The Palestine thread

[Ball DeBeaver]

Do the "sons of William" know anything about gaelic games? 

[Ball DeBeaver]

Envoys work to end UN's Palestinian refugee status
By BENJAMIN WEINTHAL, MICHAEL WILNER JERUSALEM

03/10/2013 02:35


Prosor: Real obstacle to peace is right of return for Palestinian refugees, not settlements; adds transfer of status "misguided."


NEW YORK – At a small conference at the Harvard Club in Manhattan on Thursday, a host of dignitaries and experts, including Israel's envoy to the UN Ron Prosor, addressed the UN's classification of Palestinian refugees as the principal stumbling block to a peace agreement between Israel and the PLO.

The conference was the opening salvo in the direction of drafting of US legislation meant to end the automatic transmission of refugee status to the descendents of Palestinians that has been taking place since 1948, just as Filippo Grandi, commissioner-general of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA), prepared to hold a press conference on Monday on Palestinian refugees becoming a "forgotten population" in an increasingly turbulent region.

Dr. Daniel Pipes, a leading international expert on the Middle East, opened the conference, declaring that the Palestinian refugee situation is broken, sick, and detrimental to all involved. The current approach by UNRWA "creates a narrative of victimhood and leads to extremism," said Pipes.

The Middle East Forum, a Philadelphia-based think tank where Pipes serves as president, organized the conference, titled Changing US Policy on UNRWA and the "Palestine Refugees."

"No one will admit it... the real obstacle [to a two-state solution] is the right of return for millions of Palestinian refugees," Prosor said. The "refugees problem is the main obstacle to peace, not settlements."

The return of Palestinian refugees "would cause Israel's destruction," Prosor said.

In 1950, there were some 700,000 Palestinian refugees. The current figure stands at more than 5.1 million, though that depends on who is counting.

Historically, refugees who become citizens of another country lose their status as refugees; a large percentage of Palestinians live in Jordan or Syria, though those in Syria are now experiencing an entirely new refugee crisis.

Many participants at the event asserted that double standards applied to Palestinian refugees, in sharp contrast to this general rule of thumb.

Prosor sees UNRWA policy to allow Palestinians to "transfer their refugee mileage to their children" as misguided. "Israel deeply opposes UNRWA's political agenda, but supports its humanitarian agenda," he said, adding that "not one Arab country appears on the top-10 list of UNRWA's donor," and that its funding comes mainly from Western countries.

Although Arab countries are "saturated with petro-dollars," they are not donating adequately to UNRWA, he charged.

According to Prosor, the ration of staff to refugees at the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, which covers non-Palestinian refugees, is 1 to 4,400. UNRWA has a ratio of 1 to 172.

Former Labor and Independence MK Einat Wilf said it is important to debunk the widespread image of Palestinian refugees "huddled in tents.

She cited an EU diplomat who told her: "Do not tell anyone – I know middle class families in Ramallah."

She said the "EU says Palestinians know they won't return to Israel" but urged to the EU "to start telling them that."

Dr. Jonathan Schanzer, vice president for research at the Washington-based Foundation for Defense of Democracies, discussed the "manufactured refugee crisis" among the Palestinians and raised the question of whether UNRWA is a "pro- Palestinian organization," because the organization is pushing back against reforms in Washington. He asked what a Palestinian state would look like, and whether Palestinians could sustain it.

Benjamin Weinthal is a European affairs correspondent for The Jerusalem Post and a fellow with the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.

http://www.jpost.com/DiplomacyAndPolitics/Article.aspx?id=305868

[muppet]

You know the argument is lost when they shout 'anti-semite'.

[Ball DeBeaver]

Sorry, did I miss the bit where it said anything about antisemitism?





No. I just read it again, and still couldn't see one word about antisemitism. Don't worry though, Seafoid will be along soon to get that particular party going.

If you are going to argue against it, then use a reasoned argument, not some 3rd rate put down. Show me where the article is wrong, and we can debate it, otherwise, you are just showing yourself up as being intransigent.

[Ball DeBeaver]

When are people going to realise that they aren't hearing the whole truth from Gaza? Hamas only let you read what they want you to read.



UN Reports the Truth: Hamas Killed BBC Reporter's Baby in Gaza

The UN has issued a report that plainly explains Israel's Pillar of Defense operation and exposes Hamas lies to the BBC.


AAFont Size
By Chana Ya'ar
First Publish: 3/10/2013, 4:42 PM


The United Nations has issued a report with unusual courage and accuracy that plainly tells the tale of Israel's Pillar of Defense counter terror operation – and exposes the lies of Hamas, told to a grieving father and his BBC bureau chief.

