The tremendous power of the social paradigms created by WWII - Part I - The citizen

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I'm not sure I agree.

(COMMENT)

This is a bit disingenuous. The UK participation was conditional. The UK said that it couldn't do it by themselves ("could not alone implement any plan not accepted by both sides)." It was not a refusal - merely an intention not to participate. It was recognition that there would be an outbreak of hostilities as the Partition Plan was implemented:

"(iv) the United Kingdom Government “will endeavour to give the Commission the benefit of their experience and knowledge of the situation in Palestine, subject always to their decision that they are unable to take part in the implementation of the United Nations plan. That is, of course, in accordance with the statement made originally to the General Assembly by the Colonial Secretary to the effect that we could not alone implement any plan not accepted by both sides; and that as regards joining in any implementation, that would depend on two conditions. The Commission will remember that one was the inherent justice of the plan, an the other was the degree of force requisite for its implementation.” SOURCE: Paragraph 8 --- FIRST MONTHLY PROGRESS REPORT TO THE SECURITY COUNCIL​

3. At the twenty-fifth meeting of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Palestinian Question, the United Kingdom Representative, in making clear the extent to which the role assigned to his Government by the Report of Sub-Committee 1 was compatible with the declared intention of his Government not to participate in the implementation of a plan of partition, stated: “If a scheme of partition were approved and a United Nations Commission set up, the Palestine Government would, when the time came, hand over its authority to that Commission”. SOURCE: UNITED NATIONS PALESTINE COMMISSION Note for Sir Alexander Cadogan​

(COMMENT)

This is debatable. Yes, in the sense of exercising the Right of Self-Determination, Israel did declare independence; as a people emerging into sovereign statehood and independence. But in doing so, the Jewish People took action in total coordination with the UN Palestine Commission (the successor Government) and pursuant to Part I --- Section B (Steps Preparatory to Independence), Paragraph 4 --- UN Resolution 181(II), wherein:

4. The Commission, after consultation with the democratic parties and other public organizations of The Arab and Jewish States, shall select and establish in each State as rapidly as possible a Provisional Council of Government. The activities of both the Arab and Jewish Provisional Councils of Government shall be carried out under the general direction of the Commission.

If by 1 April 1948 a Provisional Council of Government cannot be selected for either of the States, or, if selected, cannot carry out its functions, the Commission shall communicate that fact to the Security Council for such action with respect to that State as the Security Council may deem proper, and to the Secretary-General for communication to the Members of the United Nations.​

AND by following the instruction as prescribed in Part I --- Sections C and D - as an integral part of the process. As noted in GA Resolution A/RES/273 (III) Admission of Israel to membership in the United Nations (11 May 1949): "Recalling its resolutions of 29 November 1947 3/ and 11 December 1948 4/ and taking note of the declarations and explanations made by the representative of the Government of Israel 5/ before the ad hoc Political Committee in respect of the implementation of the said resolutions," the process was completed by the people of Israel.

(COMMENT)

Israel emerged after a War of Independence; after successfully defending its declaration and right to self-determination from external and offensive interference from Arab Aggression by multiple members of the Arab League.

(COMMENT)

I'm not so sure that "colonize" is the right word. Is it exercising its right under the terms of the Oslo Accords; as agreed to by the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian People?

Most Respectfully,
R

Rocco, one issue that you continuously duck is the fact that the Palestinians have the inalienable right to territorial integrity.

When did that become international law then, And remember until 1960 the only Palestinians were the Jews, the arab muslims were Syrians

Not true. Try again.

Whats not true as before 1960 no arab muslims would allow themselves to be called Palestinians, it was an insult. The arab muslims in Palestine called themselves Syrians not Palestinians.

Some did but it doesn't matter. The 1925 citizenship order said they were Palestinian. That was their legal status.

Try reading the order again and you will see they were BRITISH MANDATE FOR PALESTINE citizens. There was no nation of Palestine, no Palestinian government and the people were not organised enough to proclaim independence. So it fell to the MANDATE to be the government.


Keep trying and one day you might get it right

 

[aris2chat]

You might not like it but at the time the screen was used correctly. Most weapons had not been designed for "urban" warfare. Israel has since designed many of their own out of necessity.

Why were so many civilians outside in the area as the Israeli troops advanced? Since most of the WP was used in the evening, Why were so many civilians out at night in those areas? Most would move away from fighting or stay inside rather become targets.
When rockets were flying in town, I would watch from the balcony. When they were landing around my home, we were down in the basement or we got out of the way before hand to safer area.

At the time it was NOT used correctly. It is clearly contraindicated for use in densly populated areas - that has been made clear over and over and over. You just keep making excuses for it and blaming the victims!

really, now who is lying?

Why did Israel lie about using white phosphorous?

Was this at night?

certainly does not look like high noon

It certainly is NOT night.

You won't condemn it will you? You will excuse it endlessly. Israel fucked up when they used WP in Gaza and you can't bring yourself to condemn it. Israel knew it shouldn't have - they outright lied about it at first, and then they finally fessed up when the evidence was incontrovertable, and eventually changed their policies. But you still defend it. Would you defend it if Hamas used it against Israeli civilians in a dense urban area?

