1 Israeli = 155 Palestinians

The Saint

di11on wrote: »

Might want to brush up on the history of the conflict. I've copied this from another thread and it summarises it quite well.

Benny Morris, an Israeli historian who he is considered as a biased historian by most Israelis and is often quoted by Palestinian supporters, sent a letter to the Irish times stating the following:

“ISRAEL-HATERS are fond of citing my work in support of their arguments. Let me offer some corrections. In defiance of the will of the international community, as embodied in the UN General Assembly resolution of November 29, 1947, (Palestinian Arabs) launched hostilities against the Jewish community in Palestine in the hope of aborting the emergence of the Jewish state and perhaps destroying that community. But they lost; and one of the results was the displacement of 700,000 of them from their homes.
Most of Palestine's 700,000 "refugees" fled their homes because of the flail of war (and in the expectation that they would shortly return to their homes on the backs of victorious Arab invaders).
There was no Zionist "plan" or blanket policy of evicting the Arab population, or of "ethnic cleansing". Plan Dalet of March 10, 1948, was the master plan of the Haganah - the Jewish military force that became the Israel Defence Forces - to counter the expected pan-Arab assault on the emergent Jewish state. And the invasion of the armies of Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Iraq duly occurred, on May 15.
It is true that Plan D gave the regional commanders carte blanche to occupy and garrison or expel and destroy the Arab villages along and behind the front lines and the anticipated Arab armies' invasion routes. And it is also true that midway in the 1948 war the Israeli leaders decided to bar the return of the "refugees" (those "refugees" who had just assaulted the Jewish community), viewing them as a potential fifth column and threat to the Jewish state's existence. I for one cannot fault their fears or logic.“

This has already been covered. Morris has said many things. See here to see a post regarding this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by munchester29
Ok, valid point. How about this then, on a different issue: A letter sent by Morris to th Irish times after being quoted once too many about "ethnical cleansing" of Palestinians:

"There was no Zionist "plan" or blanket policy of evicting the Arab population, or of "ethnic cleansing". Plan Dalet of March 10, 1948, was the master plan of the Haganah - the Jewish military force that became the Israel Defence Forces - to counter the expected pan-Arab assault on the emergent Jewish state. And the invasion of the armies of Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Iraq duly occurred, on May 15."

My question - do you agree, based on Morris's research that Israel did not try to "ethnically cleanse" the Arabs in 1948, as many Palestinian supporters claim?

I did not state that the Israeli intended to etnically cleanse the Palestinians. I stated the ethnic cleansing happened although there are other historians who believe it was intentional. However all those etnically cleansed had a right under international law to return to their homes. This was refused by the Israeli state.

From Morris

Quote:
In the months of April-May 1948, units of the Haganah were given operational orders that stated explicitly that they were to uproot the villagers, expel them and destroy the villages themselves. At the same time, it turns out that there was a series of orders issued by the Arab Higher Committee and by the Palestinian intermediate levels to remove children, women and the elderly from the villages. So that on the one hand, the book reinforces the accusation against the Zionist side, but on the other hand it also proves that many of those who left the villages did so with the encouragement of the Palestinian leadership itself.

Quote:
"The nexus between thought and action was not so much a matter of 'predetermination' and preplanning as of a mind-set that accepted transfer as a legitimate solution. Once that 'transfer' got under way, of its own accord, in late 1947-early 1948 (Arabs fled mainly out of fear of bombs and bullets), the Zionist leadership, guided by Ben-Gurion, was predisposed to nudge the process along, occasionally with the help of expulsions. The initial refugee trickle turned into a flood tide during April-July 1948"

Quote:
The debate about whether or not the mass exodus of Palestinians was the result of a Zionist design or the inevitable concomitant of war should not ignore the ideological constructs that motivated the Zionist enterprise. The philosophy of transfer was not a marginal, esoteric article in the mindset and thinking of the main leaders of the Yishuv. These ideological constructs provided a legitimate environment for commanders in the field actively to encourage the eviction of the local population even when no precise orders to that effect were issued by the political leaders.

Quote:
Most of Palestine's 700,000 "refugees" fled their homes because of the flail of war (and in the expectation that they would shortly return to their homes on the backs of victorious Arab invaders). But it is also true that there were several dozen sites, including Lydda and Ramla, from which Arab communities were expelled by Jewish troops.

