Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


'What we did was crazy and brutal'

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the Scotland On Sunday site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 20 January 2008
WHEN war erupted in the summer of 2006, Billy McCulloch and his family fled their home in southern Lebanon.
The Israelis were bombing Hezbollah paramilitary forces and invading the nation in response to the kidnapping of two of its soldiers. Nearly a million Lebanese left their homes in the south of the country – an exodus witnessed by a world holding its
breath. It was an experience McCulloch would not wish to endure again. "We went to Beirut," he says. "We could hear the bombs being dropped on the city from Israeli planes. They would come in waves at 20-minute intervals, dropping bombs then flying back to reload. My wife Nadia is Lebanese and grew up with war. It didn't faze her one little bit – but it certainly unnerved me."

McCulloch's son, Thomas Saleem, wearing a Scotland football shirt and playing nearby, says, "Boom boom!" when Dad asks what the war was like.

The 2006 Lebanon war, known locally as the July War and in Israel as the Second Lebanon War, was a 34-day battle between, primarily, Hezbollah fighters and the Israeli Defence Force. The fighting started on July 12, 2006, and continued until a ceasefire brokered by the United Nations went into effect a month later. The brief conflict – brought to the public by 24-hour satellite news channels and the internet – killed more than a thousand people, most of them Lebanese civilians, and severely damaged the nation's infrastructure. Nearly one million Lebanese were displaced from their homes – as were between 300,000 and 500,000 Israelis across the border.

Though the fighting ceased after 34 days and the war ended for the politicians, Israeli soldiers and Hezbollah, 18 months on it continues to cast a dark shadow over the lives of hundreds of thousands of people in Lebanon.

The UN estimates that during the conflict, Israel dropped four million bombs. During the last 48 hours of the war alone, around a million cluster bombs are thought to have been dropped on southern Lebanon, rendering huge swathes of land uninhabitable. When the refugees returned to their villages after the ceasefire they found thousands of unexploded cluster bombs littered like some sadistic plague upon the land. They lay on roads, in gardens, in fields, on roofs, in doorways, inside offices and shops, in homes, in children's bedrooms and in graveyards; even the foliage of plants and trees contained hundreds of the devices, a deadly, hidden harvest waiting to be reaped.

In the first four months following the ceasefire, there were 209 casualties from these bombs – more than one person injured every day. Since then hundreds more – including many children – have been either killed or maimed for life by cluster munitions.

The legacy is not lost on 43-year-old McCulloch. Originally from Ayrshire, he was evacuated from Beirut with his wife and son aboard a Royal Navy warship, along with thousands of other British ex-pats, and taken to safety in Cyprus. From there they were flown to London and wound up at his sister's place in Perth. But when the fighting stopped, they were keen to return home. There, of course, they had to deal with the aftermath of war.

WAIDEH TURKIEH also fled her house but returned as soon as the ceasefire was announced. The 50-year-old holds up a white ribbon to her chest as if it were a medal."This is what killed my son," she says. Thin, drawn and looking older than her years, she is dressed in mourning for the death of her eldest boy, Ali, who was killed by a cluster bomb on August 15, 2006. The macabre memento she holds is from the explosive device that blew up in his face. "I call this the medal of death," she says. She intends to wear mourning for the rest of her life.

Ali, who was just 20 when he died, was Waideh's pride and joy. He was 'the pillar' of the Turkieh family, she says. A considerate young man, he repaired washing machines for a living, having given up his education early to help his mother and father out financially. When I ask what her son looked like, Waideh shows me a framed photograph. In the picture Ali has cropped, dark hair and mischievous teenage eyes. He strongly resembles his father, Khaleed, who sits next to me, drawing heavily on a cigarette.

Waideh, Khaleed and their daughter Hiba live in the village of Zowtar West in the rolling, rugged hills of southern Lebanon. They are not far from the border with Israel, the nation's neighbour and nemesis. In their home, with its concrete roof full of gaping holes from missiles and flying shrapnel, the emotional and physical scars of war are all too visible. Waideh takes back the white ribbon from the bomb that killed her son and explains that the device was lodged in a vine. "When we returned to our village after the ceasefire the men went out checking for unexploded bombs on our land. It was the first day after the ceasefire. Ali survived the war but was killed on the first day of peace. How could that be?" she says.

