Bernadotte

For the sake of anyone who might not know, Area A is the yellow part of the West Bank that is supposed to be under "full Palestinian control." Â It is within this area that Israeli settlers are allowed to roam around with assault rifles, according to mp_phonix.

Perhaps we should review our little discussion... mp_phonix: Â IDF posted the video from the Airborne SF in Baal-Beek, in the video u can see the terrorist shooting on the forces throught the UAV infra-red Cams, u can see the muzzle flashes Bernadotte: Â If a foreign military landed in the middle of Israel and started attacking a hospital would you call the Israeli citizens who shoot at them terrorists?? mp_phonix: Â if u are a civillians, whay the fuck do u have an AK47 ? Bernadotte: Â For the same reason that these Israeli civilian [settlers] are carrying assault rifles. Â ...Or are you going to call them terrorists too? mp_phonix: Â thats the point, they are settlers it is so they could protect themselvs from terrorist that are attacking the settelments. So, let me see if I understand you. Â An Israeli civilian defending himself with an assault rifle in Palestinian territory is called a settler. Â However, a Lebanese civilian defending himself with an AK47 in Lebanon is a terrorist. Are you on drugs? Â The only other conclusion I can draw is that you are a hypocritical anti-Arab racist. Â Please explain if you can.

Just imagine how little I knew about guns before playing OFP. Â It's actually not very easy to find an image of an Israeli settler not carrying a weapon. This last image is from the personal journal of some American Christian missionary and worth a quick visit. Here's a picture apparently showing him standing on the road for Arabs alongside the road for Jews. Â Apartheid, anyone?

if u are a civillians, whay the fuck do u have an AK47 ? For the same reason that these Israeli civilians are carrying assault rifles. ...Or are you going to call them terrorists too? Â

The point is that I'm thinking neither without more info. Â A reasonable person gathers evidence and then tries to draw conclusions. Â A fanatic draws conclusions and then tries to gather evidence. The ambulance could be painted. The ambulance could be stolen. The militant being transported could be injured. The whole thing could be staged (I could probably make an identicle video in less than 24hr). I don't doubt that ambulances have been used to transport Palestinian militants under Israeli occupation. Â And I don't doubt that ambulances were used to transport Jewish LEHI terrorists under Palestine's British administration. So what? Â The IDF can't simply destroy everything that moves on the basis that terrorists also move. Â Question: Â If a foreign military landed in the middle of Israel and started attacking a hospital would you call the Israeli citizens who shoot at them <span style='font-size:11pt;line-height:100%'>terrorists</span>??

Overheard conversation:

Before you said they were firing: Now you say they were hiding: See what happens when you keep trying? Â Eventually even you end up able to say something that's true. Â

According to your blogger source: Your source's understanding is wrong. The IDF's highspeed radar located Hezbollah's launch points between 220 and 600 meters from the UN base. Â The UN's investigation confirmed the IDF's findings. Â The UN found that 2 - 3 fighters had entered the base to be with their families either before or after the IDF shelling. Â Neither side has tried to claim that Hezbollah actually launched any attacks from within the base. Â Keep trying.

Prove it. According to the UN investigator's report the IDF didn't even make such a claim. Â The IDF stated: Keep trying!!

Is it just you or are all Israelis taught to say the complete opposite of what they mean? That would certainly explain much of what the IDF have been telling us lately about not deliberately targetting civilians.

Prediction: Â In years to come, Hizbollah will develop its own more powerful version of the Katyusha rocket and name it the Qana II, after the second massacre to hit that village in a decade. From an interview with an IDF commander: This interview with an IDF general was originally published by the Israeli paper Davar in December 17, 1982, as part of a series of interviews with outspoken Israelis by writer Amos Oz. Â Btw, the identity of the interviewee remains secret and Amos Oz has denied that it was Ariel Sharon.

