Britain and Israel in stand-off over Mossad officer The Foreign Office has refused to allow Israel to return a Mossad officer to London following the assassination of a senior member of Hamas in Dubai by agents travelling on British passports, it's reported. Britain is seeking assurances that its identity documents will not be abused in future, but Israel has refused because …
Who would have thought it.
Oh yes anyone with eyes and a brain.
This revolting excuse for a country needs to be thrown in the same bin as Iran, N Korea and Afghanistan until the learn to behave like decent human beings. (that is to say forever)
Were you talking about UK, Israel, US...?
The point is every government does this _all_ the time. Getting caught is one thing, yes. But a more important part of the game is to do it so everyone else is blaming the "obvious" choice.
They guy they took out was quite right in thinking that any attempt would be captured (at least on film and records) and it could not be seen as an accident. When you have a job you obviously can't cover up, you don't abandon the job - you just make sure that somebody else (anybody) takes the fall.
It is the height of naivety to think that Israel did not learn (or teach?) all these lessons a decade ago from the pristine example nearly a decade ago when [REDACTED - naming blame for this event is a warrant for "interest" in internet communications)] et. al. pulled off one of the biggest financial scams of all time... and got a *fictional* group named after a database file name blamed for it... genius. Evil, sure. But genius nonetheless...
David Milliband is Jewish (though he says he is not religious), Geoffery Howe is not and was comfortable taking a tough stand with Israel.
The next government of the UK, most likely Conservative, will be more prone to lobbying from pro-Israel groups. The stand-off will not need to last very long.
This post has been deleted by its author
Congratulations! Amongst all the nonsensical and illeducated anti-Israeli posts in this thread, yours won through as the most laughable and free of any historical knowledge.
"....Perhaps he meant Israel's nukes should be treated the same as Iraq's WMD's...." Israel has never used WMDs against anyone. Saddam had a history of not only developing massive WMD programs (nuke, biological and chemical) but also had a history of using them on his enemies, even on Iraqis. Please go read up on Halabja and then you'll realise why the West viewed the idea of Saddam gaining nukes as so serious. In comparison, Israel has only ever fought defensive wars against much larger Arab states bent on ethnically cleansing "Palestine" of Jews, and has only developed nuke weapons as a final option should those Arab states ever look like winning. There is no need to worry about Israeli nukes because (a) Egypt and Jordan have realised it's better off being at peace, and (b) the rest of the Arabs are more worried about Iran than the Fakeistinians.
"....or their land grabs (West Bank, Gaza, Lebanon)...." And thanks for offering this opportunity to expose your complete lack of historical knowledge! We'll take it one step at a time to expose each of these old and tired anit-semitic slights for the waste of oxygen they are.
The Israelis completely pulled out of the buffer zone in Southern Lebanon in 2000, as validated by the UN. They never occupied or settled in that buffer zone, it was always under the control of the South Lebanese Army (mainly Christian militias under Saad Haddad). They only went in to stop PLO terrorist attacks accross the border from Lebanon which were killing Israeli civillians, and in particular after the Beiruit-based PLO (with Iraqi assistance) tried to kill the Israeli ambassador in London. So, as a "land grab" that rates as a big, fat zero.
Gaza? Again, Israel completely pulled out of Gaza in 2005, pulling out all settlers. The Israelis hoped this would help foster peace, but the reality is that the corruption and neglect of the Palestinian Authority let the Islamists of HAMAS take control, and we all know what a stirring succes they have been! After all, why would Israel get at all upset by Gaza being run by a group that refuses to recognise Israel and has a founding prinicple of wanting to ethinically cleanse all of Israel? Strangely enough, the same Fakeistinians that were so upset by the Israeli occupation after the 1967 war had been quite happy when Egypt occupied Gaze from 1949 through to 1967. There were no calls for Egyptian withdrawl. Strange that!
