A friend of Israel must vote no to Palestinian state

[oberliner]

AUSTRALIA should vote no to any resolution for Palestinian statehood that is brought to the UN General Assembly. We should also vote no if the main resolution is put to the Security Council, even if it is delayed there, and a resolution goes to UNGA in favour of observer-state status rather than full membership.

The debate within government is between voting no and abstaining. An abstention would be a dishonourable act of cowardice. If we don't support the motion we should oppose it. Abstention could be read only as prophylactic appeasement to curry favour with the Arab and African blocs in support of our bid for a non-permanent seat on the UN Security Council.

This paltry prize is not worth the compromise of our principles. Julia Gillard's instinct is to vote no. It's a good instinct.

In reality, the UN moves are part of the ugly demonising of Israel.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/opinion/a-friend-of-israel-must-vote-no-to-palestinian-state/story-e6frgd0x-1226142975682

I'm assuming The Australian is a conservative newspaper.

[no limit]

1. You are right. Any supporter of the war crimes that Israel commits on a regular basis should vote no

everyone else that has any moral compass should vote yes. Unfortuantely we know where Obama and the majority of our politicians stand on this issue.

This is white phosphorus raining down on Gaza which is the most densly populated area in the world:



It is a war crime

[oberliner]

2. Where did you get the photo?

There is a basketball hoop in the background.

What location is this?

[PCIntern]

3. Photoshopville. n/t

[no limit]

5. Would you like to bet on that?

But I see your point. How could those savages in Palestine understand such a complicated concept of throwing a ball through a hoop. Everyone knows terrorists don't play sports.

Am i rite?

[no limit]

4. What's your point on the basketball hoop? You can see the news story with a photo here:

http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2009/03/25/israel-white-phosphorus-use-evidence-war-crimes

Although this is the human rights watch the photo comes from Getty images.

[oberliner]

7. Was just trying to ascertain the setting

The basketball hoop was the only clue that stood out.

A high school maybe?

[no limit]

10. I don't know about it being a school are what. But it is the most densly populated area in the world

and Israel is proudly raining white phosphorus on it which is a war crime. And we refuse to do anything about it.

[shira]

11. You say it's a war crime but don't consider intent.

There was a study a while back showing no evidence of white phosphorus on any burn victims in Gaza during OCL.
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?176487-No-evidence-for-white-phosphorus-found-in-Cast-Lead-burn-victims

In fact, the ratio of civilians to combatants killed in Gaza during OCL was BETTER than the USA, UK, or NATO's ratios in recent warfare. Which goes to show Israel took great lengths to ensure the safety of civilians during combat.

UK commander of British forces in Afghanistan even said as much...
http://blog.camera.org/archives/2011/06/uk_colonel_richard_kemp_again.html

If Israel's attacks were malicious and they deliberately tried to harm/kill or murder Palestinians, how on earth did they manage a better kill ratio b/w civilians and combatants than any other western nation in modern times? How did they miss all those people with their WP in one of the most densely populated areas in the world?

:shrug:

Don't buy into the propaganda, unless that's all you wish to believe.

[no limit]

12. Explain the intent of spraying white phosphorus in the context of that picture?

To provide cover? Cover for what?

[shira]

13. If they intended to burn civilians, why isn't there evidence of that happening?

If there was malice involved in OCL, how on earth did Israel manage a civilian to combatant kill ratio better than any other civilized nation?

I'm no military expert, so I can't really answer you. I imagine that if Israel wanted to use WP as a weapon, they'd have been somewhat successful at doing so. The study provided to you shows Israel being extremely incompetent trying to burn civilians deliberately with WP. I can't buy that...

[no limit]

20. You don't consider photographic evidence reputable? Do you not see all the people running away?

And yes, there have been documented cases of people being burned by white phosphorus:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article5470047.ece

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article5521925.ece

So all though I do understand the fact you personally don't buy physical evidence of these actions because it goes against your narrow world view on this issue any rational person can review this evidence and come to the conclusion that Israel was using white phosphorus on these densely populated areas. If this was a mistake or an error on their part they would have come out and said so then allowed an investigation to take place. They didn't do that, they simply denied that they ever used white phosphorus at all when clear evidence contradicts that assertion.