McCULLOCH LIVES on the outskirts of Nabatieh, a town about 30 minutes' drive from the Israeli border, close to the Turkiehs' home. He has been here since 2003, after taking a job with Mines Advisory Group (MAG), a Manchester-based charity that clears the debris of war in countries such as Angola, Cambodia and Sudan. MAG began working in Lebanon in 2000, at the end of the First Lebanon War, so McCulloch and his colleagues, many of them ex-British forces bomb-disposal experts, were already clearing mines when the July War erupted. The firestorm of cluster bombs means MAG's task now is immense.

McCulloch, a strapping man who once earned a living farming (and, on occasion, as a bouncer on the doors of Motherwell's pubs and clubs), is a senior manager with MAG, in charge of a fleet of customised, armoured vehicles that deal with unexploded bombs. In the five years he has been with MAG, his work has taken him to Albania, Angola and Sri Lanka.

"I suppose it's dangerous work, and not just with the bombs – everyone here has a gun. I'm not just talking about the Hezbollah fighters either," he says, adding jokingly that dealing with Motherwell's hard men on a Saturday night was appropriate training for his subsequent career change.

Despite the black humour, McCulloch is patently aware of the frailty of his existence. Just a few weeks ago, two of his colleagues were killed by an explosive device while clearing contaminated land.

The work can be devastating. In Angola he had to take photographs of a three-year-old who had died of severe head injuries. The boy had been running about, chasing an insect, when he stood on a device. He was fatally injured when it exploded.

We drive to the village of Yohmor, a couple of miles from the border with Israel. A 30-minute journey rises and dips through dusty villages where posters of teenage martyrs join portraits of Hezbollah leader Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah on lamp posts and buildings. The images flutter in the breeze alongside the flags of the main political factions, Amal and Hezbollah, the latter's emblem a green Kalashnikov rifle on a yellow background. Incongruously, the odd KFC outlet appears at the roadside.

We bump along past army checkpoints and the remains of bombed buildings until the remains of Beaufort Castle appear in the distance. Built by the Crusaders, the castle has been occupied by countless armies over the centuries, including Saladin, the Ottomans, the French, the Palestinians and the Israelis. The south has a turbulent history and Beaufort has borne witness to much of the mayhem.

In the shadow of the castle lies the village of Yohmor, home to 5,500 people. When the July War ended, MAG inspected the damage. It found that of the village's 600 homes, 260 were severely damaged, including 40 that were completely razed to the ground. Nearly half the population was left homeless.

Most of the roads were damaged and the surrounding area – much of it olive groves up to 500 years old and grazing land vital to the local economy – was blanketed with cluster bombs. Two villagers died and three were injured in the immediate aftermath as the locals made their first attempt to clear their land; tragically, one of these deaths occurred as the victim was clearing the entrance to the cemetery in order to bury a friend who'd died during the fighting.

Every family who returned to Yohmor after fleeing the fighting faced profound changes. The area is famous for its olive oil – but 33,000 trees are now out of bounds and two years' worth of the crop has been lost already.

MAG has focused its efforts on trying to make the land safe for villagers to farm, since many have been left penniless. "We've had no financial help from the Lebanese government because this is viewed as Hezbollah land," says Moh Ali Korrah, a village elder in Yohmor. "People here have to take great risks to be able to eat."

AT THE time of writing, some 2,610 explosive devices have been removed from Yohmor, and around 134,000 in total across southern Lebanon. This deadly task has been done not just by MAG, but by other charities and the Lebanese army.

Clearing bombs is a painstakingly slow process. In an olive grove we watch a row of eight people wearing plastic face guards, blue flak jackets and yellow gloves. They are on their knees, bent over, their masks nearly touching the ground as they carefully inch forward, checking for explosives with their fingertips in the reddish-brown earth. I ask how much protection they would have if a device exploded. Youseff Hayek, the supervisor, explains that devices are designed to pierce armour-plating and can go through concrete 20cm thick. The teams are trained to move together in a line. They always kneel, Hayek says, because if they stood their legs would be shredded with shrapnel in the event of a blast.

Medics nearby smoke cigarettes and watch closely.

The clean-up operation seems a nigh-on impossible task, but MAG's effectiveness would soar if Israel was willing to provide information on where the bombs were dropped and the number of land-mines and cluster bombs it used during the war. Until it does, Lebanon will never be completely bomb-free, says McCulloch.