I condemn hate and terrorism. I condemn abuse of women and children.
Why is hamas using WP but you don't condemn them, only Israel. Israel has willingly changed their screens. They have changed their smoke grenades used for crowd control.
It does not matter what they do to avoid major injuries or casualties, you still want a condemnation of their actions.
When Israel had and used WP screens it was not illegal. Now that they don't use them any more you want a condemnation of the legal use. You won't condemn hamas for their use of WP, attacks on civilians, acts of war against Israel, inciting of hate and violence against Israel, he call for lone wolf stabbing, running over with a car or bombing of Israelis, illegally smuggling weapons from Iran into gaza, the tunneling into Israel to carry out killings and kidnappings.
You want a condemnation of something in the past but you won't do the same for what hamas is still doing.
What about condemning every other terrorist group in the region and the hate and persecution of minorities, of the mass murdering and brutality? What of the blaming and threats against the US and Israel? The violence in Europe?
There is so much to condemn and you are hung up on something in the past.
How about condemning hamas for bringing warfare to their urban areas. For forcing Israel into urban warfare with conventional weapons.

 

[Coyote]

At the time it was NOT used correctly. It is clearly contraindicated for use in densly populated areas - that has been made clear over and over and over. You just keep making excuses for it and blaming the victims!

really, now who is lying?

Why did Israel lie about using white phosphorous?

Was this at night?

certainly does not look like high noon

It certainly is NOT night.

You won't condemn it will you? You will excuse it endlessly. Israel fucked up when they used WP in Gaza and you can't bring yourself to condemn it. Israel knew it shouldn't have - they outright lied about it at first, and then they finally fessed up when the evidence was incontrovertable, and eventually changed their policies. But you still defend it. Would you defend it if Hamas used it against Israeli civilians in a dense urban area?

I condemn hate and terrorism. I condemn abuse of women and children.
Why is hamas using WP but you don't condemn them, only Israel.

I've condemned Hamas for many things. If they are using WP in densely populated areas then please, link to it and I will certainly condemn it.

Israel has willingly changed their screens. They have changed their smoke grenades used for crowd control.

That avoids the issue. Sure. They "willingly" changed thier methods. AFTER a huge expose of the use of WP in dense urban areas. AFTER they lied about even using it. Why is that truly commendable?

It does not matter what they do to avoid major injuries or casualties, you still want a condemnation of their actions.

Sure. It does matter. But did you read about what WP does to the human body? Have you read how it is specifically contraindicated for use in urban zones? You did read that part right? I get the feeling that Israel can behave like ISIS and you would still refuse to condemn anything they do or find some way to make excuses and exonerate them.

WP versus human flesh is horrific. Instead of condemning it, you turn around and blame the victims. Why were they out there? Why weren't they taking shelter? If you read the accounts of the conflict - there was considerable conflicting information on where to go to be safe. Homes were hit, people had to go somewhere. People had to somenow continue to try and do their normal day to day living - like getting food, water, medical help. But hey - according to you it's their fault if they got burned by WP, not Israel's fault for using WP in a way that is internationally contraindicated and you manage to use this to make Israel out to be some sort of hero for "willingly" giving it up. They could have used those alternate methods of smoke screens at that time but they did not.

When Israel had and used WP screens it was not illegal. Now that they don't use them any more you want a condemnation of the legal use.

There are a lot of things that are technically legal. So, even though it is SPECIFICALLY contraindicated for use in dense urban populations - there is no question about that - it's ok by you to use it in a dense urban population (at least by Israel) because it's "legal"....?

Capital punishment is legal.
Does that mean it's ok to kill people by burning them alive?
By hanging them til they choke to death?
Because it's "legal"?

You won't condemn hamas for their use of WP, attacks on civilians, acts of war against Israel, inciting of hate and violence against Israel, he call for lone wolf stabbing, running over with a car or bombing of Israelis, illegally smuggling weapons from Iran into gaza, the tunneling into Israel to carry out killings and kidnappings.

I've condemned Hamas many times. I've certainly never made excuses for their terrorism against innocent civilians. You're just using this to excuse Israel's use of WP against civilians.

You want a condemnation of something in the past but you won't do the same for what hamas is still doing.
What about condemning every other terrorist group in the region and the hate and persecution of minorities, of the mass murdering and brutality? What of the blaming and threats against the US and Israel? The violence in Europe?
There is so much to condemn and you are hung up on something in the past.
How about condemning hamas for bringing warfare to their urban areas. For forcing Israel into urban warfare with conventional weapons.

Half the stuff we argue about here is IN THE PAST.

There is much to condemn indeed but you can not bring yourself to condemn Israel for anything, even when they are wrong. You deflect, redirect, engage in the "but but Hamas" fallacy. Sometimes Israel is wrong - way wrong. And using WP, lying about it was wrong. Their changing that use is good, but hardly heroic as you make it sound. Their feet were held to the fire over it's use. You want to compare Hamas to Israel. Hamas is a terrorist organization. Israel is supposed to be a beacon of light in the ME.

 

[Coyote]

So Aris, are you ok with using White Phosphorous against civilians even though other less toxic materials for smoke screens are available?

I understand the use. What I think is not relevant. The facts and the law are. Israel did nothing wrong in the use of the screens.

Israel could have used far LESS lethal smoke bombs to create screens.

Yes or no?

Since then they have developed their own formula to minimized the supposed burns the gazans claim were a result of the WP. Even smoke can trigger an asthma attack is some people, but Israel has a right to respond to hamas attacks and to prevent the rearming and creation of other bombs to be used against Israel.

They could have used far less lethal means to BEGIN WITH. They ALREADY HAD far less lethal formulas.

I AM NOT arguing that Israel doesn't have a right to defend itself against Hamas - so stop with that strawman.

Hamas will always have something to gripe about, or they will make stuff up. Most weapons were no designed for urban warfare, but this is what they had and what they had a right to use.

Calling the damage that WP causes to human flesh something Hamas "gripes about" is truly pathetic. WP is well recognized as a weapon to not use in urban warfare - enought that there are guidelines pertaining to it.

And WP was NOT all they had.