Again, you can believe whatever you want to believe. Just as climate change deniers or evolution deniers believe what they are going to believe. But what you believe doesn't change what actually happened. And I simply don't understand people like you. Why do you unconditionally support Israel? If my statement is that you unconditionally support them is in error then my apologies, simply point out to me what major problems you see with them.

[shira]

23. Those documented cases you brought forth do not prove burns were from WP.

It's pure conjecture.

The study that I linked for you doesn't prove WP was the source of burns either.

===========

I'm still waiting for an answer.

If Israel is every bit as malicious as you say and deliberate in their intent to harm civilians, how on earth did they manage a 1:1 civilian to combatant kill ratio? Better than the US, UK, and NATO?

[no limit]

26. LIke I said, you can choose to ignore photographic evidence as well as indepentent investigations

just as climate change and evolution deniers can choose to deny the basic scientific consensus on those issues.

Is there anything you are critical of Israel on?

[shira]

28. I pointed you to a genuine study proving burns weren't due to WP.

Can you provide any real study that counters that? Not someone else's conjecture?

[no limit]

41. What you provided is a link to some internet message board that doesn't actually have the study

What I provided you was a report from the Times as well as photographic evidence of WP raining down on a populated area in Gaza.

Do you dispute that the photo is taken in Gaza? Do you dispute that what is raining down on those people is WP? If you do not then you can't claim that WP wasn't used. And you can't claim that Israel didn't lie about it.

[Jefferson23]

42. Correct, but it will be ignored regardless.

Times correspondents later established incontrovertible proof that white phosphorus shells were being used after tracing the serial numbers of shells photographed on both sides of the conflict - first stacked beside an Israeli howitzer on January 4, then later partially exploded on the Gazan side.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article6150430.ece

[shira]

43. The link to the study is in #31. The ICRC agrees about no WP burns. See #33. n/t

[no limit]

44. Care to address everything else I said? Jefferson23 already did a good job...

disproving your false claims about the study.

Is the photograph in Gaza? Is it a populated area? Is what is raining down WP?

[shira]

45. Phosphorus wasn't detected in the study. The ICRC agrees. Right? n/t

[no limit]

46. Are you not smart enough to answer basic questions?

Is that picture in Gaza? Is it a populated area? Is that white phosphorus raining down?

[shira]

48. Yes to all 3. But if Israel used WP as a weapon, why did the ICRC representative...

....admit there was no evidence of burns due to WP, just as the study failed to detect? Peter Herby of the ICRC said there was no evidence Israel used it in an inappropriate manner.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=355572&mesg_id=355953

[no limit]

50. So you agree that they threw down WP on a populated city

A city full of innocent children, women, and men but it's okay in your world because they weren't using it as a weapon? That's your logic?

Are you seriously listening to yourself?

[shira]

52. I answered you. I'm still waiting for you to answer me.

Israel also carried out OCL in densely populated areas and managed a kill ratio better than the USA, UK, and NATO.

How on earth did they manage to miss so many targets, both with WP and their other heavy weaponry?

They must have been pretty damned careful, wouldn't you agree?

=====

You've got nothing.

Fact: The study didn't detect phosphorus on burn victims.

Fact: The ICRC said there's no evidence Israel used WP illegally.

Fact: The ICRC said they didn't come across any burn victims in Gaza as a result of WP.

You're just ignoring all this because........? :shrug:

[no limit]

54. IF they missed all those targets they missed by accident

they made a conscious to rain down WP on a populated area full of innocent people. You say that they didn't hit anyone, yet you have no proof for that assertion. But even if what you say is true why does that excuse the attempt? So if I try to kill someone and I fail all of the sudden that is okay? You are not denying what happened, you are simply excusing it by saying it didn't hit anyone (which again is something you are simply making up and have no evidence for).

Your logic here is beyond flawed. And your defense of them in this case if truly cult like.