And the West Bank, a piece of land that actually doesn't belong to anyone. What, I hear you say, doesn't it belong to the "Palestinians"? Well, actually, no it doesn't. You see, in 1948 when the Arabs decided to reject the UN partition plan they also rejected the idea of a state called Palestine. Therefore the country doesn't exist. If it did exist and was a member of the UN then it would have UN backing to force Israel to withdraw to internationally recognised borders. The problem for the Arabs is that they thought they could overwhelm the Jews in 1948 and so didn't want to set borders, so they now don't have a leg to stand on. The so-called 1967 border is not a proper border as far as the West Bank is concerned, it is only the 1949 armistace line, a line drawn to show the stop positions of military units after the 1949 ceasefire, and has never been recognised as a border. The country we call Jordan (which does have a real border) which was created from the old East Bank, was 76% of the old Palestine Mandate territory set aside especially for the Arabs by the Brits to defuse a potential Saudi civil war, despite a portion of that land already having been promised to the Jews in the Balfour Declaration. Jews were banned from owning land in the new Jordan. They are still banned from owning land in the West Bank by the PA. The PA is determined that all Israelis living in the West Bank should be sent home (i.e., ethinically cleansed), even though there have been some Jewish settlements and villages in the West Bank since long before the 1948 partition plan. Of course, in Israel there are Arabs living as Israeli citizens with rights, including land owenership, and the Israeli state is not calling for them to be removed. And strangely again, when the West Bank was under Jordanian occupation from 1949-1967, there were no calls from the Fakeistinians for the Jordanians to withdraw. Maybe that's because the Jordanians also cleansed East Jerusalem of Jews, moving Arabs into Jewish neighbourhoods in an attmpt to "Arabise" East Jerusalem. And with all the Fakeistinian calls for "right of return", they sure aren't calling for the Jews to get those homes back!
Then you mention Kuwait, a sovereign country and member of the UN, protected by the UN charter, and compare Saddam's invasion to Israel's occupation of the unowned West Bank. That was one UN member state invading another, which means the other UN charter states were obligated to bring about the removal of Iraqi forces and the restoration of the recognised Kuwaiti government. I'd try and explain the difference but I sense you really don't have a clue, have no desire to actually debate the issue, and just like throwing around wild comparisons that someone else has spoonfed you.
You should really try reading up on the terrorists you sympathise with before making any more idiotic statements. Then you can actually post a thought that is your own.
what a load of old bollocks
If it wasnt for the sho'ah and the wests guilt about covertly supporting it israel would NEVER have been permitted to exist.
And certaily the current campaign of genocide the IDF is waging against the rightful owners of the land would have been stopped.
on the subject of research...
Israel has only ever fought defensive wars
what bollocks! are you really trying to suggest that the 6 day war was defensive??
fuckwit
theres a difference between developing nukes and merely buying them :D
where are /were Saddams WMDs or WMD programmes? Bush and blairs already wafer thin credibility rested on the claims od saddams nastiness, and the entire country was dug up after they invaded. what was found
fuck all thats what.
dont you think the unease in the west about saddam was due to his beligerence in relation to his neighbours, and his attempts to trade up his guns and bombs? israel has been CONSTANTLY at war with all its neighbours AND it's indgenous population for over 50 years. flying in the face of 223 UN resolutions telling them to behave like civilised people.
No the palistinians didnt complain too much about the egyptian occupation - but the egyptians boxed clever there by, for example, not blowing up schools full of children with their helicopter gunships.
OH and claiming palistinian lands are not owned by anyone.....
where did i hear this argument being put forwards....
something to do with sub-humans, a differen branch of a similar race.
phisically disposes them
segregate them
legaly disposess them
morally disposess them
and what was that the excuse for?
you are just the same
shame on you.
like i said
revolting
"....If it wasnt for the sho'ah and the wests guilt about covertly supporting it israel would NEVER have been permitted to exist...." Yeah, except for the fact that the majority of the British establishment did not support the idea of a Jewish state of Israel. Balfour's whole declaration can quite easily be seen for the depserate attempt to garner support amongst US Jews for the British WW1 effort that it was. Before the Brtis stepped out in 1948 they had to endure years of standing between the local Jews and Arabs attacking each other (that was when the bedouin weren't fighting the Syrians, Christians and Druze), which only got worse with the arrival of battle-trained Jews from Europe post-WW2. Ironically, many of the Jewish terrorists of the 1945-48 period had been trained as resistance fighters by the OSS and MI6, or as soldiers in the British or US armed forces.