Quote:
Decisive causes of abandonment Occurrences
military assault on settlement 215
influence of nearby town's fall 59
expulsion by Jewish forces 53
fear (of being caught up in fighting) 48
whispering campaigns 15
abandonment on Arab orders 6
unknown 44

There are also many other historians who argue that it was a forced expulsion. I don't know the exact truth. However what I do know is that 700,000 people became refugees who weren't allowed to return to their homes in violation of international law.

Jack Bauer999

youcrazyjesus! wrote: »

Another out of the box propaganda argument. Your arguments are becoming even more transparent. The Israelis don't give a flying **** about Palestinians. By their own words AND actions we know this to be false.

Palestinians should be thankful to Israel for not unleashing genocide on them?

What a sick, twisted viewpoint.

Just reading the breakingnews.ie story:

“These were people who were scared. They rushed into the nearest UN facility,” said one official.

BUT SHORTLY AFTER, a shell hit the school"



No idea if the story is 100% accurate, but if it is it would fit a pattern of Israeli behaviour.

5.4.3.2.1 - And here we go, right on que.....

Gunshots and an anti-tank missile were fired at IDF troops near the UN compound that was attacked by the IDF on Thursday, senior defense officials told The Jerusalem Post.

According to the officials, the IDF responded by firing artillery shells at the location of the gunmen, causing damage to the UN installations. At least three people were wounded in the attack and the building was set on fire


http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1231950855726&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

wes

Jack Bauer999 wrote: »

5.4.3.2.1 - And here we go, right on que.....

Gunshots and an anti-tank missile were fired at IDF troops near the UN compound that was attacked by the IDF on Thursday, senior defense officials told The Jerusalem Post.

According to the officials, the IDF responded by firing artillery shells at the location of the gunmen, causing damage to the UN installations. At least three people were wounded in the attack and the building was set on fire


http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1231950855726&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

The IDF have already been caught out lieing.

Is there any independent verification of the IDF claims? Otherwise, I will take what there saying with a large pinch of salt.

Mr.Micro

wes wrote: »

The IDF have already been caught out lieing.

Is there any independent verification of the IDF claims? Otherwise, I will take what there saying with a large pinch of salt.

Get the salt out, probably need a few sackfuls before this is over.

paulaa

munchester29 wrote: »

Actually, the majority of people in Gaza have been under Egyptian rule until Israel conquered the area in 1967.
It is probable that some Palestinians who fled Israel in 1948 went to Gaza, but I have no specific figures.

Siege – a result of continued attacks, even after Israel left Gaza.

Colonialism – Israel hasn’t built new colonies in years. They are expending existing ones which they feel will remain under Israeli rule once a peace agreement is signed. No violent colonialism for at least several years (I don’t really recall a violent one – Palestinians dying in their hundreds when kicked out of their homes).

Jewish only roads – These were built because the Palestinians kept attacking the regular roads used by everyone. These roads are purely to protect Israelis against Palestinian aggression.

“Apartheid” wall – built to stop suicide bombers and it actually works.

I'm sorry I don't agree with any of this.

The "wall" in a lot of places has divided farmlands owned by Palestinian farmers. They have to get permission to cross to their lands so that they can farm to feed their families. Most requests have denied in the last couple of years. In some cases this land is now being built on for new settlement. Olive groves and orchards have been bulldozed therby providing new sites for settlers and depriving another family of their land.
When they withdrew from Gaza they took 8,000 settlers with them but they put 12,000 into Jerusalem. Whose land do you think was built on to house these 12,000 ?

The roads were another excuse to divide and grab more land that had been farmed for generations by Palestinians. Of course in a few years you will see more housing developments being built along these roads.

"Defense Minister Ehud Barak has approved dozens of construction projects in the West Bank in recent months, contradicting Israel's commitments to the Road Map, Haaretz has learned. Barak also approved the marketing of hundreds of housing units in settlements.

Some of the permits for construction projects were granted in settlements to the east of the separation fence, which are beyond the areas the state defines as "settlement blocks" and it expects to retain under Israel's control following a permanent agreement with the Palestinians.

By press time, the Defense Ministry had not responded to Haaretz's query on the matter.
Advertisement

The Road Map, an American initiative put in place in 2003, calls on Israel to avoid any expansion of settlements, except for construction necessitated by the needs of natural population growth. The construction permits appear to contravene Israel's obligations.

Construction in the settlements is a permanent matter of dispute in talks for a permanent settlement between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, and has drawn strong criticism from both the U.S. and the European Union.