The use of cluster bombs is highly controversial, not just here but all over the world. The Israeli daily newspaper, Haaretz, recently quoted an unidentified military leader in the Israeli air force as saying his unit dropped 1.2 million bombs during the July War. "What we did was crazy and brutal," he told the paper.

Israel has refused to participate in the Oslo Process which aims to endorse an international treaty banning cluster bombs which "cause unacceptable and indiscriminate harm to civilians". The second treaty conference takes place in New Zealand next month and 80 countries are taking part; Israel – not the only nation to stock and use cluster bombs – will not attend. Neither will the USA or Lebanon. Ran Gidor, a spokesman for the Israeli Embassy in London, says cluster bombs are perfectly legal. He admits they were deployed during the war but insists they were used solely on military targets. "Israel is a signatory to the Convention on Conventional Weapons, which covers modern warfare, as is the USA and the UK, and we are interested in reforming the use of cluster bombs," he says. "We have passed information to the UN with regards to cluster bombs and provided operational maps. We have not identified exact locations, however, as this would expose our intelligence."

Where do these bombs come from? Globally, 34 countries are together known to have produced more than 210 different types of air-dropped and surface-launched cluster munitions. The United States is the world's largest stockpiler of the weapons and has deployed them most recently in Iraq and Afghanistan.

As a non-governmental organisation, MAG remains neutral. McCulloch himself says he doesn't "give a f*** about any of the politics – we do our job whether it's Lebanon, Angola or Iraq. All we're concerned about is stopping another wee lassie getting her leg blown off."

THE CONTINUING HUMAN suffering in the aftermath of war is hard to avoid in Lebanon. At a school in the village of Siddiquin, which is hosting an event to mark International Day for Cluster Bomb Victims, a couple of hundred excited schoolchildren have gathered in the main hall to watch a magician. Many of them have been traumatised by the fighting. The walls are covered in balloons and posters produced by Unicef to educate children on what cluster bombs look like and what to do if they find one. For some, the advice is too late.

Eight-year-old Mahmoud Balmas lost his right eye after kicking a cluster bomb outside his home last July. Seventeen-year-old Raasha Zayoun lost her left leg below the knee and had her hearing damaged when a bomb exploded in her living-room last January. It had accidentally been brought home inside a bag of herbs her father had collected; her mother and brother were also injured in the blast.

At the end of the show some of the children start to burst balloons. "Pop! Pop! Pop!" The noise echoes loudly round the hall. Raasha's face turns white with shock. The pain of war doesn't end with a ceasefire.
  • The EU's ECHO department, which provides aid across the world, funded Billy Briggs' trip to Lebanon.


For more information or to make a donation, go to www.mag.org.uk



The full article contains 2314 words and appears in Scotland On Sunday newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 23 January 2008 11:18 AM
  • Source: Scotland On Sunday
  • Location: Scotland
  • Related Topics: Middle East conflict
 
1

,

20/01/2008 01:03:49
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
2

FrancesP,

20/01/2008 02:04:45
#1. So you claim Israel were fighting with "their hands tied behind their backs" - and yet they still managed to kill ten times more Lebanese civilians than Hezbollah killed Israelis. Just how many more innocents would the Israeli military have slaughtered had they been as 'uninhibited' as you wish? The mind boggles.
3

Let's have the truth,

20/01/2008 02:21:43
"Had Hezbollah not kidnapped and killed Israeli soldiers there would have been no war".

....Just how many innocent non-Jews have the Israelis locked up in their concentration camps? We may never know.

I'm afraid Israel is the face of modern day evil, backed up by monsters in the whitehouse.
4

Lynne,

USA 20/01/2008 03:43:38
LHTT
And I see it as Hezbollah and Hamas being the face of evil. They have been using suicide bombers at restaurants, hotels, gathering places for teenagers, on school buses, in markets and bus stops. To make matters worse, they use nails and ball bearings so they can cause the most damage with their bombs..It is the modern day evil, backed up by monsters religious extremists in Iran.
5

P.K,

20/01/2008 08:12:11
#2

No Lebanese and Israelis would have died if your warmongering Hezboo had not started out first with plotting a sudden daring raid on Israeli outpost, killing and kidnapping the soldiers, thereby leading the path to war.
6

,

20/01/2008 11:44:50
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
7

,

20/01/2008 12:53:41
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
8

FrancesP,

20/01/2008 15:56:57
#5. 'My' warmongering Hezbollah? Aye, whatever.