As for the rest of Europe, drowning in non-Jewish refugees, they weren't too unhappy at the idea of offloading their Jewish refugee problem onto the Brits. Some had good reason to see the Jews go as they had helped the Nazis attempt to eradicate them. And in the US they were actually alarmed - they wanted the British influence in the Med reduced, but they saw the known Jewish leaders of the day as quite Socialist and feared any Jewish state would fall under Soviet control. All in all there was no great drive by the US or Europe to create Israel, it was more the fact that Jews were quitting Europe in massive numbers and rushing to Israel that pushed it through. The Brits even tried intercepting the refugee ships and sending them back!
So, the Jews had pushed their way into Israel despite British efforts, and then the Brits gave up on the idea of finding a settlement and set a pull-out date with the UN. At that point, the Israellis were massivekly outnumbered and out-gunned - they didn't have a formal army or airforce, unlike Egypt and Jordan which had good units trained (and in some cases officered) by Brits, or the French-trained and armed Syrian forces. More than one commentator said the Brits had deliberately left the Israellis to die. But the Jews fought for their land harder than the invading Arabs, without help from Europe or the US (in fact, at that point they were receiving the majoity of weapons from Soviet-alligned Czecheslovakia, which alarmed the CIA!).
So, Israel was created and flourished because Jews fought for it, not because the West forced the Arabs to accept it. Israel succeeded more depsite of the West than because of it. Until the Suez War in 1956 the Brits sided more with the Arabs, it was only Nasser's push for Arab nationalism that led to the Brits siding with Israel in 1956. And then it was the Yanks that forced the embarassing withdrawl of the Brits from Suez in 1956 - if the US had been so set on supporting Israel they would have simply let the Brits sieze the canal and the Jews the Sinai.
"....are you really trying to suggest that the 6 day war was defensive??...." Yes, I am. Or rather historians say it was. Nasser's Egyptians had violated the terms of the UN ceasfire from 1956 (in particular he expelled the UNEF peacekeepers from Sinai in May 1967 when they reported Egypt military buildups) and were massing forces on the southern front. Jordan and Syria were openly colluding with the Egyptians and had moved forces forward too on the eastern and northern fronts, and Radio Cairo was telling the World to prepare for the destruction of Israel. The Jews knew they could only win if the struck first. You may want to check some international law as the Israeli's were justified in mounting a pre-emptive attack as a defensive measure, it still gets classed as a defensive war. Looks like more reading for you!
"....where are /were Saddams WMDs or WMD programmes?..." personally, I don't know, but I suggest you go ask some of the few survivors from Halabja. Try doing so without calling them liars and fuckwits just because their story won't agree with your spoonfed expectations.
".....israel has been CONSTANTLY at war with all its neighbours AND it's indgenous population for over 50 years...." Consider that the Israelis were willing to accept the 1948 partition plan and take a much smaller state than they were originally promised, based around areas that were predominantly Jewsish already, and that they stated they were willing to live peacefully alongside the Arabs. Then consider that not one Arab leader accepted the same plan but all called for the eradication of Israel. Also consider that any Arab politician that has even suggested peace with Israel has been assassinated by other Arabs. Many Arab countries, such as Syria and Egypt, used Arab nationalism and anti-semitism as a means to deflect attention away from poor economic performance and internal corruption. Now, are you beginning to see the reason Israel has been at war for over fifty years? Doubtful, you'd have to do some thinking for yourself for that to happen.
".....but the egyptians boxed clever there by, for example, not blowing up schools full of children with their helicopter gunships...." Please supply details of one occasion when the Israelis have used helicopter gunships to blow up "schools full of children". Shall I just save you a lot of time and suggest you're talking out of your arse? Then I suggest you go look at pics of schools in Sderot, which have armoured shields to protect the children from the rockets and mortars fired without warning out of Gaza.
".....where did i hear this argument being put forwards...." I'm guessing you never heard it before, not unless a neat counter was being spoonfed to you at the same time. But, if you think it's bunk, please supply a reasoned counter with links to international law that say otherwise. Oh, you can't. Can't find a counter and can't form an argument for yourself, just parrot what others have told you to think.
".....something to do with sub-humans, a differen branch of a similar race...." Careful, I might have to remind people what even modern imams say about Jews being the offspring of "pigs and apes". It even extends to Islamic schools here in th UK, just Yahoogle for King Fahd Academy in Acton and then try and pretend it doesn't exist.