Hamas certainly has no qualms using unconventional weapons or targeting civilians. They don't care about the collateral damage to their own people, except when it can be use to defame Israel is someway.
Most people have the sense to take shelter when there is fighting. They don't send civilians into the streets to become shields.
Why don't you condemn hamas for their use of WP? They have used them for years. Just about every army has some weapons, deterrents or navigation with WP.

And again, you're deflecting. I believe this is what others commonly call "Tu quoque" fallacy: but but what about Hamas?

White phosphorus - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Effects on people

White phosphorus can cause injuries and death in three ways: by burning deep into tissue, by being inhaled as a smoke, and by being ingested. Extensive exposure by burning and ingestion is fatal.

Injuries from white phosphorus.[91][92]
Incandescent particles of WP cast off by a WP weapon's initial explosion can produce extensive, deep second and third degree burns. One reason why this occurs is the tendency of the element to stick to the skin. Phosphorus burns carry a greater risk of mortality than other forms of burns due to the absorption of phosphorus into the body through the burned area, resulting in liver, heart and kidney damage, and in some cases multiple organ failure.[93] These weapons are particularly dangerous to exposed people because white phosphorus continues to burn unless deprived of oxygen or until it is completely consumed. In some cases, burns are limited to areas of exposed skin because the smaller WP particles do not burn completely through personal clothing before being consumed.

Smoke inhalation
Burning white phosphorus produces a hot, dense, white smoke consisting mostly of phosphorus pentoxide. Exposure to heavy smoke concentrations of any kind for an extended period (particularly if near the source of emission) has the potential to cause illness or death. White phosphorus smoke irritates the eyes, mucous membranes of the nose, and respiratory tract in moderate concentrations, while higher concentrations can produce severe burns. The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry has set an acute inhalation Minimum Risk Level (MRL) for white phosphorus smoke of 0.02 mg/m3, the same as fuel-oil fumes. By contrast, the chemical weapon mustard gas is 30 times more potent: 0.0007 mg/m3.[94]

Oral ingestion
The accepted lethal dose when white phosphorus is ingested orally is 1 mg per kg of body weight, although the ingestion of as little as 15 mg has resulted in death.[95] It may also cause liver, heart or kidney damage.[93] There are reports of individuals with a history of oral ingestion who have passed phosphorus-laden stool ("smoking stool syndrome").[95] Its extreme toxicity is due to the generation of free radicals, especially in the liver, where they accumulate and are not easily metabolized.

Fume inhalation
Long term inhalation of derivative fumes causes a condition called phossy jaw or osteonecrosis of the jaw, which is a painful, debilitating and ultimately lethal condition that afflicted factory workers involved with the manufacture of matches that contained white phosphorus. The mechanism for necrosis is clot formation leading to bone ischaemia or infarction, leading to the putrid rotting of the bone of the lower jaw. For this reason, the Berne Convention (1906) was enacted to forbid the manufacture, sale or purchase of matches containing white phosphorus. This condition may also be caused by high doses of lead, cadmium and bisphosphonate based cancer drugs.​

This isn't asthma caused by smoke inhalation.

One point you are constantly refusing to accept and take into consideration is that it is the Palestinians that have elected to fight a war from civilian areas even though nearly half of gaza in unoccupied and open land. The Israeli's used W.P in two roles that were both legal, one as a smoke screen the other to light up the terrorist rocket launchers. If the Palestinian civilians are too stupid to get out of the way, or are forced to act as human shields then any injuries are their own fault.

BUT rather than place the blame were it belongs you constantly blame the Jews for the actions of the Palestinians.

BUT.

You will never blame Israel, even when they are wrong will you?

WP is legal, but contraindicated for use in dense urban areas.

You blame the victims.

Figures.

Do you cheer when you see people burned up with WP? It's legal after all.

 

[Coyote]

At the time it was NOT used correctly. It is clearly contraindicated for use in densly populated areas - that has been made clear over and over and over. You just keep making excuses for it and blaming the victims!

really, now who is lying?

Why did Israel lie about using white phosphorous?

Was this at night?

certainly does not look like high noon

It certainly is NOT night.

You won't condemn it will you? You will excuse it endlessly. Israel fucked up when they used WP in Gaza and you can't bring yourself to condemn it. Israel knew it shouldn't have - they outright lied about it at first, and then they finally fessed up when the evidence was incontrovertable, and eventually changed their policies. But you still defend it. Would you defend it if Hamas used it against Israeli civilians in a dense urban area?

Any comment on the use of W.P by hamas then, or their use of illegal chemical and biological agents in the rockets fired at Israeli children. You cant bring yourself to condemn the acts of cowardice and war crimes committed by the Palestinians daily can you.

How can I comment on something when you provide no links?

 

[Disir]

Except there is no dehumanization of the Palestinian people, but do go on. In fact, don't you find it rather odd that there is no mention on these boards of the factories that Palestinians and Israelis work at. Can you tell me why that is?

Do they both work or does one work and the other give orders?

They both work. :/

 

[P F Tinmore]

Rocco, one issue that you continuously duck is the fact that the Palestinians have the inalienable right to territorial integrity.

When did that become international law then, And remember until 1960 the only Palestinians were the Jews, the arab muslims were Syrians

Not true. Try again.

Whats not true as before 1960 no arab muslims would allow themselves to be called Palestinians, it was an insult. The arab muslims in Palestine called themselves Syrians not Palestinians.

Some did but it doesn't matter. The 1925 citizenship order said they were Palestinian. That was their legal status.

Try reading the order again and you will see they were BRITISH MANDATE FOR PALESTINE citizens. There was no nation of Palestine, no Palestinian government and the people were not organised enough to proclaim independence. So it fell to the MANDATE to be the government.


Keep trying and one day you might get it right

Not true. The mandate was not a country. It had no citizens.

