haram Al-Sharif in the Old City of Jerusalem15; the Feb. 1, 1988 call for Israel to stop violating Palestinian human rights in the occupied territories, abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention and formalize a leading role for the United Nations in future peace negotiations16; the April 15, 1988 resolution requesting that Israel permit the return of expelled Palestinians, condemning Israel's shooting of civilians, calling on Israel to uphold the Fourth Geneva Convention and calling for a peace settlement under U.N. auspices.17
The Bush [Sr.] administration used the veto four times to protect Israel: on Feb. 17, 1989, to kill a draft strongly deploring Israel's repression of the Palestinian uprising and calling on Israel to respect the human rights of the Palestinians18; on June 9, 1989, deploring Israel's violation of the human rights of the Palestinians19; on Nov. 7, 1989, demanding Israel return property confiscated from Palestinians during a tax protest and calling on Israel to allow a fact-finding mission to observe Israel's suppression tactics against the Palestinian uprising20; and, finally, on May 31, 1990, calling for a fact-finding mission on abuses against Palestinians in Israeli-occupied lands.21
The May 31, 1990 veto was the last, presumably, as the result of a secret understanding, if not an official agreement, with Russia and the three other Security Council members with veto power. By then it had become obvious that the council could not be effective in a post-Cold War world if Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States recklessly invoked their vetoes.
Moreover, the international alliances sought by Washington to repel Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in August, 1990 made it necessary for the Bush administration to retain unity in the Security Council. As a result, instead of abstaining on or vetoing resolutions critical of Israel, as it did in 1989 and the first half of 1990, the Bush administration abruptly joined other members in late 1990, 1991 and 1992 in passing six resolutions deploring or strongly condemning Israel's conduct against the Palestinians.22
These resolutions brought the total passed by the council against Israel since its birth to 68. If the United States had not invoked its veto, the record against Israel would total 100 resolutions condemning or otherwise criticizing its behavior or supporting the rights of Palestinians.
The agreement on vetoes held until March, 1995, when President Clinton invoked the veto after all 14 other members approved a U.N. Security Council resolution calling on Israel to rescind a decision to expropriate 130 acres of land in Arab East Jerusalem.23 The Clinton administration exercised two more vetoes in 1997, both of them on resolutions otherwise unanimously supported by the 14 other Security Council members. The draft resolution was critical of Israel's plans to establish a new settlement at Har Homa ⁄ Jabal Abu Ghneim in East Jerusalem in the midst of Palestinian housing.24
The three Clinton vetoes brought to 32 the number Washington has cast to protect Israel."
http://www.ifamericansknew.org/us_ints/p-neff-veto.html

Subject: RE: BS: Israel condemned by UN
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Mar 13 - 10:00 AM

Same old shit Jim.
You say I have not substantiated statements, but you can not actually identify one. I keep asking you to.

I do not "support Israel".I just ask you to justify your ludicrous claims that the whole world know are lies.

There were fighters in the camp.
Siegel herself states that fact.
She says there were few, not none.

Had there been none, it would still have been reasonable to go in and check.