You might be interested in this article written 4 years ago about Lebanon's water project to revitalise 60 villages in the south and hopefully weaken Hezbollah's influence in that poverty-stricken region. Â Development experts in Washington applauded the plan. Guess what Israel said? Israel said it needs the water flowing from those Lebanese springs to maintain freshwater levels in the Sea of Galilee. Â Hezbollah threatened to retaliate the moment Israel would try to attack the Lebanese pumping stations. Â An Israeli army officer responded to the threats by saying: ...after they get off a few rounds, huh? Â

There were no good solutions. Â The White Paper probably strayed the least from the Mandate. Â Partitioning obviously strayed the furthest. Nonetheless, you seem convinced that an Arab/Jewish democracy had no future and partitioning was the best option. Â <start sarcasm> Perhaps you were looking to other fine examples of partioning like that of British India into India, Pakistan, Kashmir, Bangladesh, Burma and Sri Lanka - all icons of peace and tranquillity, huh? Â Let's just disregard the 15 million refugees and up to a million deaths through ethnic cleansing; not to mention the ongoing civil wars and nuclear standoff. At least Palestine didn't end up in some sort of reconciliation process like South Africa. Â But just you wait! Â Given enough time South Africa might still end up as biculturally unstable as, say, Canada. Â At least those poor Palestinians don't have to suffer a lifetime of reading packages labelled in 2 languages. <end sarcasm>

What are you talking about? It's quite simple. Â If you quote your question along with my answer to that question then you won't be able to pretend that you don't know what I'm talking about. Enough games, ok? Â Bye. Â

Prove it. That image is actually from this article posted 4 years ago in Candian Jewish News.  It only claims that the photo was taken at a UN post. That's all.  No other details, questions, comments or credits.  In fact, it could be a photo of any piece of fencing anywhere in the world.  And it certainly isn't necessarily the outpost that got struck as you have claimed. Welcome back.  And keep trying.

Read what I wrote (3 times) about immigration and land purchase under the Mandate being required to protect indigenous rights and position.Off track = Jewish immigration/land purchases having threatened Arab rights and postion. On track = Undoing the damage to Arab rights and position caused by Jewish immigration/land purchases. Undoing the damage = suspending/restricting the Jewish immigration/land purchases that caused the damage. And read what the Commission ruled on the White Paper. I did read that ruling that was never brought before the League or even acted upon by the Mandate authority (Britain). Â So what? Â You asked me how the White Paper was meant to get the Mandate back on track and then you deleted your question when you quoted my answer. Â If you don't agree with my interpretation of the White Paper's intentions then say so. Â However, the lame duck Commission's legal opinions is not the same thing as an assessment of the White Paper's aims, which is what your question was about. They were the ones with the knowledge with the situation because they were the ones that monitored the Mandate(s). Therefore, their vote on the whether the White Paper is a violation is important. Hardly. Â They were bureaucratic regulators sitting in Switzerland who probably never even set foot in Palestine or the very conference that spawned the White Paper. Â Their task was to review policy changes in accordance with their interpretation of the Mandate. Â Times and circumstances changed. Â Their recommendations might have brought about a review of the Mandate rather than the White Paper to avoid the tail wagging the dog. Â Or do you honestly believe that splitting up Palestine was more in accordance with the Mandate than what the White Paper proposed? Yeah? Â And who exactly didn't fall under the program in Palestine? Â It's not as though hundreds of thousands of non-Jews suddenly appeared in place of all the Jews who would have immigrated. They weren't reassured for decades that Palestine would become a Arabic state. I didn't say that. Â I said that they were reassured that Palestine would not be split up. Look, man!! Â It was a good discussion and I learned a lot from those documents and quotes you dug up. Â Thanks. Â However, rewording the other's statements is just a debating tactic for people who like arguing for the sake of arguing. Â Which is my cue to leave. Thanks again. Â

Deja vu, anyone? Â Fortunately for Israel, people have short memories. Â Nearly the exact same thing happened 10 years ago when a UNIFIL base got shelled by IDF artillery, killing over 100 civilians who had sought shelter there from the nearby village of Qana and seriously wounding 4 UN staff. Of course, Israel denied targetting the base deliberately and also denied having any aerial reconnaisance near the base at the time. Â However, a UNIFIL peacekeeper near the base happened to capture the shelling on video along with a nearby Israeli helicopter and unmanned drone. Â Israel was not able/willing to explain the presence of those aircraft to the satisfaction of the UN investigator. Busted!! Â ...but so what? Â Bottom Line: Â "It is unlikely that gross technical and/or procedural errors led to the shelling of the United Nations compound. However, it cannot be ruled out completely."