 

[aris2chat]

really, now who is lying?

Why did Israel lie about using white phosphorous?

Was this at night?

certainly does not look like high noon

It certainly is NOT night.

You won't condemn it will you? You will excuse it endlessly. Israel fucked up when they used WP in Gaza and you can't bring yourself to condemn it. Israel knew it shouldn't have - they outright lied about it at first, and then they finally fessed up when the evidence was incontrovertable, and eventually changed their policies. But you still defend it. Would you defend it if Hamas used it against Israeli civilians in a dense urban area?

I condemn hate and terrorism. I condemn abuse of women and children.
Why is hamas using WP but you don't condemn them, only Israel.

I've condemned Hamas for many things. If they are using WP in densely populated areas then please, link to it and I will certainly condemn it.

Israel has willingly changed their screens. They have changed their smoke grenades used for crowd control.

That avoids the issue. Sure. They "willingly" changed thier methods. AFTER a huge expose of the use of WP in dense urban areas. AFTER they lied about even using it. Why is that truly commendable?

It does not matter what they do to avoid major injuries or casualties, you still want a condemnation of their actions.

Sure. It does matter. But did you read about what WP does to the human body? Have you read how it is specifically contraindicated for use in urban zones? You did read that part right? I get the feeling that Israel can behave like ISIS and you would still refuse to condemn anything they do or find some way to make excuses and exonerate them.

WP versus human flesh is horrific. Instead of condemning it, you turn around and blame the victims. Why were they out there? Why weren't they taking shelter? If you read the accounts of the conflict - there was considerable conflicting information on where to go to be safe. Homes were hit, people had to go somewhere. People had to somenow continue to try and do their normal day to day living - like getting food, water, medical help. But hey - according to you it's their fault if they got burned by WP, not Israel's fault for using WP in a way that is internationally contraindicated and you manage to use this to make Israel out to be some sort of hero for "willingly" giving it up. They could have used those alternate methods of smoke screens at that time but they did not.

When Israel had and used WP screens it was not illegal. Now that they don't use them any more you want a condemnation of the legal use.

There are a lot of things that are technically legal. So, even though it is SPECIFICALLY contraindicated for use in dense urban populations - there is no question about that - it's ok by you to use it in a dense urban population (at least by Israel) because it's "legal"....?

Capital punishment is legal.
Does that mean it's ok to kill people by burning them alive?
By hanging them til they choke to death?
Because it's "legal"?

You won't condemn hamas for their use of WP, attacks on civilians, acts of war against Israel, inciting of hate and violence against Israel, he call for lone wolf stabbing, running over with a car or bombing of Israelis, illegally smuggling weapons from Iran into gaza, the tunneling into Israel to carry out killings and kidnappings.

I've condemned Hamas many times. I've certainly never made excuses for their terrorism against innocent civilians. You're just using this to excuse Israel's use of WP against civilians.

You want a condemnation of something in the past but you won't do the same for what hamas is still doing.
What about condemning every other terrorist group in the region and the hate and persecution of minorities, of the mass murdering and brutality? What of the blaming and threats against the US and Israel? The violence in Europe?
There is so much to condemn and you are hung up on something in the past.
How about condemning hamas for bringing warfare to their urban areas. For forcing Israel into urban warfare with conventional weapons.

Half the stuff we argue about here is IN THE PAST.

There is much to condemn indeed but you can not bring yourself to condemn Israel for anything, even when they are wrong. You deflect, redirect, engage in the "but but Hamas" fallacy. Sometimes Israel is wrong - way wrong. And using WP, lying about it was wrong. Their changing that use is good, but hardly heroic as you make it sound. Their feet were held to the fire over it's use. You want to compare Hamas to Israel. Hamas is a terrorist organization. Israel is supposed to be a beacon of light in the ME.

Advertisement

Hamas now firing phosphorus-filled mortar shells into Israel - World Tribune World Tribune

Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News Gazans shooting white phosphorus shells into Israel. UN silent.



>>The international Red Cross said Tuesday that Israel has fired white phosphorus shells in its offensive in the Gaza Strip, but has no evidence to suggest the incendiary agent is being used improperly or illegally. The comments came after a human rights organization accused the Jewish state of using white phosphorus, which ignites when it strikes the skin and burns straight through or until it is cut off from oxygen. It can cause horrific injuries… “In some of the strikes in Gaza it’s pretty clear that phosphorus was used,” Herby told The Associated Press. “But it’s not very unusual to use phosphorus to create smoke or illuminate a target. We have no evidence to suggest it’s being used in any other way.”… Herby said that using phosphorus to illuminate a target or create smoke is legitimate under international law, and that there was no evidence the Jewish state was intentionally using phosphorus in a questionable way, such as burning down buildings or consciously putting civilians at risk.<<

 

[Coyote]

Why did Israel lie about using white phosphorous?

Was this at night?

certainly does not look like high noon

It certainly is NOT night.

You won't condemn it will you? You will excuse it endlessly. Israel fucked up when they used WP in Gaza and you can't bring yourself to condemn it. Israel knew it shouldn't have - they outright lied about it at first, and then they finally fessed up when the evidence was incontrovertable, and eventually changed their policies. But you still defend it. Would you defend it if Hamas used it against Israeli civilians in a dense urban area?

I condemn hate and terrorism. I condemn abuse of women and children.
Why is hamas using WP but you don't condemn them, only Israel.

I've condemned Hamas for many things. If they are using WP in densely populated areas then please, link to it and I will certainly condemn it.

Israel has willingly changed their screens. They have changed their smoke grenades used for crowd control.

That avoids the issue. Sure. They "willingly" changed thier methods. AFTER a huge expose of the use of WP in dense urban areas. AFTER they lied about even using it. Why is that truly commendable?