"....segregate them...." Hmmm, so Arabs can live in Israel as Israeli citizens, but Jews can't in Arab countries. In fact, the Arabs don't even give citizenship to the Fakeistinians in places like the Lebanon, they prefer to keep them as refugees in camps. Looks like you really need to re-examine that segregation thing, if you can.
"....shame on you...." Well, if my thoughts cause you pain then I'm going to shout them all the louder, as there's nothing as laughable as an ill-educated moron like you, supporting some trendy popularist cause they have never had the intelligence to fact check. Grow up, get your own ideas for a change, and stop wasting oxygen.
You said "You should really try reading up on the terrorists you sympathise with before making any more idiotic statements. Then you can actually post a thought that is your own."
Perhaps you should research how Israel managed to "terrorise" the west into getting an Israeli state between 1945 and 1948....
"....Perhaps you should research how Israel managed to "terrorise" the west into getting an Israeli state between 1945 and 1948...." So, please do explain how the Jews "terrorised" the West between 1945-48? I don't recall any bombing campiagn in Western countries? No assassinations of Western leaders by Jews either. What, you're going to claim that in 1948 the Jews flew an arliner into the Twin Towers? Did the jews get nasty and threaten to stop working as doctors, lawyers, dentists, engineers, teachers or accountants? Or maybe you just sprouted more male bovine manure because someone told you an uncorroborated libel, and your tiny, little brain didn't think to check for historical fact first? Sorry, I'm going to have to go with the tiny, little brain theory.
Seeing as the Israelis barely even keep their promises to their big sugar daddy (See the current arguments on new settlements with the Americans), what are the odds of them caring about the UK and their little hurt pride?
The day the Americans put a drastic cut in the defence aid that they provide to Israel is the day you will hear the screams of anguish from Tel Aviv and genuine promises to behave better! With Israel providing the UK with loads of important defence kit and intel on terrorists, don't count on UK politicians anything similar! (Unless the Lib Dems get into power!)
I see the fatter chance as that you might actually post something factual and correct.
"....See the current arguments on new settlements with the Americans...." The deal made by the Israelis with the US in April 2009 was that the Israelis would halt settlement buidling in the West Bank EXCEPT in Jerusalem. Even Shrillary Clinton hailed it as a breakthough. And then we didn't actually have any building working just the announcement that doesn't even mean building for another two years at best! Face it, the Obumbler knew his big push on peace talks was going to fail so he decided to blame it on Israel.
"....The day the Americans put a drastic cut in the defence aid that they provide to Israel is the day you will hear the screams of anguish from Tel Aviv...." Yeah, that's worked so well in the past. Like in 1967 when the US refused to see the Egyptian preparations for war and had ramped down Israeli support in the hope of peace talks. The Arabs just took advantage and planned to attack Israel. Sames goes for 1973. Every time the US has ramped down support for Israel it has only encouraged the Arabs to "misbehave", and then the US has had to quickly supply more weapons. Oh, but then I suspect you would quite like the idea of Israel being left defenceless.
But, just to upset you, I'd liek to point out that the Israelis have been burnt by relying on other before (quite literally if you think of the Holocaust), so they now have plans for their own weapon production if the US or any other supplier fail on them. They can make their own tanks, planes, missiles, radar, guns, artillery, drones, etc, etc. In fact, the little Israeli arms industry is so good it's actually a big export success story for Israel. If the US did decide to cut all arms shipments it would be a painful inconvenience but it would not give you the Arab victory you grave.
"Britain is seeking assurances that its identity documents will not be abused in future, but Israel has refused...."
Why? They made the same promise before but have not kept it, as indicated at the end of the article:
"Margaret Thatcher shut down the agency's UK operation in 1988, partly because plans to use British passports in operations against Palestinian exiles had emerged. Mossad officers were allowed to return to London after apparently giving assurances the transgression would not be repeated."
This shows that such assurances are a waste of breath or paper. How about getting them to promise that they''ll use US passports next time?
This is utterly futile. After a (fairly short) while, the Israeli government will tell the US government to put a stop to it. The US government will tell the British government to put a stop to it. And a stop to it will be put.
That's how things work in the "international community".