[shira]

58. You're saying the IDF used WP to deliberately target civilians, right?

Or are you claiming they just weren't careful enough?

I'd say based on the civilian/combatant kill ratio, Israel was extremely careful during OCL. It's very possible some commanders were NOT careful enough with WP and were lucky there were no burn victims due to it. But that's a far cry from accusing Israel as a state of malicious intent and war crimes.

[no limit]

62. It doesn't matter what I'm saying. You just admitted that they sprayed WP on populated areas

what fucking conclusion are you drawing from that aside from they targetted populated areas with WP?

Are you saying they made a mistake? Becuase I haven't once heard you say that nor have I ever heard Israel say that. So please, explain the reason they used WP on populated areas that isn't evil and isn't intentional?

[shira]

63. Yeah, they did use it in populated areas b/c that's where Hamas was hiding and firing from.

There's nothing evil about that on the IDF side, however Hamas shielding among civilians is without question evil. Anyone in the military will tell you WP saves troops' lives.

Do you think the ICRC are intentionally blind hacks paid off by the Israel Lobby? They same the same thing I'm saying.

[no limit]

67. So you just admitted they violated internation law by targetting people with WP

thanks for playing. Have a nice day.

[shira]

70. Uhh, no. Like the ICRC, I'm saying the IDF did nothing illegal and there's no evidence they did.

I'm very sorry to tell you that the ICRC is now infested with Israel Lobby Hasbarados who are just as intentionally blind as you accuse me of being.

You should write to them and express how deeply disappointed you are with them.

You know better than they do...

[no limit]

71. Targetting people with WP is a violation of international law. You just said that's what they did

[shira]

72. You should write to the ICRC because they somehow missed the memo.

Are they irrationally blind pro-Israel hasbarados bought and paid for by the Israel Lobby?

What's wrong with the ICRC in your opinion?

[no limit]

73. Here:

Article 1 of Protocol III of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons defines an incendiary weapon as 'any weapon or munition which is primarily designed to set fire to objects or to cause burn injury to persons through the action of flame, heat, or combination thereof, produced by a chemical reaction of a substance delivered on the target'. The same protocol prohibits the use of said incendiary weapons against civilians (already forbidden by the Geneva Conventions) or in civilian areas.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_phosphorus#Arms_control_status_and_military_regulations

If the ICRC is saying what you say they are saying maybe a quick google search will clear this up for them.

[shira]

75. I've pointed you to what the ICRC said specifically WRT Israel in Gaza during OCL.

In addition to seeing no one exhibiting burns due to WP, they also say Israel did nothing illegally with WP.

Ignore as you will.

I expect nothing less...

[hack89]

76. Looks like they used WP as intended

considering that no civilians were hurt. WP is not banned from use - however care must be taken when being used.

[no limit]

77. Yeah, raining down WP on densely populated areas is being careful

you also have absolutely nothing to verify that no civilians were hurt.

Talking to you people is like talking to a fucking cult. I'm done.

[hack89]

78. One picture of one incident can only take your poutrage so far.

why don't you gather some real evidence?

[shira]

79. Damn shame the ICRC has been overrun by cultish hasbarados.

And good call on the poutrage.

I need to remember to bring that up, like pretty much every post from now on....

[Jefferson23]

47. Israel admits white phosphorus use

Israel has admitted to using white phosphorus during its war on the Gaza Strip earlier this year, but says it did so in accordance with international law.

The admission came in a 163-page document published by the Israeli foreign ministry on Thursday ahead of a UN report next week.

in full: http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2009/07/200973020830886898.html


But you'll keep selling your "evidence" regardless.

[shira]

49. When did Israel admit they used it inappropriately? n/t

[Jefferson23]

51. You have not acknowledged you have passed

along misinformation about it's use. You misrepresent what your "evidence" conclusions were..which were NOT conclusive due to
the slides were compromised...your own report states as such.

Now your focus is on when did they admit they used it inappropriately??

They admit to using it, I suggest you start there. Then perhaps you can find a reason why they would need to use
it all..that there was no other option that does not have such severe consequences.