It does not matter what they do to avoid major injuries or casualties, you still want a condemnation of their actions.

Sure. It does matter. But did you read about what WP does to the human body? Have you read how it is specifically contraindicated for use in urban zones? You did read that part right? I get the feeling that Israel can behave like ISIS and you would still refuse to condemn anything they do or find some way to make excuses and exonerate them.

WP versus human flesh is horrific. Instead of condemning it, you turn around and blame the victims. Why were they out there? Why weren't they taking shelter? If you read the accounts of the conflict - there was considerable conflicting information on where to go to be safe. Homes were hit, people had to go somewhere. People had to somenow continue to try and do their normal day to day living - like getting food, water, medical help. But hey - according to you it's their fault if they got burned by WP, not Israel's fault for using WP in a way that is internationally contraindicated and you manage to use this to make Israel out to be some sort of hero for "willingly" giving it up. They could have used those alternate methods of smoke screens at that time but they did not.

When Israel had and used WP screens it was not illegal. Now that they don't use them any more you want a condemnation of the legal use.

There are a lot of things that are technically legal. So, even though it is SPECIFICALLY contraindicated for use in dense urban populations - there is no question about that - it's ok by you to use it in a dense urban population (at least by Israel) because it's "legal"....?

Capital punishment is legal.
Does that mean it's ok to kill people by burning them alive?
By hanging them til they choke to death?
Because it's "legal"?

You won't condemn hamas for their use of WP, attacks on civilians, acts of war against Israel, inciting of hate and violence against Israel, he call for lone wolf stabbing, running over with a car or bombing of Israelis, illegally smuggling weapons from Iran into gaza, the tunneling into Israel to carry out killings and kidnappings.

I've condemned Hamas many times. I've certainly never made excuses for their terrorism against innocent civilians. You're just using this to excuse Israel's use of WP against civilians.

You want a condemnation of something in the past but you won't do the same for what hamas is still doing.
What about condemning every other terrorist group in the region and the hate and persecution of minorities, of the mass murdering and brutality? What of the blaming and threats against the US and Israel? The violence in Europe?
There is so much to condemn and you are hung up on something in the past.
How about condemning hamas for bringing warfare to their urban areas. For forcing Israel into urban warfare with conventional weapons.

Half the stuff we argue about here is IN THE PAST.

There is much to condemn indeed but you can not bring yourself to condemn Israel for anything, even when they are wrong. You deflect, redirect, engage in the "but but Hamas" fallacy. Sometimes Israel is wrong - way wrong. And using WP, lying about it was wrong. Their changing that use is good, but hardly heroic as you make it sound. Their feet were held to the fire over it's use. You want to compare Hamas to Israel. Hamas is a terrorist organization. Israel is supposed to be a beacon of light in the ME.

Advertisement

Hamas now firing phosphorus-filled mortar shells into Israel - World Tribune World Tribune

Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News Gazans shooting white phosphorus shells into Israel. UN silent.

Were they fired into densely populated areas?

>>The international Red Cross said Tuesday that Israel has fired white phosphorus shells in its offensive in the Gaza Strip, but has no evidence to suggest the incendiary agent is being used improperly or illegally. The comments came after a human rights organization accused the Jewish state of using white phosphorus, which ignites when it strikes the skin and burns straight through or until it is cut off from oxygen. It can cause horrific injuries… “In some of the strikes in Gaza it’s pretty clear that phosphorus was used,” Herby told The Associated Press. “But it’s not very unusual to use phosphorus to create smoke or illuminate a target. We have no evidence to suggest it’s being used in any other way.”… Herby said that using phosphorus to illuminate a target or create smoke is legitimate under international law, and that there was no evidence the Jewish state was intentionally using phosphorus in a questionable way, such as burning down buildings or consciously putting civilians at risk.<<

And more:

However, Herby said evidence is still limited because of the difficulties of gaining access to Gaza, where Palestinian health officials say more than 900 people have been killed and 4,250 wounded since Israel launched its offensive late last month. Israel says the operation aims to halt years of Palestinian rocket attacks over the border.
​

Israel prevented the Red Cross and other humanitarian organizations as well as journalists from accessing Gaza.

United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

White phosphorus allegations

The report says that Israeli forces were "systematically reckless" in determining the use of white phosphorus in built-up areas.[79] The writers highlighted the Israeli attack on the UN Relief and Works Agency compound in Gaza City on 15 January, the attack on the Al Quds hospital, and the attack on the Al Wafa hospital, each of which involved using white phosphorus. They described its use as disproportionate or excessive under international law. More generally, the UN report recommended that "serious consideration should be given to banning the use of white phosphorus in built-up areas".[80]
​

High Court recommends IDF terminate all use of white phosphorous - Defense - Jerusalem Post

In a 2012 Human Rights Watch report on the issue, the organization said WP has killed and injured civilians and destroyed infrastructure both in Gaza and when used by the US in Afghanistan.

Exposure to the substance can have particularly grisly effects – including chemical burns down to the bone and wounds that can reignite days later when the bandages are removed, said HRW.

In the 2009 Gaza war, white phosphorus caused accidental damage to a UN facility and in one instance its misuse lead the IDF to discipline one of its commanders...

...Sfard and attorney Emily Schaeffer fought hard to go beyond the IDF’s new “limited” use policy and pushed the court to prohibit the IDF from using it on the basis that it is too dangerous, indiscriminate and uncontrollable once it is used.

Sfard told The Jerusalem Post that he “praises the IDF’s change in policy,” which he believed was at least partly a result of pressure from the petition, and said that the military would likely “not use white phosphorus... in future hostilities to the extent it did during Operation Cast Lead.”

But, he said, the IDF’s exception to the policy was too broad.