In what has become typical of international media, The Washington Post and a BBC bureau chief last November accused and convicted the Israel Defense Forces in a heartrending, angry piece without verifying their information after a fellow editor in Gaza lost his baby son in rocket fire that struck his home.
               
The front page photo of an Arab stringer for a world-class news network, clutching his dead baby son in his arms, tears running down his cheeks, became a powerful icon of the tragedy of the conflict.

It was used by Hamas as propaganda to blacken Israel's name in the media and politically in the international arena as it fought to defend its southern population against Gaza's missile fire.

But apparently very few questioned the source of the rocket fire – certainly not the grieving father, Jihad Misharawi, who at his son's funeral blamed "the Jews"  – nor did BBC Middle East bureau chief Paul Danahar, who came to Gaza to support his colleague, or The Washington Post, which printed the story, written by Max Fisher and "foreign staff", with photos, pub;ished on the front page.

Photos of the damaged home were duly posted, along with a photo of the little child, who is indeed beautiful, and the heartbreaking photo of a grieving father carrying what appears to be his dead son wrapped in shrouds.

"An Israeli round hit Misharawi's four-room home in Gaza Wednesday, killing his son, according to BBC Middle East bureau chief Paul Danahar, who arrived in Gaza earlier that Thursday," Fisher reported in his article along with the paper's "foreign staff" on November 15. "Misharawi's sister-in-law was also killed, and his brother wounded. Misharawi told Danahar that, when the round landed, there was no fighting in his residential neighborhood.

"We're all one team in Gaza," Danahar told me," Fisher wrote, "saying that Misharawi is a BBC video and photo editor. After spending a 'few hours' with his grieving colleague, he wrote on Twitter, 'Question asked here is: If Israel can kill a man riding on a moving motorbike (as they did last month), how did Jihad's son get killed."

Answer:  Jihad's son was killed by Hamas, according to independent investigators from the United Nations. He was murdered by the journalist's own neighbors, the very men who purport to be his biggest protectors, who live in the surrounding buildings in the city where he lives.

According to the advanced version of its report released by the U.N. Human Rights Council released late last week, "On 14 November, a woman, her 11-month-old infant, and an 18-year-old adult an Al-Zaitoun were killed by what appeared to be a Palestinian rocket that fell short of Israel."

A footnote to the section says the case was personally investigated by the U.N. OHCHR, and that investigators believe the attack emanated from Hamas. The terrorist organization – as well as its allied terrorist groups, such as the Islamic Jihad – is well known for launching attacks against Israel from within residential areas in Gaza and maximizing the use of its human shields.
The U.N. document reveals Gaza terrorists fired more than 1,500 rockets at Israel between November 14-21, 2012. For the first time, a number of the missiles reached Tel Aviv and Jerusalem. Six Israelis were killed, including four civilians, and 239 Israelis were wounded. Gaza terrorists readily admitted to aiming at civilian targets.

"While some projectiles were directed at military objectives, many, if not the vast majority of the Palestinian attacks on Israel constituted indiscriminate attacks," noted the report. "Such attacks violate international humanitarian law".
"Most rockets fired by the armed groups did not seem to be directed at a specific military objective. Furthermore many Palestinian armed groups directly and indirectly indicated their determination to – and took responsibility for – attacks on Israeli civilians or large population centers in Israel. Such acts clearly violate international humanitarian law, namely the principle of distinction...

"Another issue of serious concern during the crisis was allegations related to rocket attacks launched by Palestinian armed groups from populated areas in Gaza...some of these rockets may have been launched from underground tunnels....eyewitnesses informed OHCHR that on two occasions rockets were launched from an area south of Palestine Stadium in Gaza City, about 100 meters from a residential area...OHCHR received first-hand information indicating that rockets were fired from areas close to civilian buildings in the east of Gaza City... about 300 meters from several residential houses.

"Launching attacks from populated areas constitutes a violation of customary rules of international humanitarian law, i.e. the obligation to take all precautions to protect civilians. By having done so, the civilian population's exposure to the inherent dangers of the military operations taking place around them was greatly heightened.

"The real questions should be, 'Will The Washington Post print a retraction in the same location as its captivating erroneous front page article? An apology? A new photo? How will BBC bureau chief Paul Danahar respond to this U.N. report, and how to correct the erroneous reports he may have disseminated?,'" Israeli veteran journalist and Middle East analyst Hana Levi Julian pointed out.

"Just a few years ago, a BBC bureau chief was kidnapped by a Gaza terrorist organization and held hostage for nearly five months, his life hanging in the balance. By a miracle, negotiators managed to free him and his life was spared," Julian noted.

"With terrorists breathing down this news organization's neck, scrutinizing the actions of each of its local reporters, can the BBC allow itself to report objectively in Gaza?"

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/166054

[muppet]

Sorry, did I miss the bit where it said anything about antisemitism?