Please show me where Palestine's Arab leaders wanted back the 3% of the land that had been sold to the Jews. Â I think you'll find that the Palestinians were ultimately much more concerned about the 52% of Palestine that the Jews got for free than the 3% that they purchased.

The Mandate didn't put a restriction on the immigration of Jews. How could the White Paper of 1939 put the Mandate back on track if it violates the Mandate? Read what I wrote (3 times) about immigration and land purchase under the Mandate being required to protect indigenous rights and position. Off track = Jewish immigration/land purchases having threatened Arab rights and postion. On track = Undoing the damage to Arab rights and position caused by Jewish immigration/land purchases. Undoing the damage = suspending/restricting the Jewish immigration/land purchases that caused the damage. Illegal? Â The Commission was only an advisory panel. Â And besides, according to your 1948 UN link: The White Paper was very much a form of "affirmative action" aimed at quelling a growing Arab revolt. Â It was controversial and over 20 years ahead of its time. Â Of course, opponents of affirmative action always attack it for being unconstitutional. Not really. Â Palestine was already an Arabic state. Â They simply didn't want it to become split up after decades of reassurances to the contrary. Little analogy: The Palestinian Arabs owned a concert hall which was renovated with assistance from the British. Â The British promised the Jews that they could attend shows at the Arab's concert hall out of gratitude for their assistance with that and other renovation projects. Â Many more Jews showed up than the Arabs anticipated. Â And, instead of buying food and drink from the Arab concession stands the Jews set up their own, which they tried not to share with the Arabs. Â When the Arab concert started the Jews even begin to play their own music. Â Natuarally, the Arabs complained to the British police, but all the cops did was recommend giving 55% of the hall, along with the stage and air conditioning, to the Jews even though they only represented 30% of those in attendance. Why? Mostly because the Jews used to own a concert hall in the same location a few thousand years ago. The White Paper tried to lock the doors on the hall until the 2 sides learned to get along.

Where did you get that quote from? Â I could not find it in the Minutes of Permanent Mandates Commission meeting (36th session). HOWEVER, I did find that quote presented by David Ben-Gurion as evidence to the UN in July 1947. Â In fact, everywhere else on the web that the quote can be found also ascribes it to Ben-Gurion's evidence rather than the actual minutes of the Commission's 36th session. I'll have more to say as soon as we've checked out your source.

You looked back 9 years and only found 2 incidents of soldiers being killed by friendly fire? Â In fact, you should be very happy with a record like that. Btw, that number seems to be around half as many as the number of civilians that the IDF has typically managed to kill by accident each day of the past month.

I agree. Â The UN and international community have said countless times recently that they will not send in a peacekeeping force until there is a ceasefire. Â Meanwhile, they seem to have forgotten all about the peacekeeping force they sent in 26 years ago. Â Nonetheless, that observer post was apparently contructed in 1948 and could hardly have been a secret to the IDF. Â However, it probably only had a 58 year old bunker if any at all. Btw, why is it that a military with such a bad record for accidents never seems to cause very many friendly fire deaths? Â