This is another example of the standard pro-Israel zealot's world view - anyone who dares to question Israel's right to slaughter as many civilians as it wishes, or to oppress and humiliate an entire people, automatically becomes a cheerleader for Hamas and Hezbollah, and wants the 'destruction of Israel'.

A second part of this convenient delusion seems to be that to justify what happened in 2006 all that's required is to establish that Hezbollah 'started the war'. Then, not only does the mass slaughter of Lebanese civilians become perfectly acceptable, but somehow all those who died at Israel's hands become the 'victims of Hezbollah'.

At some point, if a country chooses to drop cluster bombs on a civilian population, it has to accept a degree of responsibility for the consequences of that action.
9

,

20/01/2008 17:18:19
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
10

,

20/01/2008 20:20:37
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
11

Wally,

By The Rivers Of Babylon (USA) 20/01/2008 23:52:25
there were many newspapers around the world including about a half dozen major newspapers in the US that reported that the 1 or 2 Israeli soldiers taken prisoner by Hezbollah were taken inside of Lebanon, not in Israel. So, there is controversy on this point - whether the Israeli soldier was captured when Hezbollah raided Israel or when Israel raided Lebanon. The early accounts that I believe are that a small group of Israeli soldiers raided Lebanon, Hezbollah killed almost all of them and captred 1 or 2.

The Israeli attack on Lebanon was brutal. Most targets were civilians. they even bombed christian neighborhoods of Beirut. They attacked small villages even in north Lebanon far away from Hezbollah. They attacked civilians on the highway who were fleeing Lebanon due to the bombing. They dropped a million cluster bombs which are weapons only good for killing people, there was no legitimate military purpose for doing that.
12

Wally,

By The Rivers Of Babylon (USA) 20/01/2008 23:56:04
The Israeli occupation creates suicide bombers. Here is a video to demonstrate that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UGXAj2LSbKY

We should also consult Israeli historian Pappe about how it got started. Here is some info on that.

Pappe is an Israeli historian and a senior lecturer at Haifa University, has written a superb account of the Israeli expulsion of the Palestinians from their land in 1948. He says that between 30 March and 15 May 1948, i.e. before any Arab government intervened, Israeli forces seized 200 villages and expelled 250,000 Palestinians. The Israeli leadership stated, "The principal objective of the operation is the destruction of Arab villages ... the eviction of the villagers." On 9 April, Israeli forces massacred 93 people, including 30 babies, at Deir Yassin. In Haifa, the Israeli commander ordered, "Kill any Arab you encounter."

Overall, the Zionist forces uprooted more than half Palestine's population, 800,000 people, destroyed 531 villages and emptied eleven urban neighbourhoods of their inhabitants. Pappe concludes that this was "a clear-cut case of an ethnic cleansing operation, regarded under international law today as a crime against humanity."
13

FrancesP,

21/01/2008 00:58:03
#9. "So, those who ever dare to question Hezboo's right to slaughter as many Israelis as possible as pleasing to do so automatically become as what then??" This point just isn't getting through, is it? See if the words can gently seep in this time - I AM NOT A SUPPORTER OF HEZBOLLAH. I would defend Israel's right not merely to 'question' or even deplore Hezbollah's killing of innocent civilians, but to take proportionate retaliatory measures against it. What I do not defend Israel's right to do is casually slaughter ten Lebanese civilians for every one Israeli death.

"Right, those who died (whether Lebanese or Israelis) in the July war are victims of Hezboo doing!" Where exactly does this chilling logic end? If Israel had dropped a nuclear missile on Beirut eighteen months ago (and unlike Iran we all know they have the capability to do so), would the millions of dead still have been 'victims of Hezboo'? It's time for someone to wake up and smell the coffee all right - and that person is not me.
14

P.K,

21/01/2008 08:53:25
#13

The point I’m making is that, if warmongering Hezboo had not initiated plotting a raid on Israeli outpost, war and civilian casualties would have been avoided. No use whining later at the first sight of casualties knowing fully well that, war will result in suffering and death but sadly, all what Hezboo desires is death and destruction of Israel, to accomplish the agenda of their masters in Iran and Syria. They started the trouble in the first place. So, they are the ones to be blamed and fully responsible.