No. I just read it again, and still couldn't see one word about antisemitism. Don't worry though, Seafoid will be along soon to get that particular party going.

If you are going to argue against it, then use a reasoned argument, not some 3rd rate put down. Show me where the article is wrong, and we can debate it, otherwise, you are just showing yourself up as being intransigent.

I read your posts at the start, but they are absurdly biased and I have better things to do. An argument that absolves Israel of any wrong doing because Hamas is worse, is no argument.

And you shouted anti-semite in the 2nd post on this page. Many of the articles you published do the same. The game is up when that is all that is left.

[Ball DeBeaver]

Sorry, did I miss the bit where it said anything about antisemitism?





No. I just read it again, and still couldn't see one word about antisemitism. Don't worry though, Seafoid will be along soon to get that particular party going.

If you are going to argue against it, then use a reasoned argument, not some 3rd rate put down. Show me where the article is wrong, and we can debate it, otherwise, you are just showing yourself up as being intransigent.

I read your posts at the start, but they are absurdly biased and I have better things to do. An argument that absolves Israel of any wrong doing because Hamas is worse, is no argument.

And you shouted anti-semite in the 2nd post on this page. Many of the articles you published do the same. The game is up when that is all that is left.

Maybe you didn't read this bit. I'll post it again.

If you are going to argue against it, then use a reasoned argument, not some 3rd rate put down. Show me where the article is wrong, and we can debate it, otherwise, you are just showing yourself up as being intransigent.

[seafoid]

NEW YORK – At a small conference at the Harvard Club in Manhattan on Thursday, a host of dignitaries and experts, including Israel's envoy to the UN Ron Prosor, addressed the UN's classification of Palestinian refugees as the principal stumbling block to a peace agreement between Israel and the PLO.The conference was the opening salvo in the direction of drafting of US legislation meant to end the automatic transmission of refugee status to the descendents of Palestinians that has been taking place since 1948

More rank hypocrisy. The Jewish claim to Palestinian land is based on the
bible. Written several years before 1948 

[seafoid]

Sorry, did I miss the bit where it said anything about antisemitism?





No. I just read it again, and still couldn't see one word about antisemitism. Don't worry though, Seafoid will be along soon to get that particular party going.

If you are going to argue against it, then use a reasoned argument, not some 3rd rate put down. Show me where the article is wrong, and we can debate it, otherwise, you are just showing yourself up as being intransigent.

I read your posts at the start, but they are absurdly biased and I have better things to do. An argument that absolves Israel of any wrong doing because Hamas is worse, is no argument.

And you shouted anti-semite in the 2nd post on this page. Many of the articles you published do the same. The game is up when that is all that is left.

Maybe you didn't read this bit. I'll post it again.

If you are going to argue against it, then use a reasoned argument, not some 3rd rate put down. Show me where the article is wrong, and we can debate it, otherwise, you are just showing yourself up as being intransigent.

Give it up
Beaver. You are worse than a Jewish Syferus.

[Ball DeBeaver]

Sorry, did I miss the bit where it said anything about antisemitism?





No. I just read it again, and still couldn't see one word about antisemitism. Don't worry though, Seafoid will be along soon to get that particular party going.

If you are going to argue against it, then use a reasoned argument, not some 3rd rate put down. Show me where the article is wrong, and we can debate it, otherwise, you are just showing yourself up as being intransigent.

I read your posts at the start, but they are absurdly biased and I have better things to do. An argument that absolves Israel of any wrong doing because Hamas is worse, is no argument.

And you shouted anti-semite in the 2nd post on this page. Many of the articles you published do the same. The game is up when that is all that is left.

Maybe you didn't read this bit. I'll post it again.

If you are going to argue against it, then use a reasoned argument, not some 3rd rate put down. Show me where the article is wrong, and we can debate it, otherwise, you are just showing yourself up as being intransigent.

Give it up
Beaver. You are worse than a Jewish Syferus.

Here we go again.


Once more for the remedial class.

If you are going to argue against it, then use a reasoned argument, not some 3rd rate put down. Show me where the article is wrong, and we can debate it, otherwise, you are just showing yourself up as being intransigent.

[muppet]

You are the man with the 3rd rate put down of 'anti-semite'.

And I will read what I choose, not what you shout at me.

[Ball DeBeaver]

I have referred to only one person on this board as an antisemite, Seafoid. Would you like to argue that he isn't?

[muppet]

I have referred to only one person on this board as an antisemite, Seafoid. Would you like to argue that he isn't?

He isn't, there is no argument.

[Ball DeBeaver]

I have referred to only one person on this board as an antisemite, Seafoid. Would you like to argue that he isn't?

He isn't, there is no argument.

Even Seafoid can't believe you just said that.

[muppet]

Now you speak for Seafoid?