As soon as “hostilities broke out again,” Sfard said, the IDF was likely to decide to return to the use of WP, and that it would be both practically impossible and too emotionally charged to try and go to court to get the IDF to stop and “tie its hand in the middle of combat.”

Based on that prediction, he said, it was “important for the High Court to prohibit white phosphorus now when things are relatively calm.”
​

Military rejects horrific results of use of white phosphorus in Operation Cast Lead B Tselem

According to B'Tselem's research, no precise details exist regarding the number of persons who were killed or injured by white phosphorus during the operation, in part because physicians in hospitals in Gaza did not know how to diagnose the cause of injury, and due to incomplete medical documentation during the military operation, which resulted from the great load placed on the hospitals. Human Rights Watch investigated six cases and found that at least thirteen Palestinians had been killed by phosphorus, among them four women and seven children, including a one-year-old infant. In addition, the use of phosphorus caused extensive damage to property. There is documentation of fires throughout the Gaza Strip that resulted from the use of phosphorus in the bombing of houses, UN facilities, and humanitarian-aid warehouses.​

 

[Phoenall]

really, now who is lying?

Why did Israel lie about using white phosphorous?

Was this at night?

certainly does not look like high noon

It certainly is NOT night.

You won't condemn it will you? You will excuse it endlessly. Israel fucked up when they used WP in Gaza and you can't bring yourself to condemn it. Israel knew it shouldn't have - they outright lied about it at first, and then they finally fessed up when the evidence was incontrovertable, and eventually changed their policies. But you still defend it. Would you defend it if Hamas used it against Israeli civilians in a dense urban area?

I condemn hate and terrorism. I condemn abuse of women and children.
Why is hamas using WP but you don't condemn them, only Israel.

I've condemned Hamas for many things. If they are using WP in densely populated areas then please, link to it and I will certainly condemn it.

Israel has willingly changed their screens. They have changed their smoke grenades used for crowd control.

That avoids the issue. Sure. They "willingly" changed thier methods. AFTER a huge expose of the use of WP in dense urban areas. AFTER they lied about even using it. Why is that truly commendable?

It does not matter what they do to avoid major injuries or casualties, you still want a condemnation of their actions.

Sure. It does matter. But did you read about what WP does to the human body? Have you read how it is specifically contraindicated for use in urban zones? You did read that part right? I get the feeling that Israel can behave like ISIS and you would still refuse to condemn anything they do or find some way to make excuses and exonerate them.

WP versus human flesh is horrific. Instead of condemning it, you turn around and blame the victims. Why were they out there? Why weren't they taking shelter? If you read the accounts of the conflict - there was considerable conflicting information on where to go to be safe. Homes were hit, people had to go somewhere. People had to somenow continue to try and do their normal day to day living - like getting food, water, medical help. But hey - according to you it's their fault if they got burned by WP, not Israel's fault for using WP in a way that is internationally contraindicated and you manage to use this to make Israel out to be some sort of hero for "willingly" giving it up. They could have used those alternate methods of smoke screens at that time but they did not.

When Israel had and used WP screens it was not illegal. Now that they don't use them any more you want a condemnation of the legal use.

There are a lot of things that are technically legal. So, even though it is SPECIFICALLY contraindicated for use in dense urban populations - there is no question about that - it's ok by you to use it in a dense urban population (at least by Israel) because it's "legal"....?

Capital punishment is legal.
Does that mean it's ok to kill people by burning them alive?
By hanging them til they choke to death?
Because it's "legal"?

You won't condemn hamas for their use of WP, attacks on civilians, acts of war against Israel, inciting of hate and violence against Israel, he call for lone wolf stabbing, running over with a car or bombing of Israelis, illegally smuggling weapons from Iran into gaza, the tunneling into Israel to carry out killings and kidnappings.

I've condemned Hamas many times. I've certainly never made excuses for their terrorism against innocent civilians. You're just using this to excuse Israel's use of WP against civilians.

You want a condemnation of something in the past but you won't do the same for what hamas is still doing.
What about condemning every other terrorist group in the region and the hate and persecution of minorities, of the mass murdering and brutality? What of the blaming and threats against the US and Israel? The violence in Europe?
There is so much to condemn and you are hung up on something in the past.
How about condemning hamas for bringing warfare to their urban areas. For forcing Israel into urban warfare with conventional weapons.

Half the stuff we argue about here is IN THE PAST.

There is much to condemn indeed but you can not bring yourself to condemn Israel for anything, even when they are wrong. You deflect, redirect, engage in the "but but Hamas" fallacy. Sometimes Israel is wrong - way wrong. And using WP, lying about it was wrong. Their changing that use is good, but hardly heroic as you make it sound. Their feet were held to the fire over it's use. You want to compare Hamas to Israel. Hamas is a terrorist organization. Israel is supposed to be a beacon of light in the ME.

Here you go

Hamas now firing phosphorus-filled mortar shells into Israel - World Tribune World Tribune



Officials said Hamas and its Palestinian militia allies have acquired or
produced hundreds of phosphorus shells in an effort to increase Israeli
casualties. They said the shells were designed to spark fires and destroy
homes and fields.


Mortar shells fired from the Gaza Strip into Israel contained the internationally prohibited substance white phosphorus, according to an Israeli official.

“We first saw evidence of phosphorus shells in 2011, but we believe that there might have been a decision to increase such attacks,” an official said.



And remember that when Israel used it as a smoke screen or to illuminate it was LEGAL. When hamas uses it to target children it is a war crime. So why do you defend the Palestinians war crimes and yet condemn the legal use of weapons by Israel to defend against Palestinian war crimes. After seeing the tunnels underneath Israeli schools packed with H.E. any decent human being would be condemning the Palestinians in the highest terms and demanding the UN take military action against the terrorists in Palestine.