My link above “Death and destruction are Hezbollah's goals” speaks for it. The terrorist apologists and Hezboo lovers refused to accept the truth of their Hezboo aims for destruction because the truth hurts!! So, there are too plentiful of war mongers and bullies in Hezboo itself.

It’s too convenient for anyone to make comparison and produce figures of how many deaths one side received than the next. In my opinion, one death is as important as ten lives. I expect Israel has nuclear capability but for decades, never do she uses it on her enemies. All these years, she has tried to avoid high civilian casualties (unfortunately anything can happen during war or out of control) and restrained herself hitting the innocents BUT Hezboo shoots her way out at random targeting anything, taking as many lives as possible.

Like what some posters wrote: “Don’t like war. Don’t start it!”, “What would you do to a group of people who persist in firing rockets at your town?” And killed or kidnapped one of your people! Israel would look stupid if she were to stay silent and doing nothing about it to protect her citizens after being attack by terrorists. It was Hezboo who provoked Israel to retaliate back in defence, later leading to war.

I remember to have read that Israel gave Hezboo about a week grace period to hand over the kidnapped soldiers but because Hezboo refused to return the soldiers, Israel was forced to advance into Lebanon. In o
15

P.K,

21/01/2008 08:56:49
continue

#13

I remember to have read that Israel gave Hezboo about a week grace period to hand over the kidnapped soldiers but because Hezboo refused to return the soldiers, Israel was forced to advance into Lebanon. In other words, Israel was not looking to start a war initially and only interested in securing release of her soldiers.
Only the terrorist apologists believe Hezboo has every rights to shoot rockets, kill and kidnap Israelis but when Israel retaliates back, they spouted out hell lots of anti-Jew ranting!!
16

Katyani,

Birmingham 21/01/2008 14:18:44
That's the price to pay for starting the war. What good it is, I saw onlydevastation and death! Leader Nasrallah is an idiot. He cares more toward serving the Iranian regime than for Lebanon and ordinary Lebanese folk.
17

Lee Morgan,

21/01/2008 15:03:54
PK – I read with interest the links you sent. These go to prove there are good reasons to believe Hezbollah are warmongering lords and bully boys. Yeah, these power hungry bigots also want to topple the elected Lebanon’s government! Not at all too difficult to figure out who the real troublemakers are, with plenty of them found in Hezbollah terrorist organization.
18

FrancesP,

21/01/2008 17:18:25
#15. "Only the terrorist apologists believe Hezboo has every rights to shoot rockets, kill and kidnap Israelis but when Israel retaliates back, they spouted out hell lots of anti-Jew ranting!!" So, in your view, anyone who dares to question Israel's disproportionate use of force in 2006 is a 'terrorist apologist' and 'anti-Jew'. Thankyou for so eloquently (ahem) and comprehensively proving the point I made in post #8.
19

Taraman,

21/01/2008 19:04:44
Why do comments on a story about the long-term effects of cluster bombs turn into debates about:
1. Who started it?
2. Do they deserve it?
3. Israel vs. Hizbollah?

Get your political beliefs out of the way and read about lost limbs and devastated lives. If you are really interested in helping, stop petty bickering and make a donation to one of the organizations trying to clear up the millions of cluster bombs and mines that are left behind, long after a war is "over".
20

SMG,

Beit Shemesh, Israel 21/01/2008 21:39:45
Wally: "The Israeli occupation creates suicide bombers"

Paraphrasing what FrancesP wrote in #8,

This is another example of the standard pro-Palestine zealot's world view - anyone who dares to question the Palestinians' right to slaughter as many civilians as they wish, or to oppress and humiliate an entire people, automatically becomes a cheerleader for the settlements, and wants the 'destruction of Palestine'.

A second part of this convenient delusion seems to be that to justify what happened in the Second Intifada all that's required is to establish that Israel 'started the conflict' or 'used terrorism in 1948' or 'occupied the West Bank and Gaza in 1967' or whatever. Then, not only does the mass slaughter of Israeli civilians become perfectly acceptable, but somehow all those who died at the Palestinians' hands become the 'victims of Israeli occupation'.

At some point, if a nation chooses to use suicide bombers against a civilian population, it has to accept a degree of responsibility for the consequences of that action.
21

SMG,

Beit Shemesh, Israel 21/01/2008 21:53:03
FrancesP, re #8 and 18, it isn't enough to describe or criticize the "standard pro-Israel zealot's world view". We have to try to understand why that world view developed. What are its root causes? And what can be done to remove the causes and relieve the distress that leads some people to adopt such a world view?