At a March press conference with P.A. President Mahmoud Abbas, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said that the U.S. continues to insist that Israel ceases settlement expansion. Rice stressed that such construction contravenes the Road Map. "



http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1037270.html

munchester29

paulaa wrote: »

I'm sorry I don't agree with any of this.

I wasn't trying to justify settlements and land grabbings. I am actually against the Israeli settlements.

I just don't think that land disputes justify terror campaigns.

I also think that the more the Palestinians attack Israel, the further away a real peace agreement is, which will eventually lead to the Palestinians losing more land (borders are often decided upon based on existing conditions)

wes

munchester29 wrote: »

I wasn't trying to justify settlements and land grabbings. I am actually against the Israeli settlements.

I just don't think that land disputes justify terror campaigns.

I also think that the more the Palestinians attack Israel, the further away a real peace agreement is, which will eventually lead to the Palestinians losing more land (borders are often decided upon based on existing conditions)

Israel would steal land regardless. Its the whole point of Zionism.

paulaa

munchester29 wrote: »

I wasn't trying to justify settlements and land grabbings. I am actually against the Israeli settlements.

I just don't think that land disputes justify terror campaigns.

I also think that the more the Palestinians attack Israel, the further away a real peace agreement is, which will eventually lead to the Palestinians losing more land (borders are often decided upon based on existing conditions)

If someone forced me off my property that I was making my living from and no one would help me, not saying I would resort to terror, but I wouldn't take it lying down.

The constant humiliation and deprivation that they have been subjected to over the years has been appalling. The incursions into Gaza even after the withdrawal and the blockade of anything that would make life bearable have been a source of extreme provocation to them.

In all fairness, I don't know of anyone, anywhere that would just accept those circumstances. While I don't think the Gazans are best served by Hammas, who else did they have ?

munchester29

wes wrote: »

Israel would steal land regardless. Its the whole point of Zionism.

Peace is indeed far away...

Do you justify terror acts executed because of a land dispute?

munchester29

paulaa wrote: »

If someone forced me off my property that I was making my living from and no one would help me, not saying I would resort to terror, but I wouldn't take it lying down.

The constant humiliation and deprivation that they have been subjected to over the years has been appalling. The incursions into Gaza even after the withdrawal and the blockade of anything that would make life bearable have been a source of extreme provocation to them.

Do you think that constant terror attacks and rocket fire help their situation in any way?
Besides, the wonderful circle of violence in the Middle East is nothing new. Palestinians have been killing Israelis and vice versa for dozens of years now.
Each side is sure that justice is on their side, each side has its own claims, complaints, past suffering and pain.

So, how are things ever going to change?

Israel made the move – left Gaza, uprooted thousands of families in the process (all under many protests from many Israelis). Israel did this because they want peace.
All Israel got in return were increased attacks on Israeli citizens.

What steps have the Palestinians ever taken to achieve peace?

youcrazyjesus!

Jack Bauer999 wrote: »

Gunshots and an anti-tank missile were fired at IDF troops near the UN compound that was attacked by the IDF on Thursday, senior defense officials told The Jerusalem Post.

According to a UN official on RTE's drivetime show about 15 minutes ago, I'm sorry I didn't catch his name, this is a lie. He wanted to be quite explicit on this and it was a categorical denial of Israel's lies. He said Israel's credibility is almost zero on these things.

If the IDF said was raining I'd look out the window to check. They have no credibility. There is a long history of this type of thing and a strong indication that there is a pattern to their behaviour.

paulaa

munchester29 wrote: »

Do you think that constant terror attacks and rocket fire help their situation in any way?
Besides, the wonderful circle of violence in the Middle East is nothing new. Palestinians have been killing Israelis and vice versa for dozens of years now.
Each side is sure that justice is on their side, each side has its own claims, complaints, past suffering and pain.

So, how are things ever going to change?

Israel made the move – left Gaza, uprooted thousands of families in the process (all under many protests from many Israelis). Israel did this because they want peace.
All Israel got in return were increased attacks on Israeli citizens.

What steps have the Palestinians ever taken to achieve peace?

IMO If Israel had stuck to the agreements that they had signed up to, eg the 1967 one, land grab wouldn't be an issue.

If they hadn't illegally withheld Revenue, which was a vital part of their economy,the Gazan economy wouldn't have collapsed and Hammas could have kept up their project of building up the infrastructure and institutions, schools, clinics etc.
"Palestinian officials estimate that Israel is withholding some $700 million in Palestinian tax revenues."