 

[José]

The first part of this OP clearly demonstrated that starting at the end of WWII western societies and the average western citizen represented here by Coyote's posts and treads, started to fully humanize racial minorities in western countries and the world in general, dehumanize the native population of palestine and superhumanize the jewish people.

These three groups of human beings are iconographically represented below:

RUBY BRIDGES' UNIVERSE

A group of human beings who, after being brutalised by a white ethnocracy for more than 300 years, finally had their full humanity completely restored after WWII.

Once in possession of the same humanity as the anglo americans portrayed here:

they could no longer be forced to study in segregated schools, let alone, kept in racial enclaves like reservations or Gaza, surrounded by white american soldiers with orders to shoot any tresspasser.

PALESTINIANS' UNIVERSE

A group of human beings, who despite being dehumanized by the late Ottoman Empire and later by the british Empire for decades prior to WWII, only achieved a status of full "subhumanity" in the eyes of westerners after the last major military confrontration on european soil.

Having been devoided after WWII of the set of rights that characterizes full human beings, the same western societies and peoples that started feeling disgusted by the treatment given to Ruby Bridges' people and native americans for centuries began considering the same brutalization of the native people of palestine as "socially acceptable".

Originally posted by Coyote
Then, I'd defend the legally and historically defined borders of my nation with lethal force.

Would you build a wall?

THE JEWISH UNIVERSE

A group of human beings who were "superhumanized", who were given an extra set of "rights" to dehumanize others. The superhumanization of the jewish people, as we all know, was a direct consequence of the the collective sense of guilty generated by the events of WWII.

In possession of this additional set of "rights" the jewish people was allowed to do to the native people of Palestine what the anglo family/anglo society depicted above could not even think of doing to the now fully humanized Ruby Bridges anymore:

Herding them into ethnic enclaves, surrounding the enclaves with fences and machine gun nests and cynically calling the arrest, shooting and murder of palestinians trying to exercise their birthright to move freeely in their own historical homeland in a peaceful, non-violent manner, "self-defence".

Originally posted by Coyote
they have the right to defend their citizens by what ever means necessary. That is the right of any nation. I'm not sure why you think it would mean any nation but Israel.

The use of the world Universe to characterise the set of rights attributed to each of these groups, seems strange at first, but it described perfectly the lifelong indoctrination westerners like Coyote are subjeted to.

She really perceives the rights of Ruby Bridges and the natives of Palestine as two different, unrelated subjects, as if they were not equally human beings, equally members of peoples with a historic presence in North America and Palestine, equally subjugated by a white and a jewish racial dictatorship respectivelly and therefore equally entitled to exactly the same rights.

Bridges and Palestinians, as far as their inherent, inalienable human rights are concerned, are so to speak totally isolated, self-contained "universes" in Coyote's mind and the average westerner's, two completelly separate issues.

This perceived "separation", "unrelatedness" between Ruby's set of natural rights and the set of natural rights Palestinians are entitled to is precisely what allows Coyote to celebrate the peaceful dismantlement of the last remnants of the white racial dictatorship created by the british in North America and at the same time
justify the physical elimination of the native people of Palestine by the jewish racial dictatorship created in Palestine by european Jews without even noticing the paroxistic incoherence of her two views.

But if you think that celebrating the right of Ruby Bridges to study in a white school and justifying the confinement of the palestinan people into ethnic enclaves in Palestine is contradictory enough, absurd enough, crazy enough you're in for a big surprise.

Coyote and the average westerner not only think the native people of Palestine are entitled to only a fraction of the rights entitled by the native people of America and Ruby Bridges.

You're about to find out that driven by the social paradigms created by WWII they believe that foreigners from India and China who never set foot in America or Britain have more right to live in Britain and America and become british/american citizens than the palestinian people to live and be treated as equals in their
historic homeland.

Fasten your seatbelts because things are about to get even nuttier than "just" the celebration of Ruby Bridges studying in a white school and the "justification" of Palestinians being murdered by the jewish racial dictatorship for the "crime" of moving about their homeland.

 

[José]

What follows is a post created by Coyote justifying the destruction of Britain's non supremacist ethnic composition by the mass immigration of Indians, Pakistanis, etc, etc...

Individuals whose grandparents, parents and sometimes even themselves had absolutely no historical right to call Britain their homeland.

 

[José]

So? They are still Brits. Skin color doesn't change that.

White British pupils will be outnumbered in English state schools by 2037, report claims

 

[José]

What follows now is an except of a debate between templarkormac and Coyote where she accuses the US government of racism for simply exercising its sovereign right to control immigration and preserving its non-suprecist ethnic makeup.

She considers the sovereign, absolutely non-supremacist act of prohibiting chinese, african and indian immigration, "damning and shameful periods in US history".

Reminding the readers of the obvious fact that Coyote was reffering to asian and african foreign nationals who, unlike the Palestinian people, didn't have the slightest claim to America as their historical homeland and therefore no inherent, natural right to move to America and become US citizens.

Just listen (read):

I would point out that in 1882, President Chester A. Arthur signed a law which banned all immigration by Chinese laborers.

It then placed severe restrictions on immigration from select countries in Africa and from India.

TEMPLARKORMAC

Yes, and those were some pretty damning and shameful periods in our history weren't they?

Forget our own history? Not in the least. We should not forget it and we should not be repeating it or using it's injustices to support further injustices.

COYOTE

What makes you support one or the other?

 

[José]

You have just witnessed something absolutely surreal, a nuttery that seems to come straight out of a play of the Theater of the Absurd.