[shira]

53. I haven't passed along any misinformation. There was no detection of phosphorus on burn victims.

Doesn't matter why there was no detection. You have no case. No evidence anyone suffered burns due to Israeli WP usage. That's just a fact.

And the ICRC spokespeople confirm all that, from the ICRC saying they have no evidence Israel used WP inappropriately to there being no burn victims due to exposure to WP.

--------

Why are you ignoring all this?

All you've got is conjecture. Maybe. Likely. No proof of malicious intent. In fact, there's overwhelming proof Israel was more careful in warfare than any other modern nation in combat. Do you have a habit of accusing other nations of things you can't prove? Or is it just Israel? And if so, why?

[Jefferson23]

55. It is too bad there are no rules about such a post as this one from you.

Ignore Israel's own admission too..be my guest. Trying to change your tactic to when did they admit it was used inappropriately
when you would not acknowledge it was even used at all earlier. I believe the vast majority of people can figure
out the truth from the reports.


Enjoy your propaganda campaign.

[shira]

56. Oh stop. I never denied Israel used WP. Only that they never used it illegally. n/t

[Jefferson23]

59. You denied they were from white phosphorus..you expect anyone

to believe its use burned no one..that is rich.

[no limit]

57. Yet you agree that Israel rained down white phosphorus on populated civilian areas

but you say it's okay because one single study wasn't able to prove it ever hit anyone because they believe the samples were contaminated.

Your are being extremely illogical and I'm not sure if you are doing it on purpose or if you simply choose to be blind.

[shira]

60. Israel did that as state policy? Or some commanders ordered it? Or underlings did it?

The fact of the matter is that the civilian/combatant kill ratio during OCL shows Israel was more careful WRT ensuring civilian safety than any other nation in modern history. If Israel intended to harm civilians with WP as a matter of policy, they certainly would have done so. Given the kill ratio, that's extremely unlikely.

The best you've got is that some officers made poor decisions, weren't careful enough, and were damned lucky they didn't hurt anyone.

That's a far cry from war crimes.

[Jefferson23]

61. The war crimes you are capable of admiting would be that of the US

and any other country imo..that you have made clear to me in this thread.

[shira]

64. Seems I'm not alone as the ICRC says the same thing. They see what you see...

...and they say they have no evidence Israel used WP illegally and there was no one they saw in Gaza who burned from exposure to WP.

You must be bitterly disappointed with the ICRC.

[Jefferson23]

65. This is exactly what I mean when I say it is unfortunate that such a false translation

as yours here can stand.

[shira]

66. It's amazing how you deny ICRC findings. Like they never said anything of the sort. n/t

[Jefferson23]

68. Most people who read will figure it out shira, on that I am confident. n/t

[shira]

69. How would they figure that out? Do they require special reading glasses?

ICRC representatives stated:

a) they had no evidence Israel used WP illegally.

b) they found no evidence of WP burns on victims in Gaza hospitals

======

What other way is there to understand that? Do you have contradictory evidence from ICRC?

Or do you just make shit up as you go along? Throw more feces at the wall hoping it sticks?

[Jefferson23]

27. You're still peddling misinformation, as if the Israeli government was under

some obligation to use white phosphorus AT ALL.

April 23, 2009

White phosphorus in Gaza: from flat denial to final admissionCatherine Philp, Diplomatic Correspondent The “media buzz” to which Israel claims to have bowed began on the morning of January 5. The Times broke news that Israel was using white phosphorus against Gaza and carried a photograph of the distinctive white plumes above densely populated civilian streets. The Israeli military was quick to deny the story, but as the days and weeks wore on, the evidence mounted.

Sheera Frenkel, a Times correspondent in Israel, first heard that Israel was using the incendiary weapon from a former military source. Michael Evans, the defence editor of The Times, then showed defence experts photographs of the shells exploding. They confirmed the finding.

White phosphorus itself is not illegal if used on the battlefield against combatants. Its primary use is as a smokescreen for advancing troops. The controversy in this case was its use in civilian areas where particles of ignited white phosphorus could fall on non-combatants, burning them through to the bone.