If they hadn't placed boundaries on the legally held Gazan fishing rights and allowed the fishing fleets to work normally, that would be another section of the Gazan population happy.and making their own living.

Those are only 3 of the constant aggravations and injustices the Gazans have had to endure for years. No one was listening to them as their situation got worse and worse, the blockade was put in place and the situation got steadily unbearable .

Were they supposed to just fade away and die, watch their children starve, live in conditions that were primitive even by medieval standards. I wouldn't expect anyone to live like that.

Oops ! pressed the button too soon.
I don't know what is the way to peace. Sticking to agreements on both sides would be a start. Curbing greed and cynically using lives to get votes would be another.
The US and the Iranians keeping their noses out of Israel/Palestine could also be a big help

BTW Where were all the Arab states for the last 20 years. I don't mean with weapons I mean with support in the UN etc for Palestine and Gaza in particular.
They need to get their act together as well

Serenity Now!

paulaa wrote: »

BTW Where were all the Arab states for the last 20 years. I don't mean with weapons I mean with support in the UN etc for Palestine and Gaza in particular.
They need to get their act together as well

If the Arab States, in particular those who occupied the Gaza Strip and the West Bank hadn't attempted to wipe Israel out in 1956 and then 1967, the current situation wouldn't be happening.
There have been Arab states attempting to mediate but each time either both or one of the sides of the 'situation' do their best to stymie any diplomatic approach. Its not quite as one-sided as quite a few of the googlers and wiki-fiends here make out.

I agree with you about the solution. It might be obvious to all of us outside the region but to those involved and not willing to cede one centimetre to the other, they seem quite settled for what they keep flaring up.
What would happen if Fatah took majority power? Nothing much apart from on the political map. Israel will keep bulking up on a siege mentality and with events such as this keep killing and Hamas even if down to ten people will still do their best to inflict bloodshed.

sceptre

paulaa wrote: »

IMO If Israel had stuck to the agreements that they had signed up to, eg the 1967 one, land grab wouldn't be an issue.

There was a ceasefire signed in 1967 (when Israel controlled all of the Sinai up to the Suez Canal) but there was never an agreement signed. The Americans apparently didn't know that they were supposed to tell Egypt and Syria that Israel was interested in having one.

By "1967 borders" people mean the borders that existed before the six-day war, usually known as the "green line" or the borders that had existed since the armistice in 1949 (in other words, the border that had existed in, say, May 1967 rather than July 1967). There's no actual agreement to distinguish a power transfer.

Serenity Now! wrote: »

If the Arab States, in particular those who occupied the Gaza Strip and the West Bank hadn't attempted to wipe Israel out in 1956 and then 1967, the current situation wouldn't be happening.

You mean 1949 and 1973 rather than 1956 and 1967, right? The 1956 war (what we call the Suez Crisis, the Israelis call it the Kadesh campaign and the Egyptians call it the Tripartite Aggression) was an attack on Egypt by France, Britain and Israel after Egypt announced they were nationalising the Suez Canal (following the UK/French decision not to pay for the Aswad Dam). In 1967 in the six-day war (Arabs call it an‑Naksah (the setback)), Israel struck first (though after Nasser kicked out the UN peacekeeping forces and moved 130,000 troops into Sinai). It was in 1949 that all the Arab countries launched an attack on Israel while in 1973 the Yom Kippur War/Ramadan War was when Egypt and Syria launched a surprise attack on Israel.

the googlers and wiki-fiends

Actually, the wiki pages on the conflict during its duration are quite good. Given the level of detail that people are relying on to promote their opposing cases and the amount of detail a large number of people are getting wrong when they do, reading them might be a good place for people to start if they want to do more than cry foul. Just a thought.

wes

munchester29 wrote: »

Peace is indeed far away...

I am not the one stealing other peoples land. Perhaps you should take it up with those engaged in a violent colonial process and not those who point out what there doing and what they clearly want.

munchester29 wrote: »

Do you justify terror acts executed because of a land dispute?

No, in fact I answered this already and have condemned Hamas.

See, there is no excuses for what Israel is doing and it needs to be condemned just the same as the actions of Hamas.

Do you justify colonialism btw? Is it ok to kick people out of there homes? Is it okay to treat them like second class citizens based on race? Is it ok to engage in state terrorism against people based on there race? Simply put Israel is doing all that and more and there is no excuse for it.

