Can you look at this map and say Israel does not systemically appropriate land?

Why did they fire phosphorus shells into a UN depot which was harbouring hundreds of people displaced by the attack, gone there for sanctuary?

There's your "terrorist" behaviour.

Advocate wrote:

Israeli troops were being fired at from the UN depot. You can be sure that the troops will return fire. Just as other countries, such as the USA, occasionally use phosphorus, Israel deemed it necessary on that occasion.

Interesting.

Perhaps you look up the 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons Protocol III. (The USA signed Protocols I and II on March 24, 1995 [and the amended article II on May 24, 1999] and later Protocols III, IV, and V, on January 21, 2009.)

Advocate wrote:

The Palestinians and Israel: Just Say No
by Ben S. Cohen, Huffington Post, October, 28, 2010

The persistence of refugee status for millions of Palestinians has been the physical bedrock of rejectionism, both expressly, as in the infamous "three noes" of the Khartoum conference of 1967, and by implication, as demonstrated by the recent Palestinian decision to withdraw from direct talks.

Cohen is wrong here. The Palestinians decided to withdraw from direct talks because the Zionists wouldn't stop building settlements in lands that the international community regards as illegally occupied by the Zionists, and that are to be set aside for the so called "two state solution." The Zionists wouldn't even make that good faith gesture, let alone consider any kind of meaningful Right of Return.

You're a blind, stupid, fool.

Your support of Israel shows your ignorance.

there are many fair-minded Jews who are more humane, and knowledgeable about truth.

You lack any ethics or humanity.

It actually does not prohibit the use of incendiaries either -- it merely demands extra precautions to ensure no collateral damage.

Advocate wrote:

When a party to a negotiation makes a demand, it must offer something. Israel said it would stop building if the Pals would recognize it as a bona fide Jewish state. The Pals, of course, refused.

Israel didn't say that "it would stop building if the Palestinians would recognize it as a bona fide Jewish state."

Bibi "no preconditions except our own" Netanyahu didn't stop the building because he couldn't stop the building without risking a collapse of his coalition government. By acquiescing to his far right constituency in not extending the moratorium, he placed greater importance on internal Israeli politics than furthering the peace process.

Advocate wrote:

You keep referring to UN resolutions rejected by Israel. You fail to mention those rejected by the Pals. You cannot expect just one side to abide by the resolutions.

Which ones have the Palestinians rejected?

if you want to see a truly inhuman monster, go look at McTag.

oralloy wrote:

It actually does not prohibit the use of incendiaries either -- it merely demands extra precautions to ensure no collateral damage.

Since you read the BBC, then you've certainly seen those photos and videos there (last year it was I think)which showed white phosphor shells exploding over a densely populated (civilian) areas.

Oralloy wrote:

if you want to see a truly inhuman monster, go look at McTag.

I should be locked up.

Advocate wrote:

You are a complete ass. Before intafida, Israel employed hundreds of thousands of Pals, and paid them good wages. However, Pals took advantage of this by coming into Israel to kill civilians. When Israel left Gaza, it left behind thousands of fully equipped greenhouses. The first thing the Gazans did was to destroy them. The Pals believe in self-destruction.

"Before intafada?" Who's the ass here? Do you know how many innocent Pals Israelis have killed since then?

If you think "Never Again" gives moral justification for any and all of Israel's actions, you're very confused.

The term "civilian area" is a bit misleading. This was a battlefield.

The WP shells were smoke munitions intended to prevent Palestinians from observing Israeli troop positions/movements. The UN compound just had the misfortune of being between the Israelis and the Palestinians.

oralloy wrote:

The term "civilian area" is a bit misleading. This was a battlefield.

The WP shells were smoke munitions intended to prevent Palestinians from observing Israeli troop positions/movements. The UN compound just had the misfortune of being between the Israelis and the Palestinians.

O my good God.