Israel's refusal to allow journalists to enter Gaza complicated efforts to follow up the story. On January 8 The Times published accounts from Palestinian doctors contacted by telephone in Gaza of casualties with “strange, very deep burns”.

Times correspondents later established incontrovertible proof that white phosphorus shells were being used after tracing the serial numbers of shells photographed on both sides of the conflict - first stacked beside an Israeli howitzer on January 4, then later partially exploded on the Gazan side.

On January 14 The Times reported the accounts of Israeli soldiers attesting to the use of white phosphorus. The next day, the compound of the United Nations relief agency in Gaza was hit by what UN officials testified were white phosphorus shells.


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article6150430.ece


January 20, 2009

Blind and burnt: Mahmoud, 14, young victim of banned white phosphorus shellingSheera Frenkel in Cairo Israel's three-week offensive in the Gaza Strip may be over but Mahmoud Mattar, 14, will not be able to sense the quiet that has descended on his home town of Jabalya.

Blinded in both eyes, with third-degree burns over much of his torso, Mahmoud lies unconscious in the Sheikh Zayid Hospital on the outskirts of Cairo. He has said little since January 6, when an Israeli attack on his village in northern Gaza left him nearly dead on the street outside his mosque. Doctors say that he will never see again — and that the burns on his body were caused by white phosphorus, a controversial incendiary weapon that Israel originally denied using.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article5549100.ece


Q & A on Israel’s Use of White Phosphorus in Gaza
http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2009/01/10/q-israel-s-use-white-phosphorus-gaza

[shira]

29. Palestinian doctors claimed burns due to WP. You expect otherwise from them?

Hamas controls all information coming out of Gaza, to the point of intimidation.

A genuine study concluded burns were not due to WP.

[Jefferson23]

30. A genuine study? the human rights groups, all respected have

concluded otherwise. The Times reports only add to it, and post your study please.

on edit to add report:

snip* Also, the facts presented in the investigative report are inaccurate, and the investigators' determination that use of these munitions was “only for smokescreen purposes” is not true. In several cases, at least, the military fired phosphorus in the air above populated areas, in circumstances in which justification for creating a smokescreen was unclear given that soldiers were not present in the area. This occurred, for example, in the attack on the UNRWA compound, in the center of Gaza City, on 15 January 2009. HRW's investigation indicates that, around ten o'clock in the morning, six shells, at least three of which contained phosphorus, landed inside the compound. As a result, two warehouses containing food, medical equipment, and humanitarian supplies caught fire. Another example was the attack on the UN school in Beit Lahiya, on 17 January. According to HRW, at six o'clock in the morning, the military fired at least three white-phosphorus shells at the school. Two children were killed.

in full: http://www.btselem.org/gaza_strip/20090521_btselem_to_jag_army_must_stop_using_white_phosphorus

[shira]

31. Yeah, here it is....

http://www.irct.org/Files/Filer/TortureJournal/20_01_2010/Detecting%20phosphorus.pdf

Look at the paragraph at the bottom of page 2 right before the conclusion:

However, when Raman
spectroscopy was applied (Argon-ion-laser,
blue line at 457.9 nm) we were unable to
differentiate the birefringent particles from
the background signals, so phosphorus could
not be detected (Figure 4).

These guys were so disappointed they found no evidence....

[Jefferson23]

32. Do you understand what you posted? That this does not help support

your claim? ALL the reports from human rights groups, and the Times report you reject, but this conclusion
you imagine gives the Israeli government a pass. Prosessing and subsequent staining and mounting of the tisse compromised the results, they even add, LIKELY to be phosphorus compound. For you this is the proof you're trying to convince the poster will redeem the government.

Conclusion
We believe that the inconclusive results
of Raman Spectroscopy in the detection
of phosphorus were due to the processing
and subsequent staining and mounting of
the tissue, which might interfere with the measurement. The birefringent material is
likely to be a phosphorus compound, supported
by the clinical observation of very
deep and very slowly healing burn wounds.
White phosphorus may be used in war as a
smoke screen. Its use against individuals is
prohibited.