I used to think so, but having seen how fast the little shits got out of gaza when obama got himself elected, just a slight suspicion there may have been a call from the state dept along the lines of... wind your fucking necks in, or we'll send the next guns and bombs delivery to hamas 'by mistake'
cos sure as shit nothing shrub could have said would have made istail do anything
When when dealing with the Fourth and Fifth Reichs - sorry, USA and Israel...
The UK has only one basis for our 'special relationship' with the USA. They say jump and as a supposed democracy we retain the right to ask how high.
This is just a public show of indignation by people who know full well what the score is. Ultimately the UK will do as it's done for decades - exactly as we're told.
'If Israel say "we will never use stolen or falsified British identity documents in any overseas operations" in what way is that an admission that they were involved in the assasination?'
Indirectly, in that the very careful (and unnatural) wording makes it obvious that they are refusing to answer the obvious question: "Did you do that on the occasion in question?"
The obvious reply to such a statement would be:
"Do you admit that you were involved in the assassination, and that you did on that occasion use stolen or falsified British identity documents? If you do so admit, since you have previously promised not to do so, what value can we attach to your latest promises? If you deny it, why would we not think you systematic liars and disregard everything you say?"
"Do you admit that you were involved in the assassination, and that you did on that occasion use stolen or falsified British identity documents? If you do so admit, since you have previously promised not to do so, what value can we attach to your latest promises? If you deny it, why would we not think you systematic liars and disregard everything you say?"
Because if they deny it, and you then disregard everything they say, then you are admitting that you think they did it, and are systematic liars. Which begs the question "Why did you ask for a promise from someone you don't trust, unless for the rather obvious attempt at embarrassing them*?"
Diplomacy is based on the principle of taking a nation's statement at face value; this is both naive and incredibly sophisticated at the same time. The goal is to maintain a thin veneer of supposed respectability over the top of what is essentially a gang of children locked in a perpetual game of "Am Not!" "Are Too!"
* As well as the questions, "Why don't you trust us?", "Why should we allow any trade with you?", "Why don't you step over here and look into this light for a few minutes while we ask you a few nice questions?"
As JohnG (above) re-stated:
"Margaret Thatcher shut down the agency's UK operation in 1988, partly because plans to use British passports in operations against Palestinian exiles had emerged. Mossad officers were allowed to return to London after apparently giving assurances the transgression would not be repeated."
Later......
...but Israel has refused because such an undertaking would amount to confirmation it carried out the killing...
Of course, the refusal is a clear admission. Nothing to hide, etc.
If they signed such an undertaking*, it would only be a piece of paper, waved in the breeze...
*word to conjure with. Think it was used in the "no such undertaking has been received from Germany'" speech.
"...They only kill those who cross British petroleum or Shell..."
What a lovely thought! A government department actually providing a service to corporate taxpayers!
Alas, it is very unlikely that SIS would get off their butts to do something for the UK generally. Everything they have done in the last 20 years , since the fall of the Berlin Wall, has been aimed at creating a new role for themselves and Security Service.
The prospect of unemployment once we had lost the Eastern Bloc enemy really concentrated their minds. And now, thanks to clever briefing and hand-in-glove work with the CIA et al, we now have a whole set of really helpful enemies.
Bit of a shame for the weapons industry that the new enemies don't require huge amounts to be spent on aircraft carriers and tanks. But at least there will be a lot of profit to be made in hi-tech pilotless assasination aircraft....
"If Israel say 'we will never use stolen or falsified British identity documents in any overseas operations' in what way is that an admission that they were involved in the assassination?"
The problem is, if you start making statements - especially ones which have to be quite carefully worded - then people have a habit of asking you to clarify stuff, e.g. to confirm or deny a slightly differently worded statement which does imply guilt. I'd certainly expect a journo to tweak the statement to include the words 'in the future', which obviously leads on to 'what about in the past'.
And if you start making statements, and then stop at a certain point, that's very much an admission of guilt. Which is why Israel don't confirm or deny any of these kinds of things... so that you can't infer anything from their decision not to make a statement.
I don't get it. You're suggesting that all Israeli citizens are death camp survivors? And/or all Palestinians are terrorists? Or is it that the Palestinians were really responsible for the concentration camps? Lets have some clarity in your argument.
Listen up. The majority of people all around the world are ordinary people try to make the best of the life they have to live. It's their "leaders" who fuck it up for them. Disliking a nation because of the way it's politicians and civil servants (HAH!) behave is ridiculous. To do so based on historic behaviour is ludicrous.