So, the Israeli force, attacking a disorganised civilian population, came equipped with phosphorus shells just in case they might at some stage have to create a smoke-screen.

Pretty damn lame excuse for targeting civilians which is a war crime. But then you've always had lame excuses for all the war crimes comitted by the US so why should you be any different here.

Israel and the US do not target civilians.

Quote:

You're as delusional as Ionus, Oralboy.

Laos
Every year thousands of people, mostly children and poor farmers, are killed in the Plain of Jars in Northern Laos, the scene of the heaviest bombing of civilian targets in history, it appears, and arguably the most cruel: Washington's furious assault on a poor peasant society had little to do with its wars in the region. The worst period was after 1968, when Washington was compelled to undertake negotiations (under popular and business pressure), ending the regular bombardment of North Vietnam. Kissinger and Nixon then shifted the planes to the task of bombarding Laos and Cambodia.

The deaths are from "bombies," tiny anti-personnel weapons, far worse than land mines: they are designed specifically to kill and maim, and have no effect on trucks, buildings, etc. The Plain was saturated with hundreds of millions of these criminal devices, which have a failureto-explode rate of 20 30 percent, according to the manufacturer, Honeywell. The numbers suggest either remarkably poor quality control or a rational policy of murdering civilians by delayed action. This was only a fraction of the technology deployed, which also included advanced missiles to penetrate caves where families sought shelter.

Current annual casualties from "bombies" are estimated from hundreds a year to "an annual nationwide casualty rate of 20,000," more than half of them deaths, according to the veteran Asia reporter Barry Wain of the, Wall Street Journal-in its Asia edition. A conservative estimate, then, is that the crisis this year is approximately comparable to Kosovo, though deaths are far more highly concentrated among children-over half, according to studies reported by the Mennonite Central Committee, which has been working in Laos since 1977 to alleviate the continuing atrocities.

There have been efforts to publicize and deal with the humanitarian catastrophe. A British-based Mine Advisory Group (MAG) is trying to remove the lethal objects, but the US is "conspicuously missing from the handful of western organizations that have followed MAG," the British press reports, though it has finally agreed to train some Laotian civilians. The British press also reports, with some annoyance, the allegation of MAG specialists that the US refuses to provide them with "render harmless procedures" that would make their work "a lot quicker and a lot safer." These remain a state secret, as does the whole affair in the United States.

The Bangkok press reports a very similar situation in Cambodia, particularly the eastern region, where US bombardment after early 1969 was most intense.

In this case, the US reaction is (II): do nothing. And the reaction of the media and commentators is to keep silent, following the norms under which the war against Laos was designated a "secret war"-meaning well-known, but suppressed, as was also in the case of Cambodia from March 1969. The level of self-censorship was extraordinary then, as is ~ the current phase.

The war then, of course, expanded. The US expanded the war to Laos and Cambodia. As in Vietnam, and Laos and Cambodia, too, the targets were primarily civilian. The main target, however, was always South Vietnam. That included saturation bombing of the densely populated Mekong Delta and air raids south of Saigon that were specifically targeting villages and towns. They were deciding, "let's put a B-52 raid on this town." Huge terror operations like "Speedy Express" and "Bold Mariner" and others were aimed specifically at destroying the civilian base of the resistance.

You might say that the My Lai massacre was a tiny footnote to one of these operations, insignificant in context. The Quakers had a clinic nearby, and they knew about it immediately because people were coming in wounded and telling stories. They didn't even bother reporting it because it was just standard, it was going on all the time. Nothing special about My Lai.

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Chomsky/LegacyWar_RSChom.html

I truly hope there is a God and that one day you will have to stand before him and explain your support for sending innocent people to prison.

It does not come even close to any definition of terrorism.

oralloy wrote:

I truly hope there is a God and that one day you will have to stand before him and explain your support for sending innocent people to prison.

I understand that she was found guilty.

oralloy wrote:

It does not come even close to any definition of terrorism.

Oh really? Why do you think that?