[shira]

33. Likely? They found no evidence. They admitted it. Here's WIKILEAKS quoting ICRC...

¶6. (C) Asked about alleged IDF use of white phosphorus, de Veen said he saw no evidence of injuries from white phosphorus at al-Shifa and noted that ICRC previously distributed protocols for reporting suspicious weapons-related injuries. ICRC has not so far received reports through that channel. He told Poloff privately that he saw no pressure for clinicians to give Hamas militants preferential or expedited care.
http://www.cablegatesearch.net/cable.php?id=09JERUSALEM144

[Jefferson23]

34. They admitted what? You just posted what they found and they EXPLAINED

to you what was compromised..and that it likely was phosphorus.


You know what, do yourself and the Palestinians a favor, each time you pull this study out, tell them the story
as you told it to me. At least this way people will realize without wasting too much time that your proof
is a non-existent...so I ask you, always leave a link to your "evidence".

[shira]

35. They admitted they couldn't detect phosphorus. Pretty damned clear.

I admit, they wanted ever so much to find it and that's why the title of their paper and conclusions would lead someone to believe they got the goods on Israel. Too bad they didn't completely bury the fact they couldn't detect phosphorus and prove their case.

Think the ICRC representative was bought off by the Lobby? Maybe he's rightwing. Mistranslation? :)

[Jefferson23]

36. You need a doctor, asap. n/t

[shira]

37. Think the ICRC representative was 'likely' wrong? n/t

[Jefferson23]

38. I just told you, you need a doctor, so he/she can explain it to you.

Good luck shira.

[shira]

40. But I'm now asking you to explain the ICRC representative's statement.

Is he likely right or likely wrong?

[Mosby]

15. No it's not the most densely populated area in the world

Not even close.

[no limit]

21. If I am mistaken on the most densely populated area in the world claim my apologies.

But it is pretty damn densely populated by any standard:

[dtexdem]

6. Any friend of simple justice must vote yes to a Palestinian state.

But those who support oppression and denial of rights, land theft, piracy on the high seas, and war crimes will continue to vote no.

[oberliner]

8. What does that mean for Obama?

He does not support those things but will probably direct the US not to vote yes.

[no limit]

9. It means he doesn't support justice nor does he care for the plight of the Palestinian people

[shira]

14. LOL. Do you realize how ridiculous folks like yourself sound when you say Obama doesn't care?

The irony is that those accusing Obama or Netanyahu about not caring about Palestinians don't give a shit either. In fact, as I'll prove, they're far worse!

Here, we see that not even Palestinian refugees in Gaza or West Bank camps will be given citizenship in a future Palestinian state.
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Politics/2011/Sep-15/148791-interview-refugees-will-not-be-citizens-of-new-state.ashx#axzz1YcjyeLyF

They will continue to be used as political pawns while denied basic rights, citizenship, passports, etc. I have yet to see any pro-Palestinians here vent any outrage at the refugee situation. I have yet to see any pro-Palestinian blogs or publications mention it or voice outrage about it.

Those who don't care about Palestinians - and I'd argue that their anti-Israel supporters actually loathe Palestinians - don't get a free pass to accuse others of the same. Such people couldn't be more vulgar or repugnant.

[azurnoir]

16. didn't 'someone already run a thread on that subject using the same article ?

I am surprised you did not post it so I will

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x364112

[shira]

18. Yes, I did. And not one anti-Israel supporter of Palestinians seems to care that a future Palestine

....won't at the very least make citizens of refugees within the West Bank and Gaza. They will continue to be caged in miserable camps - without passports or voting rights - but as political pawns and weapons against Israel - until Elvis comes back, err, when Avigdor Lieberman turns into a leftwing activist.....damn, I mean when Israel decides to accept 5 million refugees. In other words, they'll be miserable for at least another 63 years. An apartheid state against the very people the very 'moderate' PA claims to represent.

Why no outrage from the Palestinians' number one fans here who claim to care about them?