Anybody who persecutes somebody based on their nationality or ethnicity is beneath contempt. It's no good the Israeli government trying to justify what amounts to apartheid and terrorism purely on the grounds of the historical persecution of Jews by Arabs. If you look at the history of the persecution of Jews there have been a lot of villains. Is it OK for the Israeli government to pick on their descendents too? What about the English. Should the Israelis be allowed to treat the English the way they treat arabs because of what Edward Longshanks did?* Lets not even mention what happened when an Austrian lead the Germans to commit massive atrocities against Jews. What does that allow Israel to do to Germany or even Austria?
An example of this sort of stupid behaviour can be found in "Irish Americans" (or more accurately those Americans who can claim an Irish great great grandfather**) who hate the English because of what British politicians have done to Ireland in the past. This makes little sense. It makes even less sense to somebody like me who is descended from Irish and English stock, even more confusingly some of my Irish lineage comes from a planted English family (of Norman origin) who themselves became rebels. If that little history doesn't make a mockery of a view of a nation based on a small portion of it's populace I don't know what does.
* To those living north of the border: He really was a nasty bastard wasn't he?
** I knew an Irish American who was devastated when he found his one Irish ancestor was an eastern european who had changed his name to McCarthy on his arrival in New York.
"....It's no good the Israeli government trying to justify what amounts to apartheid...." Arabs are living as Israeli citizens in Israel with full Israeli rights, including ownership of land. Israel has not demanded those Arabs leave in any peace deal. Meanwhile, it is illegal for Jews to own land in Jordan or many of the other Arab countries. The Palestinian Authority has made it illegal for a "Palestinian" to sell land in the West Bank to a Jew. In Gaza you would simply be shot by HAMAS. The PA wants ALL Jews to leave the West Bank as part of a peace settlement, whether they are settlers or living in what was historically Jewish villages or areas. HAMAS has a stated aim of ethnically cleansing all Israel. I think you best go read up on the definiton of apartheid before you make yourself look any stupider.
Hmm your history of the Israeli invasion of Lebanon is sketchy to say the least, I guess you missed the invasion in the early 80's led by that bastion of peace Ariel Sharon.
The Israelis invaded in 1982 and occupied Beirut and spent three years slowly withdrawing to the buffer zone which they sat in for a further 15 years.
You overlook the role of the Lebanese Christian Militia, supported by Israel in the 1982 massacres of civilians in refugee camps as well.
Your use of the term "fakeistinians" is also extremely racist and inflammatory but shows how little you value humanity.
On the one hand you cry anti semitism on the other you show yourself up as the racist you clearly are.
will Israel get away with using "holocaust" as an excuse for outrageous behaviour on their part? Horrendous behaviour by Nazis doesn't excuse horrendous behaviour by what is in effect an ethnic Jewish state. The Israelis might do well to remember that the gas used in the Nazi gas chambers was developed by a Jew, Fritz Haber, who was the main architect of gas warfare in the First World War and who was obsessive about using gas to kill humans in warfare.
Israel:
On a 13-year-old schoolgirl. 17 bullets. "Confirmed kill".*
Yep, I'll go along with that. I remember it every Yom Kippur. Her weapon? Schoolbooks. If Al-qaeda had such weaponry, they would'nt need explosive underpants.
Makes me weep. (Oh, oddly, it was deemed OK - no charges. Makes me almost puke to remember it.)
*http://www.theinsider.org/news/article.asp?id=1704
Whilst we can spend hours swapping stories of children killed by either side, I suggest you at least supply a source with a bit more balance. For example, you could have included the WIkipedia account for Iman Darweesh al Hams' shooting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iman_Darweesh_Al_Hams), which notes the case brought against the Israeli officer was after his own troops protested. But I think it was much more your idea to paint all IDF soldiers as heartless killers, regardless of facts, right?
Oh, by the way, whilst your looking at the Wikipedia page, please try and find a page where any Arab military has investigated a killing of an Israeli child as anything other than something to celebrate.