Luckily for us, examples of the root causes of pro-Israel zealotry are frequently on display on these pages. I refer to vile anti-Semitism as characterizes the writings of people such as Wally, as well as common anti-Israel bigotry and the frequent application of mind-numbing double standards by many people who seem driven by an unhealthy obsession to criticize Israel.

In short, if you and your country were on the receiving end of all of this cr*p, you too might become a zealot. And the best way to eliminate the "Israel can do no wrong" zealotry that we see here occasionally is to eliminate the "Israel can do no right" zealotry that constantly plagues this and many similar forums.
22

FrancesP,

22/01/2008 01:03:12
#21. I don't how much of that is really directed at me and how much at Wally. Obviously I can only be responsible for what I say, and I certainly have never taken the view that Israel can do no right. It's a democratic state, and in SOME ways it has a reasonable human rights record within its own borders - with one famous exception, it has never practiced capital punishment, which is more than the United States can claim. I just wish Israel would recognise that the concepts of democracy and human rights do not cease to apply when it acts outside its own recognised borders, or against non-Israeli citizens.
23

SMG,

Beit Shemesh, Israel 22/01/2008 02:12:51
FrancesP #22,

All of #21 was directed to you, but don't take it as criticism. I wasn't accusing you of saying that Israel can do no right or of having any of Wally's views. My #21 was just a comment prompted by and in response to your #8 and #18.

FrancesP: "[Israel is] a democratic state, and in SOME ways it has a reasonable human rights record within its own borders - with one famous exception, it has never practiced capital punishment, which is more than the United States can claim."

I agree, and practicing capital punishment only once is "more" than just about any other country can claim. As it happens, I don't oppose capital punishment in all cases, and certainly not in the case of Eichmann, so maybe we disagree about that. But yeah, the United States, among others, dishes out capital punishment too freely and with at least the appearance of unfair discrimination. I wouldn't want Israel to follow its example.

FrancesP: "I just wish Israel would recognise that the concepts of democracy and human rights do not cease to apply when it acts outside its own recognised borders, or against non-Israeli citizens."

Yes re human rights, but democracy? While democracy is itself a human right, it isn't something Israel can provide to others outside its borders. They'll have to work that out for themselves.
24

FrancesP,

22/01/2008 02:34:33
#23. "Yes re human rights, but democracy? While democracy is itself a human right, it isn't something Israel can provide to others outside its borders. They'll have to work that out for themselves."

What I was getting at there is that Israel was able to unilaterally decide how many of the Palestinians who found themselves under occupation after 1967 were to be granted Israeli citizenship and the right to vote in Israeli elections. It's true that most Paelestinians wouldn't want these rights anyway, but there is an important principle at stake here. If Israel continues to deny the Palestians both statehood and Israeli citizenship (and the consequential voting rights) there is a blindingly obvious democractic deficit.
25

SMG,

Beit Shemesh, Israel 22/01/2008 03:32:51
FrancesP: "What I was getting at there is that Israel was able to unilaterally decide how many of the Palestinians who found themselves under occupation after 1967 were to be granted Israeli citizenship and the right to vote in Israeli elections."

In general, the answer is none. Israel did not annex the West Bank or Gaza. In terms of normal democratic practice, it had no obligation to extend Israeli citizenship to Palestinians in those territories, and there was no expectation that it would or should do so.

The Golan and East Jerusalem are somewhat different. In these areas, Israel did extend its civil jurisdiction, as opposed to keeping them under military rule, and this is interpreted as defacto annexation.

In these areas, Israel offered citizenship to any permanent residents who wanted it. In East Jerusalem, this includes not only Palestinian Arabs but also Armenians and a few other other minority groups, such as the small Dom (Gypsy) community. In the Golan, this includes Syrian Druze plus one Alawite village.

Once Israel made this offer, it could not unilaterally decide how many of Palestinians would be granted Israeli citizenship and the right to vote in Israeli elections. There were no quotas or caps. It was a blanket offer, and completely up to the Palestinians and others in East Jerusalem and the Golan to decide if they would accept it.

In addition to this, Israel has granted Israeli citizenship to some Palestinians from the West Bank and Gaza who married Israelis, in the framework of a family reunification scheme. This was, I believe, stopped because of the Second Intifada and the danger that Palestinians terrorists would use fictious marriages as a way to get into Israel.