So good try avoiding addressing any points I made as usual.

Serenity Now!

sceptre wrote: »

The Americans apparently didn't know that they were supposed to tell Egypt and Syria that Israel was interested in having one

The States opted out as the USSR became more vociferous on behalf of Syria and relations were soured following the sinking of the USS Liberty.
The ceasefire you mention was broken almost immediately when Nasser u-turned on his resignation and attacked ships in the Tiran straits again.

eoin5

munchester29 wrote: »

Do you think that constant terror attacks and rocket fire help their situation in any way?

Thats an uncertainty. The current rocket attacks into Israel are not necessarily going to make the Palestinians lot any worse in the long term and may even help as it brings notice to the desperate situation,
gives them something to negotiate with, and as the Israelis retaliate it helps to paint the picture of the oppressor vs oppressed. I flatly hate what theyre doing but to say it doesnt help their situation is not certain.

munchester29 wrote: »

Besides, the wonderful circle of violence in the Middle East is nothing new. Palestinians have been killing Israelis and vice versa for dozens of years now.
Each side is sure that justice is on their side, each side has its own claims, complaints, past suffering and pain.

Yes, but just because both have these claims it doesnt make them equally valid. Youre responsible for the predictable results of your actions and its easily predictable that if you enslave a nation within your own they will attack you with whatever they can. The issue is that Israel would not have done this if they were thinking clearly. Why would you want to create a country within your own that want to murder and terrorise your people.

So, how are things ever going to change?

Its impossible to tell, its chaos there now. The good that people do gets eroded very quickly and easily. My hunch is that outside intervention is the most likely event to change the situation.

Israel made the move – left Gaza, uprooted thousands of families in the process (all under many protests from many Israelis). Israel did this because they want peace.
All Israel got in return were increased attacks on Israeli citizens.

What steps have the Palestinians ever taken to achieve peace?

Many, although its hard to in the situation that they are in. The Oslo agreement involved huge concessions from both sides but unfortunately didnt work out for many reasons. The biggest thing they ever did I guess was to recognise Israels right to exist.

Serenity Now!

sceptre wrote: »

In 1967, Israel struck first (though after Nasser kicked out the UN peacekeeping forces and moves 130,000 troops into Sinai)

Israel had to strike. Diplomacy had utterly failed and Nasser was not for the turning. He had mobilised Jordan and Syria to attack hence their cross border attacks which led to the disabling of their airforces by Israel.

paulaa

Serenity Now! wrote: »

If the Arab States, in particular those who occupied the Gaza Strip and the West Bank hadn't attempted to wipe Israel out in 1956 and then 1967, the current situation wouldn't be happening.
There have been Arab states attempting to mediate but each time either both or one of the sides of the 'situation' do their best to stymie any diplomatic approach. Its not quite as one-sided as quite a few of the googlers and wiki-fiends here make out.

Can I just say that trying to belittle posters here with childish labels does nothing to help your case.
I, for one have been following the goings-on in the ME for the last 30 years and I don't need either Google or Wiki to make my point although it does help to let people make up their own minds.

We could go back further and say if Lord Balfour hadn't brought up the idea of putting the displaced Jews into Palestine in the first place there would have be peace. Why didn't he suggest that they have a part of England or Scotland ?

You could also say that if the terrorist groups, Irgun and the Stern gang hadn't bombed the King David hotel in 1946 the British might still be ruling in Palestine.

And if my aunt had ba*l's she'd be my uncle

As I said the Arabs need to get their act together and forget about the tribalism and make some valuable humanitarian contribution to the middle east

What is more important is how to get peace now.
Any ideas ?

The Saint

sceptre wrote: »

You mean 1949 and 1973 rather than 1956 and 1967, right? The 1956 war (what we call the Suez Crisis, the Israelis call it the Kadesh campaign and the Egyptians call it the Tripartite Aggression) was an attack on Egypt by France, Britain and Israel after Egypt announced they were nationalising the Suez Canal (following the UK/French decision not to pay for the Aswad Dam). In 1967 in the six-day war (Arabs call it an‑Naksah (the setback)), Israel struck first (though after Nasser kicked out the UN peacekeeping forces and moved 130,000 troops into Sinai). It was in 1949 that all the Arab countries launched an attack on Israel while in 1973 the Yom Kippur War/Ramadan War was when Egypt and Syria launched a surprise attack on Israel.

There was also a peace proposal in 1971 between Israel and Egypt. Egypt accepted it and Israel rejected it. If this was accepted the liklihood of the 1973 Yom Kippur war would have happened since Egypt was by far the largest Arab military power in the 1973 war.

Serenity Now!

paulaa wrote: »

Can I just say that trying to belittle posters here with childish labels does nothing to help your case.
I, for one have been following the goings-on in the ME for the last 30 years and I don't need either Google or Wiki to make my point although it does help to let people make up their own minds

Wasn't referring to you actually so apols there.

paulaa wrote: »

We could go back further and say if Lord Balfour hadn't brought up the idea of putting the displaced Jews into Palestine in the first place there would have be peace. Why didn't he suggest that they have a part of England or Scotland ?

Why? Because of absolutely unjustified persecution (even here). There's a reason that Jews have had to keep moving. Enough was enough. Ffs, Madagascar was even suggested.

paulaa wrote: »

You could also say that if the terrorist groups, Irgun and the Stern gang hadn't bombed the King David hotel in 1946 the British might still be ruling in Palestine

I think its a little more complicated than that. Irgun and Lehi weren't exactly on a mandate by those fighting for independence now were they? The movement for independence was deeply divided and they were the extremist side of it, like Hamas are now ie. violence the de facto means.

paulaa wrote: »

As I said the Arabs need to get their act together and forget about the tribalism and make some valuable humanitarian contribution to the middle east

What is more important is how to get peace now.
Any ideas ?[/quote]
I agree, of course.
A UN force in place isn't going to work. An Arab force there is a better idea but isn't going to work either.
Hamas have to stop firing and giving Israel excuses (in their eyes) for actions like this. Israel won't stop the attacks until Hamas cedes and Fatah regains control.
There were four reasons named in a IT piece which I linked before. I think they're bang on the money. Elections (Likud doesn't gain power nor coalition member, Barak) / Boost Fatah foothold & keep Abbas in charge / Restore the military following 2006 / Destroy Hamas.
Only two of these look achievable as destroying Hamas and broadening Abbas' appeal will be nigh-on impossible.

So basically more of the same will continue despite diplomatic 'efforts'. It would be truly great if proxies weren't involved but realistically the contrary is never going to happen.

Mr.Micro

A UN force in place isn't going to work. An Arab force there is a better idea but isn't going to work either.

Has either been tried? Its got to be better than the polarized/biased IDF who are not even monitored by anybody. Another peace keeping force would at least be a start to end the wholescale slaughter, maybe ?

Manic Moran

Israel has now stooped to a new low and has started to bomb graveyards.
(At least the casualties cannot be made any more deader. )

Were there any secondaries?

However, for this I presume that these would operate in the way that we have been seeing; shells bursting in the air spreading the white phosphorus. However this BBC article seems to say that the UN HQ was hit by WP shells. Would this constitute using WP as a weapon rather than a spokescreen?

Possibly. There are several caveats. Firstly, were they hit by unitary warheads or just a portion of the felt fragments. Secondly, not all WP munitions are of the fragmented kinds, they may just have been trying to create a screen with an older round. And thirdly, even if they were using it as a weapon, it is still legal to do so with a few restrictions. Whether the latter were being met, I don't have the information to say.

White Phosphorous' use in civilian areas is as deemed illegal internationally as Hamas' setting up firebases in civilian areas.

Show me the text saying this. It's a common misconception, generally based on the text of the 1980 Protocol to the Geneva Conventions, but if you actually read the regs you'll find that there is no such blanket prohibition on its use even when using it for the incendiary and not the smoke effect, as long as it's not being dropped from aircraft.

I would like to ask that those who contend Israel is intentionally using WP munitions in an anti-personnel rolewhy would they do that? Considering the media war is almost as important as the military campaign... why would they use munitions illegally like this - what advantage, military or otherwise, would it have?

Because it works? It's called a "Shake N' Bake" in the US. Great against infantry in buildings, you burn people out of the buildings and then kill them with HE rounds. Not the most common way of doing things (Usually it's simpler to simply flatten the building) but it has its uses in certain situations.

How much white phosphorous can they fit..........

About as much as an artillery round, I'd hazard.

NTM

sceptre

Serenity Now! wrote: »

The ceasefire you mention was broken almost immediately when Nasser u-turned on his resignation and attacked ships in the Tiran straits again.