"Hmm your history of the Israeli invasion of Lebanon is sketchy to say the least, I guess you missed the invasion in the early 80's led by that bastion of peace Ariel Sharon....." How exactly is it sketchy? I admit, I didn't put up the full chapter and verse, but I'm just dying to hear your version. I guess it will not contain any attacks across the border by the PLO, armed and supported by Syria. It will completely skate over the PLO assassination attempt in London. It will avoid the artillery fire that used to be rained down on Israeli towns (funnily enough, including Arab Israeli towns and villages) from PLO positions in the Lebanon. Nope, in your version I'm sure that the nasy Jews just get together and decide to invade the Lebanon for a laugh!
"....The Israelis invaded in 1982 and occupied Beirut...." The Israelis invaded with the stated aims of reducing Syrian influence, damaging and if possible ejecting the PLO from the Lebanon (PLO headquarters was in Beiruit), and setting up a buffer zone deep enough that artillery and mortar attacks could not be made across the border on Israeli civillians. Once agreement had been reached that the PLO would be withdrawn to Tunis the Israelis pulled out of Beiruit. They sat in the buffer zone for the further fifteen years to stop other Arab guerillas (such as Hezbollah) simply taking a turn at shelling Israel. When they thought they could bargain land for peace, Israel pulled out of the buffer zone. In response, Hezbollah (armed and shielded by Syria) built up a prsence in the old buffer zone (killing and suppressing the Druze and Christians that used to be the majority in the area) and started shelling Israel. When Israel got tired and went back in, morons like you without a clue about history started squealling about "the nasy Jews have invaded Lebanaon" again. But I'm hoping it will choke you to have to admit that Israel did pull out of the Lebanon.
"....You overlook the role of the Lebanese Christian Militia, supported by Israel in the 1982 massacres of civilians in refugee camps as well....." Yeah, much talk, where's the facts? The Christains (Phalangists) wanted to avenge themselves on the same PLO that had destabilised the Lebanon and caused the Civil War. They didn't want or need Israeli help, they just took advantage of it. No-one has ever proved the Israelis knew anything up front. They were told by the Phalangists that they were going into the camps to look for hidden PLO geurillas, the massacare that took place was a completely Christian affair. Indeed, it was reports from the Israeli troops around that camp that led to the Israelis telling the Christians to get out of the camps, unfortunately too late. I'm sure it suits your worldview to believe it was all a masterplan from the nasty Jews, but then I'm guessing your worldview is out of the Protocols of The Elders of Zion and other works of anti-semitic fantasy.
"....Your use of the term "fakeistinians" is also extremely racist...." Got news for you - Palestinian is not a race, dummy! And there are no "palestinians", as I have explained before, the area has never had a country called Palestine. The Arabs in the area at the time of the Manadate refered to themsleves as Southern Syrian Arabs, bedouin of one tribe or another, and Egyptians. If the Arabs in 1948 had accepted the partition plan then there would have been a Palestinian state with people that could call themselves Palestinians, but the Arabs wanted the whole deal and didn't want any Jews around, so they never got that.
"....On the one hand you cry anti semitism on the other you show yourself up as the racist you clearly are." On the one hand I have debunked your libels and shown you up for a guilibale moron, and on the other hand you make yourself look like a guillible moron. Oh, maybe that's because you are a guilible moron!
What "outrageous behaviour" is that excatly? Are they supposed to just sit back and let the Gazans fire rockets and mortars at Israel? Is it OK for Hezbolah to do so? Do you seriously suggest the Israelis just laugh off carbombs, and suicide bombers? Grow up!
"....The Israelis might do well to remember that the gas used in the Nazi gas chambers was developed by a Jew...." Haber was a patriotic German Jew that won a Nobel Prize for chemistry (he is credited wth the development of notrogen-based fertiliser). The work he did on chlorine gas was for the German Empire in WW1, not the Nazis. His wife, a fellow chemist, committed suicide when she heard that his work had killed thousands. Haber was offered a top job by the Nazis but left Germany in 1933 when he heard what had happened to other Jews. Ironically, he was actually travelling to Mandate Palestine to work for the Jewish Weizmann Institute when he died in 1934. So, he didn't develop the gas chambers for the Nazis as morons like you like to pretend.
In fact, the first German experiments with gassing Jews were much simpler - they simply packed them into vans with the exhaust ducted into the compartment, then drove round until the Jews stopped screaming. So, are you now going to claim that Otto and Daimler invented the first practical car engine just for the Nazis to gas Jews with?
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