In general, every state has a right to determine how many immigrants or new citizens it will accept, and whom. This is universally done in a discriminatory manner, on the basis of factors such as nationality, education, wealth, health, family status, etc. Immigration
26

SMG,

Beit Shemesh, Israel 22/01/2008 03:33:39
continued...

This is universally done in a discriminatory manner, on the basis of factors such as nationality, education, wealth, health, family status, etc. Immigration and naturalization law is one area that is specifically exempt from international law barring discrimination on the basis of nationality, country of origin, and such.

FrancesP: "It's true that most Paelestinians wouldn't want these rights anyway, but there is an important principle at stake here. If Israel continues to deny the Palestians both statehood and Israeli citizenship (and the consequential voting rights) there is a blindingly obvious democractic deficit."

Israel does not deny the Palestinians statehood. They have been offered a state a number of times, such as in the 1937 Peel Commission plan, the 1947 UN Partition plan, and the offers suggested by Barak and Clinton in the 2000 Camp David Summit and 2001 Taba negotiations. In recent history, the entire peace process and all particular proposals have included the provision for a Palestinian state.
27

FrancesP,

22/01/2008 04:10:23
Just to clarify - when I said that Israel unilaterally decided which Palestinians to grant citizenship to, I was referring to the very fact that it de facto annexed East Jerusalem but not the rest of the West Bank or Gaza. As I understand it, this selective annexation is still not internationally recognised, and it therefore means that Palestinians have been granted or denied Israeli citizenship on an entirely arbitrary basis. This is all rather convenient from an Israeli point of view, because it was presumably intended to keep the Arab share of the Israeli electorate at an acceptably low level.
28

SMG,

Beit Shemesh, Israel 22/01/2008 05:03:42
FrancesP, re 27: "[Israel] de facto annexed East Jerusalem but not the rest of the West Bank or Gaza."

Correct.

FrancesP: "As I understand it, this selective annexation is still not internationally recognised"

Correct.

It also wouldn't have been recognized if Israel annexed the West Bank and Gaza together with East Jerusalem. The final status of the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem can only be determined through mutual agreement; this is the only way to settle the dispute that has international legitimacy. Israel and the Palestinian Authority are also obligated to such a negotiated solution as per the Oslo Accords.

FrancesP: "and it therefore means that Palestinians have been granted or denied Israeli citizenship on an entirely arbitrary basis."

No, you make a jump here that is not logical. There is nothing arbitrary about this. Palestinians have been offered Israeli citizenship where Israeli civil law, not IDF military occupation and not rule by the Palestinian Authority, prevails.

FrancesP: "This is all rather convenient from an Israeli point of view, because it was presumably intended to keep the Arab share of the Israeli electorate at an acceptably low level."

1) There is nothing necessarily illegitimate or undemocratic about making policy decisions that, among other things, is convenient from an Israeli point of view.

2) Jerusalem - east and west - was never assigned to a Palestinian state. What became known as "East Jerusalem" had a significant Jewish population for, well, thousands of years, and this only came to an end with the illegal Jordanian occupation in 1948/49 and ethnic cleansing of Jews who lived in the Jordanian held territory. Once in control of the entire city, there was no reason for Israel to perpetuate the results of this illegal Jordanian discrimination, and no reasons.

3) Countries draw borders based on conditions of ethnic diversity and the desire to maintain a particular nation identity all the time. So
29

P.K,

22/01/2008 05:30:32
#18

And also thank you for expressing in your own words to reveal your true colour, to prove yourself prejudiced against one race and applying double standard in your judgement. It seems as though Hezboo was justified to plot the raid, murder and kidnapping of the soldiers!!