The same person who justifies the forced confinement of the palestinian people in 20% of their homeland and their arrest or murder if they "trespass" the limits of the enclave is now accusing America of ethnic supremacism for simply protecting its racial makeup regarding foreigners with no right to live in America.

Ruby Bridges, native americans and the palestinian people were/are the historical victims of two supremacist states. There is absolutely no reason at all, at least if you reject dehumanization, if you believe to be self-evident that all men are created equal, to condemn the former and justify the latter.

If you think it is insane enough to support the peaceful dismantlement of a white ethnocracy and the violent perpetuation of a jewish one you ain't seen nothing yet.

According to the social paradigms that shaped Coyote's mind and most people in the West and the world, not only this woman has the right now to study in any american school, college, institute she desires:

while this group of human beings shouldn't even have the right to move anywhere they want in their homeland:

Not only this, but even individuals going about their businessess on the streets of Beijing without a single ancestor who has ever set foot on the American continent:

have more right to live in the USA than these human beings enduring a forced confinement and exile just a few miles from where their parents and grandparents were born:

These individuals in New Dheli, Madras and Bombay:

have more right to live in Britain than these two human beings:

have to live in their own hometowns of Ybna and Askalon/Ashkhelon respectively.

If America or Britain dares to invoke their right to preserve their non supremacist racial composition by controlling immigration, the same person who advocates the use of lethal force against palestinians will undoubtedly call it an "injustice", a "damning and shameful period" in America's and Britain's history.

Don't get me wrong... There was an awful lot of supremacism and dehumanization going on in America in the previous centuries but NONE OF IT DIRECTED AGAINST WOULD BE IMMIGRANTS, AGAINST NON WHITES RESIDING ABROAD.

Meanwhile, the supremacist state that murders the very same people it should treat as citizens for the "crime" of moving about their homeland is romanticized by Coyote as being a "benevolent" society and "morally superior" to the natives it arrests, shoots and murders as you can see for yourselves in the following quote:

Originally posted by Coyote
I agree. And I think it's important remember that this poisonous message of hate was also being taught in Israel and it wasn't until violence against Arab citizens became unacceptably brutal that Israel decided this was not the society they wanted to be. Palestinians aren't there yet.

What the Palestinian Authority Thinks Concerning a Palestinians State in the WB

If treating Ruby Bridges and Palestinians, both victims of dehumanizing political entities radically different, advocating Ruby Bridges' enfranchisement and the physical elimination of Palestinians, were not unbelievably contradictory, now with chinese and Indians having more right to live in the US and Britain than
Palestinians in Palestine we enter the realm of psychiatry, of the clinically insane.

 

[José]

However anyone who has ever read Coyote's posts is immediately struck by their lucidity, their articulated, concatenated, generally well-thought out nature.

They sound like anything but the ravings of a lunatic.

So what drives a reasonable lady like Coyote to advocate the crazy idea that people from India and China without a single american ancestor since Adam and Eve or darwinian primate have more right to live in Britain and America than those two people in their hometowns of Ybna and Askalon?

The reason why, according to Coyote, anglo americans do not have the right to dehumanize Ruby Bridges the way Jews dehumanize Palestinians can be explained by the first 3 social paradigms created after WWII and I'll quote them from my OP:

1 - Total racial equality among all racial groups of a given country.

2 - The super humanization of the jewish people.

3 - The dehumanization of the palestinian people.

But to understand why Coyote denies Britain and America their right to preserve their non supremacist racial composition and advocates the right of chinese and Indian citizens to become citizens of a land to which they have no ties we have to resort to the fourth and last of the social paradigm of WWII:

4 - The redefinition of western countries as multi-racial nations without a predominant ethnic identity

Western countries were redefined as nations without any racial, ethnic identity and immigration laws were changed allowing massive non-white immigration into the US and Europe.

José

Dehumanization: Palestinians' most powerful enemy

Coyote grew up in post-WWII America. This society taught her the fourth paradigm according to which America was never meant to be an european, white majority country...

The white majority the country had for more than 3 years was the result of an "accident of History" at best or just plain racism at worst. She sees the first 3 centuries of America as a multi-racial country denying its true nature, imposing an "artificial" white majority though immigration control.

So Coyote looks upon the measures 17th, 18th, 19th and 20th century America took to protect its racial composition from non-white immigration as inherently "racist" even though they never harmed a single human being that could be considered even remotely native to North America.

The fourth paradigm fully explains why Coyote like so many westerners is shocked and appalled by America merely protecting its racial makeup without any supremacism while the first 3 explains why she has no problem with a jewish racial dictatorship murdering the people of the land.

 

[José]

I hope this thread helped the readers understand the brutal impact that these social paradigm have our own minds, the minds of people like us, like Coyote, like the average western citizen and even non-westerners since they are also global paradigms nowadays.

These paradigms shape and control our ways of thinking in such a way that the only analogy that makes justice to their tremendous power is a puppeteer manipulating his puppet:

 

[P F Tinmore]

UNRWA, the UN Relief and Works Agency. In the decades of its existence, it has not solved or even diminished the Palesinian refugee problem;

UNRWA is an aid agency. They have no authority to find solutions to the problem.

It is the UNCCP that is charged with finding a solution based on Resolution 194.

 

[P F Tinmore]

3. Civilians shall enjoy the protection afforded by this Part, unless and for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities.

Israeli settlers are necessary, integral, and active members of the settler colonial occupation.

You cannot separate them out as innocent civilians.

 

[Phoenall]

What follows is a post created by Coyote justifying the destruction of Britain's non supremacist ethnic composition by the mass immigration of Indians, Pakistanis, etc, etc...

Individuals whose grandparents, parents and sometimes even themselves had absolutely no historical right to call Britain their homeland.

OF TOPIC SPAM