The Jewish state would be a neutral state and work with the Ottoman Empire. So, Herzl's Israel would have become an ally of Germany in WWI. Â The concern was that so many Arabs selling their land to the Jews would result in a large landless Arab population with no livelihood. The Mandate and even the Balfour Declaration clearly required the protection of the rights of Palestine's the indigenous people. Â Fifteen years later, the Peel Commission concluded that those rights were not sufficiently protected. Â However, instead of pulling the Mandate back on track the Peel Commission recommended it be abandoned for the creation of 2 states. Â The White Paper of 1939 took the opposite path, largely because of Arab reaction to the Peel recommendations. Â The White Paper tried to pull the Mandate back on track by placing protection of indigenous rights (and redressing some of the wrongs) ahead of the Mandate's other obligations - such as Jewish immigration and land purchase. Btw, I'm glad you found the White Paper of 1939. Very few people know of it, although it was very important in many ways: - It called for a single state of Palestine with a democratic representative government to be independent of Mandate rule by 1949. - It actually offers a bit of a glimpse at the final days of the British Colonial Empire trying to set things right - a bit too late - after making such a mess. - It was probably one of the main reasons that Jewish terrorist organisations formed to fight the British. Unfortunately, Arab leaders no longer trusted the Brits enough to regard the White Paper as a fair deal for them, and who can blame them? Â Â When Israel was founded on 55% of Palestine's territory in 1948 the abolition of the White Paper was one ot the first acts of the new government. If it wasn't published then it was not obligatory and it certainly wasn't appended to the Mandate statement. Â Sure, it reflected a lot of what was really going on in the minds of Imperial British leadership, but so did a lot of other records.

The fictional one out in the Mojave Desert that I was discussing in the first place until you pulled my comment entirely out of context. Ottoman Empire because Palestine was under their domain while he was alive. As well, they asked the Germans for some reason. Really? Â And what was the Ottoman Empire going to get in return? Why didn't you bold.... There was no restriction of land sales until 1939 when the House of Commons passed the White Paper of 1939. It wasn't the mandate but the White Paper of 1939 that restricted land sells. There's still nothing in there about unlimited land sales. Â You've even removed the bold part of my quote about land sales ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced. Â Perhaps you didn't think this condition was worth quoting, however the Report of the 1937 Peel Commission focused much of chapter IX on it because it was not being carried out. It wasn't until the White Paper of 1939 clearly stated that "homeland" didn't mean statehood. Even Winston Churchill, before he turned anti-zionist, thought it went against the Balfour Declaration. Yes, the British really fecked things. Again according to The Peel Commission, "The Jews understood that, if the experiment of establishing a Jewish National Home succeeded and a sufficient number of Jews went to Palestine, the National Home might develop in course of time into a Jewish State." Â Arab revolts could hardly have been regarded as an indication of a successful experiment. Which doesn't mean that "homeland" could be interpreted as "statehood" before 1939. Early drafts could have described shipping penguins to the Canadian arctic too. Â It's irrelevant. Â Only the final Declaration matters. First, according to the United States Supreme Court, it is illegal under the Constitution for a state or a piece of a state to secede from the Union. Do yourself a really big favour and don't go looking for anything too profound in what Ares posted. Â You too can declare an independant state in your mother's kitchen is about all he was trying to express. You do know that UN General Assembly resolution 181, like all General Assembly resolutions was merely a non-binding recommendation. Â It hardly "created the Jewish State." Â In fact, Britain was still in charge for another 6 months and refused to implement it.

Actually, you did already admit in the sentence I quoted that it wasn't accurate ("nearly"), so no explanation is needed, at least not from me. I suspect English is not your native language. Â "Nearly" does not mean the same thing as "historically inaccurate." Â In fact, the use of the word "nearly" can often increase the accuracy of a statement. Glad you asked. Â (so much more civilised this way) Â The similarity between Israel's birth and possible destruction at the hands of Iran is in the use of force. Â Israel was founded through use of force by Jewish terrorists against the British administration. Â Israel now fears its own destruction by Iran's own use of force if Iran develops a nuclear capability. I hope that's clear now. What do you mean by "enough" since it is such a keyword? ...enough means enough. "But whether or not it has any meaning, depends on how well you can play the game", right? Nice try at changing the subject. Actually I was trying to conclude the discussion of what I'd thought was something more profound out of you. Â After all, you're the one who referred to it as "the keyword" not me. Â So yeah, enough means enough. Â Awesome. Â Thanks for that. Â Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz........