I support ethnic cleansing huh?I don't remember saying that.
You don't have a very good memory, do you?
Byrnzie:"You still haven't answered my question. I've asked it twice already. I'll ask it again a third time: Do you support the Israeli occupation and the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians?"
rr165892:"Yes Byrnzie"
You just destroyed any credibility you may have had with this bullshit post Byrnzie. Holy fuck, you should write speeches for shady politicians or something. Distorting what people say and mean seems like second nature to you.
Thanks for chiming in with an attack on my credibility. Your contribution to this debate is truly needed.
Now go ahead and explain how I distorted what he said.
Here's the post in full. Let me know how I distorted what he said:
"You still haven't answered my question. I've asked it twice already. I'll ask it again a third time: Do you support the Israeli occupation and the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians?"
Yes Byrnzie, I support Israel,and for the record Palestinians don't know "ethnic cleansing" so stop that shit.
He didn't say "No, Byrnzie, I don't support the Occupation, but I do support Israel..." He said "Yes Byrnzie..."
Maye you need to get yourself back to school and catch up on all those English classes that you must have missed. And in the meantime, I suggest you check out the meaning of the word 'distortion'.
The first terror attacks inside Israel proper occurred in 1994. Before that, all the violence took place along the borders, which the Israeli's kept expanding, and in the areas siezed by the Israeli's during and after the 1948 war.
Byrnzie....be very careful now with some of your facts. My friend's sister, a Canadian tourist visiting Israel, was killed on a Tel Aviv beach in July of 1990. An innocent 17 year old girl.
Be careful with the facts...meaning don't state them. Byrnzie is one of the few people who has made any sense on this thread. Your friend's sister do you really want to go there?
Yes I do want to go there. Byrnzie made a statement that was absolutely false. He claimed that the first terror attacks inside Israel occurred in 1994. I proved this was incorrect. Your suffering notwithstanding he should indeed be careful with his facts.
Well then, your suffering notwithstanding the facts would be that the first terrorist act committed inside israel would be shortly after it was created when members of an israeli terrorist group assassinated Folke Bernadotte. Be careful with the facts.
Talk about cherry picking Byrnzie.You are twisting this shit up.Are you doing that with all the facts?
I haven't twisted anything. Although I realize that you need to try and cast doubt on my integrity, and credibity, because you have nothing else up your sleeve. Dragging this debate down to being all about me, and engaging in personal insults, is far easier than addressing any of the points I've made.
In the meantime, regarding PJ Souls pathetic attempt at character assassination and her questioning my credibility, how about you clear the matter up? I asked you three times whether you support the occupation and the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians. It was a simple yes, or no question, and you answered 'yes'. You then proceeded to post an obvious lie by claiming that no ethnic cleansing had ever taken place. A lie which I countered by posting dozens of statements from Israeli political and military leaders, and by one of Israel's leading Zionist historians, admitting that ethnic cleansing did indeed take place.
So I'll ask you again: do you support the Israeli occupation and the ongoing ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians? Yes, or no?
And you are saying that before Israel took Gaza and the West Bank there was peace? I ask that because you stated that terror attacks are a symptom of the occupation, impliying there were none before, and everything was peaceful before Israel aquired the land?
Arabs and Jews lived peacefully together for a thousand years until the European Zionists moved in and began terrorizing the place and making claims on the land. And they didn't 'acquire' the land, they stole it. And all of the land stolen during and after the June 1967 war remains illegally occupied under international law.
Supporting a Sovereign country who is a key strategic friend in a hostile area,who is also at the front line of holding back crazy fucking terrorists from running wild with wacky religious visions of world domination and terror.Yeah as a Westerner,American and common sense thinking person, for the second time Byrnzie yes I support the State of Israel.No I do not support ANY violence,death or mistreatment of any persons from any country,background and ethnicity.Yes I want PJ to play Israel.So ALL fans in the region can enjoy.I have said all along I think it could be healing.
You say it is a yes or no answer,it's that simple.Well dude it is way,way more complex then a simple yes or no answer.I also have not made this personal at all,in fact I have express hope that you find peace with this matter,Again you twisted my words and posts.
You say it is a yes or no answer,it's that simple.Well dude it is way,way more complex then a simple yes or no answer.I also have not made this personal at all,in fact I have express hope that you find peace with this matter,Again you twisted my words and posts.
I didn't twist anything. I asked you if you support the Occupation. Either you do, or you don't. So which is it?
Supporting a Sovereign country who is a key strategic friend in a hostile area,who is also at the front line of holding back crazy fucking terrorists from running wild with wacky religious visions of world domination and terror.
And I suppose the extremist Israeli settlers are sane, rational people, with no designs on another nations land, right?
'The U.S. State Department has cited violence by settlers against Palestinians in the West Bank under the heading "terrorist incidents" in its annual Country Report on Terrorism.
The report, released July 31, states that GOC Central Command Avi Mizrahi has referred to attacks against Palestinians and Palestinian property as terror...'
So where's your condemnation of these 'crazy fucking terrorists'?
Just wanted to post a quick "Thank You" here. Specially to Byrnzie and Drowned Out for the multiple articles, quotes and graphics that paint such a detailed picture of the the situation over there. My knowledge on this topic has always been rather shallow, but I'm learning quite a bit in this thread. I hope the personal attacks don't get it closed, though... because it's been really interesting so far.
Mexico City - July 17th 2003
Mexico City - July 18th 2003
Mexico City - July 19th 2003
Monterrey - December 7th 2005
Mexico City - December 9th 2005
Mexico City - December 10th 2005
Mexico City - November 24th 2011
Just wanted to post a quick "Thank You" here. Specially to Byrnzie and Drowned Out for the multiple articles, quotes and graphics that paint such a detailed picture of the the situation over there. My knowledge on this topic has always been rather shallow, but I'm learning quite a bit in this thread. I hope the personal attacks don't get it closed, though... because it's been really interesting so far.
Well, keep in mind that a lot of information is very biased when it comes to this issue... take it all with a grain of salt.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
I support ethnic cleansing huh?I don't remember saying that.
You don't have a very good memory, do you?
Byrnzie:"You still haven't answered my question. I've asked it twice already. I'll ask it again a third time: Do you support the Israeli occupation and the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians?"
rr165892:"Yes Byrnzie"
You just destroyed any credibility you may have had with this bullshit post Byrnzie. Holy fuck, you should write speeches for shady politicians or something. Distorting what people say and mean seems like second nature to you.
Thanks for chiming in with an attack on my credibility. Your contribution to this debate is truly needed.
Now go ahead and explain how I distorted what he said.
Here's the post in full. Let me know how I distorted what he said:
"You still haven't answered my question. I've asked it twice already. I'll ask it again a third time: Do you support the Israeli occupation and the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians?"
Yes Byrnzie, I support Israel,and for the record Palestinians don't know "ethnic cleansing" so stop that shit.
He didn't say "No, Byrnzie, I don't support the Occupation, but I do support Israel..." He said "Yes Byrnzie..."
Maye you need to get yourself back to school and catch up on all those English classes that you must have missed. And in the meantime, I suggest you check out the meaning of the word 'distortion'.
He did NOT mean "Yes Byrnzie, I support the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians", and you know it. It's not even possible, since his claim is that ethnic cleansing does not even exist in this conflict (and I would agree. Ethnic cleansing takes a specific motivation and intent that is lacking in this conflict, and includes the aspect of real hostilities and war acts coming from the other side, as well as a lack of the threat of ethnic blending, which also excludes the definition of ethnic cleansing). Or even if you are too blinded by your own opinion not to see that, everyone else knows it, and guess I could say that I'm now informing you that you're misunderstanding rather than purposefully distorting, except I believe you're purposefully distorting.
Post edited by PJ_Soul on
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Byrnzie....be very careful now with some of your facts. My friend's sister, a Canadian tourist visiting Israel, was killed on a Tel Aviv beach in July of 1990. An innocent 17 year old girl.
I stand corrected. I did read somewhere that the first attacks inside Israel took place in 1994. I expect now that it was probably referring to suicide bombings. Thanks for setting me straight.
He did NOT mean "Yes Byrnzie, I support the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians", and you know it. It's not even possible, since his claim is that ethnic cleansing does not even exist in this conflict (and I would agree. Ethnic cleansing takes a specific motivation and intent that is lacking in this conflict, and includes the aspect of real hostilities and war acts coming from the other side, as well as a lack of the threat of ethnic blending, which also excludes the definition of ethnic cleansing).
What? Do you even know what the definition of ethnic cleansing is? Do you think you can distort the meaning of a term as it suits you? Palestinians have been driven from their homes at gun point - often in the wake of massacres of entire villages. They have had their homes bulldozed by the Israeli's - sometimes with the occupants still inside. The land stolen has then been populated by Jews, to the exclusion of any Arabs. This constitutes ethnic cleansing, and I posted above a long list of quotes by Israeli historians, political and military leaders admitting that ethnic cleansing is exactly what is taking place.
But you pretend to know better?
And as for my distorting what rr.,., said, I distorted nothing. The question I asked him was a simple yes, or no, question: 'Do you support the occupation and the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians?' His answer was 'Yes Byrnzie...' And the fact that he then proceeded to claim that no ethnic cleansing has taken place is irrelevant.
It's the equivalent of someone asking 'Do you support the holocaust? And the other person answering 'Yes, but...'
Just wanted to post a quick "Thank You" here. Specially to Byrnzie and Drowned Out for the multiple articles, quotes and graphics that paint such a detailed picture of the the situation over there. My knowledge on this topic has always been rather shallow, but I'm learning quite a bit in this thread. I hope the personal attacks don't get it closed, though... because it's been really interesting so far.
Sorry I'm just joining this thread late, but I hate seeing misinformation being spread. Israel is far from perfect, but it's light years better than the oppressive regimes elsewhere in the middle east, including the Palestinian Authority. Ask any Arab Israeli citizen if they would rather live under the rule of the PA, and I doubt you'll get any takers. In response to the above propaganda, I offer the following:
Nice Johnnie. Glad to have more common sense on this thread.Now sit back and get ready for 5 pages of pro Palestinian spin
Let them come and spin all they like. I'll just keep educating them and correcting their revisionist history. Here's another one for you all to chew on:
In the entire Middle East, there are only 1.6 million Arabs who have COMPLETE political and religious freedom. All of them live in one Jewish state.
Nope not Apartheid. This woman was evicted from her home and she is being taunted, by these non Apartheid equality loving...well no name for what they are.
Not saying that's not what's going on, but no one can say that is what's going on there either. I suggest you provide more info or evidence when posting such things. For all we know, those folks are all having a spirited sing-along and the woman is one of their grandmothers and keeping the beat with her serving tray.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Business as usual for Israel: Shooting unarmed men, women, and children at will, and then attempting to justify and excuse it by reference to 'stone throwers'. Murdering racist bastards.
Amnesty International accuses Israeli armed forces of possible war crimes
Human rights group says soldiers have killed dozens of Palestinians with virtual impunity in West Bank
Agencies in Jerusalem theguardian.com, Thursday 27 February 2014
Israeli forces are using excessive, reckless violence in the occupied West Bank, killing dozens of Palestinians over the past three years in what might constitute a war crime, Amnesty International said.
In a report entitled Trigger Happy, the human rights group accused Israel of allowing its soldiers to act with virtual impunity and called for an independent review of the deaths.
The Israeli army dismissed the allegations, saying security forces had seen a "substantial increase" in Palestinian violence and Amnesty had revealed a "complete lack of understanding" about the difficulties soldiers faced.
According to UN data, 45 Palestinians were killed in the West Bank between 2011 and 2013, including six children. Amnesty said it had documented the deaths of 25 civilians during this period, all but three of whom died last year.
"The report presents a body of evidence that shows a harrowing pattern of unlawful killings and unwarranted injuries of Palestinian civilians by Israeli forces in the West Bank," said Philip Luther, the charity's director of the Middle East and north Africa programme.
Amnesty said that in none of the cases it reviewed did the Palestinians appear to be posing any imminent threat to life. "In some, there is evidence that they were victims of wilful killings, which would amount to war crimes," it said.
After a three-year hiatus Israelis and Palestinians resumed direct peace talks last July, which the Palestinians hope will give them an independent state on territory seized by Israel in the 1967 war, including the West Bank.
Although their decades-old conflict has become a low-intensity confrontation, violence still occurs regularly, with Palestinians accounting for the vast majority of casualties.
The 87-page report, published on Thursday, focused only on violence in the West Bank, not the Gaza Strip. It highlighted a number of the deaths, including that of Lubna Hanash, a 21-year-old who was shot in the head on 23 January 2013 as she left an agricultural college near the flashpoint city of Hebron.
Amnesty quoted witnesses saying a soldier opened fire 100 metres from where Hanash was standing. A relative standing alongside her was shot in the hand. Neither had been taking part in any protest.
A few days earlier, a 16-year-old schoolboy, Samir Awad, was shot three times, including in the back of the head, after staging a protest near the Israeli separation barrier that divides his village from its historical farmlands.
And Waji al-Ramahi, 15, was shot in the back from a distance of 200 metres in December near the Jalazun refugee camp, Amnesty said.
An Israeli army statement responding to the report did not refer to any specific incidents, but said 2013 had seen a sharp increase in rock-hurling incidents, which had injured 132 Israeli civilians and military personnel.
"Where feasible the IDF [Israel Defence Forces] contains this life-threatening violence using riot dispersal means," it said. "Only once these tools have been exhausted and human life and safety remains under threat, is the use of precision munition authorised."
The IDF said the report had compiled "carefully selected, unverifiable and often contradictory accounts from clearly politically motivated individuals, which it then reports as unquestioned facts".
Besides the numerous deaths, Amnesty said at least 261 Palestinians, including 67 children, were seriously injured by live ammunition fired by Israeli forces in the West Bank over the past three years.
More than 8,000 Palestinians were seriously injured by other means, including rubber-coated metal bullets, since January 2011, the report said.
During this period, just one Israeli soldier was convicted of wrongfully causing the death of a Palestinian – an unnamed staff sergeant who shot dead a man trying to enter Israel illegally in search of a job.
The soldier received a one-year prison sentence, with five months suspended, and was allowed to stay in the army, albeit at a lower rank, Amnesty said.
Three other investigations over the past three years were closed without indictments, five were closed but their findings were not revealed and 11 are still open.
"The current Israeli system has proved woefully inadequate," Luther said. "A strong message must be sent to Israeli soldiers and police officers that abuses will not go unpunished."
The IDF said it held itself to the highest of professional standards, adding that when there was suspicion of wrongdoing, it investigated and took action where appropriate".
Sorry I'm just joining this thread late, but I hate seeing misinformation being spread. Israel is far from perfect, but it's light years better than the oppressive regimes elsewhere in the middle east, including the Palestinian Authority. Ask any Arab Israeli citizen if they would rather live under the rule of the PA, and I doubt you'll get any takers. In response to the above propaganda, I offer the following:
1: In 1946 the area was under British Administration, just as it had been under the administration of the Ottoman Empire previous to that. At no point in history was the land 'British'.
2: And the Palestinians didn't reject the partition plan in favour of war. They rejected it because it gave the 20% Jewish population control of 56% of the land. Also, Ben-Gurion and the rest of the Zionist leadership had no intention of accepting the Partition Plan either, as I already pointed out above.
'...For one thing, there is no reason at all why the Palestinians should have felt themselves bound by British or Ottoman laws, which were imposed on them without their consent. For another, supposing the Zionists were "legally in Palestine," this only means that they were entitled to live there. It does not follow that they had legal grounds for imposing their sovereignty on the Palestinians, and they didn't. Fourth, and by far the most important, it really doesn't matter how Zionists imposed sovereignty; it matters that they imposed it. They had absolutely no right to do so, and the Palestinians had every right to resist that imposition. The sovereignty of an ethnic group over all other inhabitants within the territory it controls is an odious state of affairs that no amount of legalistic whitewashing can render any more legitimate. Amir says that, had the Palestinians accepted partition, their state would be 57 years old, and there would be no Palestinian refugees. Had partition been accepted, there would have been an ethnic state in territory inhabited by the Palestinians. The Palestinians inhabiting this territory would then have had the choice so many did in fact have: to let another ethnic group hold the power of life and death over them, or to leave. Since not all Palestinians would have accepted subjugation, there would have been refugees even if partition had been accepted. Moreover, since many Zionists had no intention of settling for what was offered in partition, there can be no confidence that partition would have avoided more fighting, more refugees, and the denial of Palestinian statehood. Palestinians were of course aware of this at the time, and Ben Gurion was quite explicit about his intention in private. He wrote his son that:
"I am an enthusiastic advocate of the Jewish State, even if it involves partitioning Palestine now, because I work on the assumption that a partial Jewish State will not be the end, but the beginning. When we acquire 1,000 or 10,000 dunams of land, we are happy. Because this acquisition of land is important not only for its own sake, but because through it we are increasing our strength, and every increase in our strength helps us to acquire the whole country. The formation of a State, even if it is only a partial State, will be the greatest increase of strength we could have today, and it will constitute a powerful lever in our historic effort to redeem the country in its entirety."(Source: David Ben-Gurion, Letters to Paula, Aubrey Hodes, tr., Pittsburgh (University of Pittsburgh Press) 1971 [1968], 154f.) So it is a myth, not even a plausible one, that partition was likely to give the Palestinians anything at all.'
3: No they weren't. They were temporary annexations.
4. Israel was created by the U.N in 1947. Read on:
'UN General Assembly Partition Resolution 181 of 1947, which established the Jewish state’s international legitimacy, also recognised the remaining Palestinian territory outside the new state’s borders as the equally legitimate patrimony of Palestine’s Arab population on which they were entitled to establish their own state, and it mapped the borders of that territory with great precision. Resolution 181’s affirmation of the right of Palestine’s Arab population to national self-determination was based on normative law and the democratic principles that grant statehood to the majority population. (At the time, Arabs constituted two-thirds of the population in Palestine.) This right does not evaporate because of delays in its implementation.'
Nice Johnnie. Glad to have more common sense on this thread.Now sit back and get ready for 5 pages of pro Palestinian spin
You claim it's common sense, yet it's just a photo-shopped picture from some pro-Israel blog, that contains a bunch of lies. Why don't you just admit that you know nothing about the history of the region? Nothing. Just as you didn't even know that Israel has been engaged in an illegal military occupation since 1967.
Comments
Now go ahead and explain how I distorted what he said.
Here's the post in full. Let me know how I distorted what he said: He didn't say "No, Byrnzie, I don't support the Occupation, but I do support Israel..." He said "Yes Byrnzie..."
Maye you need to get yourself back to school and catch up on all those English classes that you must have missed. And in the meantime, I suggest you check out the meaning of the word 'distortion'.
In the meantime, regarding PJ Souls pathetic attempt at character assassination and her questioning my credibility, how about you clear the matter up?
I asked you three times whether you support the occupation and the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians. It was a simple yes, or no question, and you answered 'yes'. You then proceeded to post an obvious lie by claiming that no ethnic cleansing had ever taken place. A lie which I countered by posting dozens of statements from Israeli political and military leaders, and by one of Israel's leading Zionist historians, admitting that ethnic cleansing did indeed take place.
So I'll ask you again: do you support the Israeli occupation and the ongoing ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians? Yes, or no?
And they didn't 'acquire' the land, they stole it. And all of the land stolen during and after the June 1967 war remains illegally occupied under international law.
By the way, attacks by Israeli settlers were recently labelled acts of terrorism by the US state department: http://www.haaretz.com/blogs/diplomania/u-s-state-department-defines-settler-violence-as-terrorism-1.459087
'The U.S. State Department has cited violence by settlers against Palestinians in the West Bank under the heading "terrorist incidents" in its annual Country Report on Terrorism.
The report, released July 31, states that GOC Central Command Avi Mizrahi has referred to attacks against Palestinians and Palestinian property as terror...'
So where's your condemnation of these 'crazy fucking terrorists'?
PS: So this is where all the AMT action went.
I hope the personal attacks don't get it closed, though... because it's been really interesting so far.
Mexico City - July 18th 2003
Mexico City - July 19th 2003
Monterrey - December 7th 2005
Mexico City - December 9th 2005
Mexico City - December 10th 2005
Mexico City - November 24th 2011
This constitutes ethnic cleansing, and I posted above a long list of quotes by Israeli historians, political and military leaders admitting that ethnic cleansing is exactly what is taking place.
But you pretend to know better?
And as for my distorting what rr.,., said, I distorted nothing. The question I asked him was a simple yes, or no, question: 'Do you support the occupation and the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians?' His answer was 'Yes Byrnzie...' And the fact that he then proceeded to claim that no ethnic cleansing has taken place is irrelevant.
It's the equivalent of someone asking 'Do you support the holocaust? And the other person answering 'Yes, but...'
The Israeli Prime minister and the German Prime Minister.
This happened today.
apartheid? I think not.
In the entire Middle East, there are only 1.6 million Arabs who have COMPLETE political and religious freedom. All of them live in one Jewish state.
28/09/04 - Boston, 20/04/06 - London [\\mm//Astoria\\mm//] - 18/06/07 - Wembley Arena, 11/08/09 - London [\\mm//Shepherds Bush Empire\\mm//],18/08/09 - 02 Arena, 25/06/10 - Hyde Park, 26/06/12 - Amsterdam, 27/06/12 - Amsterdam, 08/07/14 - Leeds,11/07/14 - Milton Keynes, 13/06/18 - Amsterdam, 18/06/18 - London 02 Arena, 17/07/18 - London 02 Arena, 08/08/22 - Hyde Park, 9/08/22 - Hyde Park - 25/08/22 - Amsterdam, 29/07/24 - London {*Tottenham Stadium TBC*}
Murdering racist bastards.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/27/amnesty-international-israeli-war-crimes-palestinians-west-bank
Amnesty International accuses Israeli armed forces of possible war crimes
Human rights group says soldiers have killed dozens of Palestinians with virtual impunity in West Bank
Agencies in Jerusalem
theguardian.com, Thursday 27 February 2014
Israeli forces are using excessive, reckless violence in the occupied West Bank, killing dozens of Palestinians over the past three years in what might constitute a war crime, Amnesty International said.
In a report entitled Trigger Happy, the human rights group accused Israel of allowing its soldiers to act with virtual impunity and called for an independent review of the deaths.
The Israeli army dismissed the allegations, saying security forces had seen a "substantial increase" in Palestinian violence and Amnesty had revealed a "complete lack of understanding" about the difficulties soldiers faced.
According to UN data, 45 Palestinians were killed in the West Bank between 2011 and 2013, including six children. Amnesty said it had documented the deaths of 25 civilians during this period, all but three of whom died last year.
"The report presents a body of evidence that shows a harrowing pattern of unlawful killings and unwarranted injuries of Palestinian civilians by Israeli forces in the West Bank," said Philip Luther, the charity's director of the Middle East and north Africa programme.
Amnesty said that in none of the cases it reviewed did the Palestinians appear to be posing any imminent threat to life. "In some, there is evidence that they were victims of wilful killings, which would amount to war crimes," it said.
After a three-year hiatus Israelis and Palestinians resumed direct peace talks last July, which the Palestinians hope will give them an independent state on territory seized by Israel in the 1967 war, including the West Bank.
Although their decades-old conflict has become a low-intensity confrontation, violence still occurs regularly, with Palestinians accounting for the vast majority of casualties.
The 87-page report, published on Thursday, focused only on violence in the West Bank, not the Gaza Strip. It highlighted a number of the deaths, including that of Lubna Hanash, a 21-year-old who was shot in the head on 23 January 2013 as she left an agricultural college near the flashpoint city of Hebron.
Amnesty quoted witnesses saying a soldier opened fire 100 metres from where Hanash was standing. A relative standing alongside her was shot in the hand. Neither had been taking part in any protest.
A few days earlier, a 16-year-old schoolboy, Samir Awad, was shot three times, including in the back of the head, after staging a protest near the Israeli separation barrier that divides his village from its historical farmlands.
And Waji al-Ramahi, 15, was shot in the back from a distance of 200 metres in December near the Jalazun refugee camp, Amnesty said.
An Israeli army statement responding to the report did not refer to any specific incidents, but said 2013 had seen a sharp increase in rock-hurling incidents, which had injured 132 Israeli civilians and military personnel.
"Where feasible the IDF [Israel Defence Forces] contains this life-threatening violence using riot dispersal means," it said. "Only once these tools have been exhausted and human life and safety remains under threat, is the use of precision munition authorised."
The IDF said the report had compiled "carefully selected, unverifiable and often contradictory accounts from clearly politically motivated individuals, which it then reports as unquestioned facts".
Besides the numerous deaths, Amnesty said at least 261 Palestinians, including 67 children, were seriously injured by live ammunition fired by Israeli forces in the West Bank over the past three years.
More than 8,000 Palestinians were seriously injured by other means, including rubber-coated metal bullets, since January 2011, the report said.
During this period, just one Israeli soldier was convicted of wrongfully causing the death of a Palestinian – an unnamed staff sergeant who shot dead a man trying to enter Israel illegally in search of a job.
The soldier received a one-year prison sentence, with five months suspended, and was allowed to stay in the army, albeit at a lower rank, Amnesty said.
Three other investigations over the past three years were closed without indictments, five were closed but their findings were not revealed and 11 are still open.
"The current Israeli system has proved woefully inadequate," Luther said. "A strong message must be sent to Israeli soldiers and police officers that abuses will not go unpunished."
The IDF said it held itself to the highest of professional standards, adding that when there was suspicion of wrongdoing, it investigated and took action where appropriate".
1: In 1946 the area was under British Administration, just as it had been under the administration of the Ottoman Empire previous to that. At no point in history was the land 'British'.
2: And the Palestinians didn't reject the partition plan in favour of war. They rejected it because it gave the 20% Jewish population control of 56% of the land. Also, Ben-Gurion and the rest of the Zionist leadership had no intention of accepting the Partition Plan either, as I already pointed out above.
Read on:
http://mneumann.tripod.com/mnisrael.htm
'...For one thing, there is no reason at all why the Palestinians should have felt themselves bound by British or Ottoman laws, which were imposed on them without their consent. For another, supposing the Zionists were "legally in Palestine," this only means that they were entitled to live there. It does not follow that they had legal grounds for imposing their sovereignty on the Palestinians, and they didn't. Fourth, and by far the most important, it really doesn't matter how Zionists imposed sovereignty; it matters that they imposed it. They had absolutely no right to do so, and the Palestinians had every right to resist that imposition. The sovereignty of an ethnic group over all other inhabitants within the territory it controls is an odious state of affairs that no amount of legalistic whitewashing can render any more legitimate.
Amir says that, had the Palestinians accepted partition, their state would be 57 years old, and there would be no Palestinian refugees. Had partition been accepted, there would have been an ethnic state in territory inhabited by the Palestinians. The Palestinians inhabiting this territory would then have had the choice so many did in fact have: to let another ethnic group hold the power of life and death over them, or to leave. Since not all Palestinians would have accepted subjugation, there would have been refugees even if partition had been accepted. Moreover, since many Zionists had no intention of settling for what was offered in partition, there can be no confidence that partition would have avoided more fighting, more refugees, and the denial of Palestinian statehood. Palestinians were of course aware of this at the time, and Ben Gurion was quite explicit about his intention in private. He wrote his son that:
"I am an enthusiastic advocate of the Jewish State, even if it involves partitioning Palestine now, because I work on the assumption that a partial Jewish State will not be the end, but the beginning. When we acquire 1,000 or 10,000 dunams of land, we are happy. Because this acquisition of land is important not only for its own sake, but because through it we are increasing our strength, and every increase in our strength helps us to acquire the whole country. The formation of a State, even if it is only a partial State, will be the greatest increase of strength we could have today, and it will constitute a powerful lever in our historic effort to redeem the country in its entirety."(Source: David Ben-Gurion, Letters to Paula, Aubrey Hodes, tr., Pittsburgh (University of Pittsburgh Press) 1971 [1968], 154f.)
So it is a myth, not even a plausible one, that partition was likely to give the Palestinians anything at all.'
3: No they weren't. They were temporary annexations.
4. Israel was created by the U.N in 1947. Read on:
'UN General Assembly Partition Resolution 181 of 1947, which established the Jewish state’s international legitimacy, also recognised the remaining Palestinian territory outside the new state’s borders as the equally legitimate patrimony of Palestine’s Arab population on which they were entitled to establish their own state, and it mapped the borders of that territory with great precision. Resolution 181’s affirmation of the right of Palestine’s Arab population to national self-determination was based on normative law and the democratic principles that grant statehood to the majority population. (At the time, Arabs constituted two-thirds of the population in Palestine.) This right does not evaporate because of delays in its implementation.'
So much for your 'Truth'.