I can only conclude their biggest supporters here absolutely loathe Palestinians. What other answer makes more sense?

[azurnoir]

19. shira the statement you are making were disproven in the thread that 'someone' ran here

DU Palestinian refugees would have to apply for citizenship just like Jews making Aliyah or will you claim that every Jew on earth is an Israeli citizen?

it is interesting to note the apparent black and white mindset so frequently repeated here Pro-Palestinian equates to anti-Israel, it saddens me to see such things on a liberal website

[shira]

22. You're assuming refugees in Gaza can apply and be accepted without RoR being achieved.

There will be no RoR.

Therefore, refugees in Gaza and the W.Bank can apply all they want for citizenship. The PA/Hamas will never grant them that because those people are more useful as weapons against Israel.

The Ambassador even admitted in the Daily Star interview that this was about RoR.

Abdullah said that the new Palestinian state would “absolutely not” be issuing Palestinian passports to refugees.

Neither this definitional status nor U.N. statehood, Abdullah says, would affect the eventual return of refugees to Palestine. “How the issue of the right of return will be solved I don’t know, it’s too early , but it is a sacred right that has to be dealt with and solved the acceptance of all.” He says statehood “will never affect the right of return for Palestinian refugees.”

The right of return that Abdullah says is to be negotiated would not only apply to those Palestinians whose origins are within the 1967 borders of the state, he adds. “The state is the 1967 borders, but the refugees are not only from the 1967 borders. The refugees are from all over Palestine. When we have a state accepted as a member of the United Nations, this is not the end of the conflict. This is not a solution to the conflict. This is only a new framework that will change the rules of the game.”

[azurnoir]

24. Palestinians already living in Palestine will not be allowed to be citizens of Palestine ?

Is that what you are claiming it's beyond ridiculous what Palestine will be a citizenless state?

[shira]

25. No, refugees within Palestine won't be citizens. Read the article, it's very clear. n/t

[azurnoir]

17. see comment #16 n/t

[Violet_Crumble]

39. Supporting the creation of a Palestinian state is demonizing Israel?

Not only is the Australian a conservative paper that regularly takes a harline pro-Israel line, Greg Sheridan is a RW shill who supported the Iraq war and adored John Howard. His arguments are incoherent and always highly emotion ridden to try to divert people's attention away from noticing that he hasn't for anything substantial to say.

[vminfla]

74. Ad hominem attacks

I suppose if you cannot offer a lucid counterpoint to the article it is better to malign the article and author itself and hope no one notices the difference.

[Violet_Crumble]

80. Yeah, I guess I should have followed yr example in other threads...

Like this one in response to an OP 'Stupid flame bait. I would not recommend this Grotesque propaganda, real twisted.'

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x357193#365082

;)

I know you've only recently joined DU, and might not have noticed yet, but it's a Left Wing forum, and pointing out that writers are conservatives and why their writing is so flawed is not considered to be *maligning*, as that makes the connotation that someone's unfairly crapping on someone who has something worth saying. As this is an American forum, many people wouldn't be aware of who Greg Sheridan is, nor where his political sympathies lie. The poster I was replying to did mention that he suspected The Australian was a conservative newspaper, which is correct. I don't see pointing that out as maligning The Australian, btw...

But while yr in this part of the thread, maybe you'd like to have a try at explaining why supporting the creation of a Palestinian state is demonising Israel?

[LeftishBrit]

81. I don't know much about the newspaper as a whole....

but Greg Sheridan is certainly a pretty hard-right-winger. He is perhaps best known for his article in September 2006 about George Bush: 'A great president for these terrible times'. In September 2009, he complained "Lots of People Love Obama, But Does Anyone in the World Really Fear Him?" So I am not surprised that he is also hawkish on this issue.

[Violet_Crumble]

82. The Australian is Murdoch's flagship newspaper here...

Despite his claim that he doesn't want any involvement in Australian politics, he exerts close editorial control over The Australian, and its views closely reflect his own, not only on Australian politics, but in other areas, such as strong support for Bush and the war in Iraq and partisan support of Israel...