Well, that's exactly my point, innit? There wasn't a proper agreement. Both sides took the opportunity to fire at each other's boats (the Eilat gave as well as it took until it was sunk) in following months (and obviously to shoot at each other for the next three years as well). With all due respect, if you re-read my post, you might notice why I posted it, which wasn't to argue against whatever side you're obviously pushing.

The States opted out as the USSR became more vociferous on behalf of Syria and relations were soured following the sinking of the USS Liberty.

Quite possibly. Official sources on both sides would of course disagree with that view but it's quite possible. Note that the Liberty wasn't sunk though. Took a hammering but wasn't sunk, it hobbled off to Malta under its own steam.

Israel had to strike. Diplomacy had utterly failed and Nasser was not for the turning. He had mobilised Jordan and Syria to attack hence their cross border attacks which led to the disabling of their airforces by Israel.

I'm sorry but in case you missed my post earlier (way earlier), I'm not getting into a discussion of who's more wrong, my position on the entire conflict is completely stated and clear. I just posted to fix your dates, not to get into a discussion on who had to strike or who was wrong. I've been pretty clear that in my opinion they both were and continue to be. Pointless arguing over who "had" to do whatever with me I'm afraid, plenty of others to do what with.

The Saint

Hey Manic Moran.
I wrote this a few pages back and would like your view on it.

Can one of the military men here, either Mairt or Manic Moran answer me a question? I read this on the BBC News website:

Speaking to reporters on the Israel-Gaza border, Unrwa spokesman Christopher Gunness said three of the agency's employees were hurt in the attack.

He said the compound was hit by what Unrwa believed to be three white phosphorus shells, which are incendiary weapons used as a smoke screen.

Now I understand the ambiguity about using white phosphorus in urban conflict situations. I know under international law they can he used as smokescreens and such. However, for this I presume that these would operate in the way that we have been seeing; shells bursting in the air spreading the white phosphorus. However this BBC article seems to say that the UN HQ was hit by WP shells. Would this constitute using WP as a weapon rather than a spokescreen?

Lemming

Manic Moran wrote: »

Because it works? It's called a "Shake N' Bake" in the US. Great against infantry in buildings, you burn people out of the buildings and then kill them with HE rounds. Not the most common way of doing things (Usually it's simpler to simply flatten the building) but it has its uses in certain situations.

It indeed has its uses since flattening Gaza would look very, verrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrry bad (i.e. even worse) for Israel's PR image or what's left of it. Easier to show lots of houses still standing than ruins whilst conveniently pretending not to see lots and lots of bodies of all ages lying on the streets.


[Sarcasm warning]

I'm kind of surprised they [IDF] haven't gone NBC on Gaza yet come to think of it ... much "cleaner" so to speak.

[End Sarcasm Warning]

Manic Moran

I wrote this a few pages back and would like your view on it

Sorry, mate. I'm about 8 hours behind most of you, there's usually a large 'pulse' of discussion between when I last check at night, and when I get a few minutes to check in after I've dealt with my various pressing real-world problems with the new workday.

NTM

Manic Moran

Lemming wrote: »

It indeed has its uses since flattening Gaza would look very, verrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrry bad (i.e. even worse) for Israel's PR image or what's left of it. Easier to show lots of houses still standing than ruins whilst conveniently pretending not to see lots and lots of bodies of all ages lying on the streets.

Believe it or not, there might actually be viable military reasons as well, varying from target array through the size of tubes available or the construction standards of the buildings throught to presence of aircraft.

NTM

Nodin

munchester29 wrote: »

I just don't think that land disputes justify terror campaigns.

...because its not your land.

concussion

I saw a UN spokesman on the 6.1 news this evening (Guinness/Gunness??). He said Israeli artillery was hitting close to the compound and some fragments were fallling inside. They got in contact with the IDF to tell them they were firing close. He went on to say that later on one shell landed in the compound and three people were injured. He didn't mention white phosphorus whatsoever. One building full of humanitarian supplies caught fire, but that's no evidence that WP was used.

Regarding a WP smoke shell hitting the ground and it's effectiveness, if it's not going to disperse well then it's of very limited use as an incendiary, especially if it may not even separate from the carrier in the first place.

In terms of the convention, as it's not designed as an incendiary then it's not covered and therefore not prohibited. Even if it was designed primarily as such, you can still use it against military targets as long as it's not dropped from aircraft.