So to you, anyone who dares to question, condemn and blame Hezboo for the loss of lives and destruction might be anti-Lebanese and pro-war. It sounds as though Hezboo bore no full responsibility for what they had started in the first place and the consequences of their action. The fact is, Hezboo is the one at fault who caused all the destruction and miseries.
30

P.K,

22/01/2008 05:32:39
#19

Don't missed these out: Hezboo had also shot cluster bombs into Israel and many Israeli soldiers have lost their limbs too! The Lebanese are not alone facing such problems brought about by Hezboo.
31

FrancesP,

22/01/2008 16:16:50
#25/26/28. Much of this sounds eminently reasonable on the face of it, but two major problems leap out at me -

1) You seem to base much of your argument on why Israel extended citizenship to one group of Palestinians but not another on the international conventions governing occupation - because the West Bank and Gaza were under military occupation there was "no expectation that it would or should" extend citizenship to Palestinians residing there. Fair enough, as far as it goes. But surely it is then incumbent on you to demonstrate where those international conventions in any way contain provision for the occupying power to unilaterally decide, for its own self-interested reasons, that one particular part of the territory under occupation will be 'transferred to its civil administration', ie. annex it. Even on the assumption that this is only being done on a provisional basis pending final status negotiations, I would be amazed if any such provision exists. Therefore, I remain confident that my point about Palestinians being granted or denied Israeli citizenship on an arbitrary basis holds true.

2) The credibility of your response to my more general claim about Israel denying Palestinians their democratic rights rests entirely on the assumption that Israel is committed to Palestinian statehood as part of a negotiated package. I accept that, theoretically, this commitment has been made. But I also note the endless stream of conditions Israel lay down before they will allow meaningful negotiations to even commence. If these pre-conditions have the practical effect of denying Palestian statehood for an indefinite period, any theoretical commitment to such a goal is rendered utterly meaningless.
32

FrancesP,

22/01/2008 16:46:23
#29. Just for future reference, would you mind telling me what it was I said in this thread that first gave the game away that I'm such a big fan of Hezbollah kidnappings and killings? Was it perhaps when I said in big capital letters "I AM NOT A SUPPORTER OF HEZBOLLAH"? Or was it maybe when I said that Israel had the right to take proportionate retaliatory action against Hezbollah? I really must learn to stop being so transparent.
33

Lynne,

USA 23/01/2008 04:07:34
It is a little one sided for you to view that the Palestinians are the only ones committed to achieving statehood!!?
Israel has been the one jumping thru hoops to keep theirs.
Israel is the one returning land for peace. Yet they have not gotten that either.
And it's the palestinians who are refusing statehood, like they have since 1948.
34

FrancesP,

23/01/2008 04:56:53
Lynne, I've read many of your posts on other threads - I even had a little exchange with you myself a couple of months back - and based on that experience it is frankly hard to keep a straight face when I see you suggesting someone else might be "a little one-sided"!

Whatever happened in 1948, this notion you keep peddling that the Palestinians are "refusing statehood" is plainly silly, and an instantly transparent diversion tactic. If what you're getting at is that they won't accept statehood at absolutely any price, that might be nearer the mark - but that would also be a very different statement.
35

Finnking,

Lempäälä 23/01/2008 07:11:41
In just the first sentence we see the NEWSPEAK at work, the re-writing of history:

"The Israelis were bombing Hezbollah paramilitary forces and invading the nation in response to the kidnapping of two of its soldiers."

Reading this, the reader would be excused in thinking that the Israeli forces exclusively targetted paramilitary aspects of Lebanon. They also targeted houses, factories, key roads, power stations and bridges.

Further, we read that the Israeli did this because of two "kidnapped" Israeli soldiers. Again the memory hole is at work. In the week prior to the "capture" of two Israeli soldiers, two Palestinian brothers were 'kidnapped' by the Israeli forces form with the Palestinian territory. No mention of that.

In one small opening paragraph the agenda for the story is set.

Very sad.

Moika!
36

P.K,

23/01/2008 08:31:50
#32

Your overall posts gave an impression being supportive of Hezboo ambition. I've found you are quick to question and condemn whatsoever Israel did during the Lebanon July war, however disregard the atrocities committed by Hezboo. This is one-sided and not fair!

Like you, I also regret Israel dropping bombs off targets, killing the civilians along side with the Hezboo militants. What the terrorist apologists deliberately tried to omit is, putting aside the fact that Hezboo was also doing the killing and targeting the civilians, at the same time using civilians as "human shields" and operated from populated residential areas!!!

Terrorist apologists only aimed their fierce accusation on Israel killing the civilians but they condone Hezboo committing war crimes. So, it seems Israelis are bad whereas the Hezboo are good despite the fact that, the latter are the main culprits plotting the raid, murder and kidnapping of Israeli soldiers in the first place.

If Hezboo had handed back the kidnapped soldiers, Israel would not have advanced into Lebanon. As such case, large scale war would have avoided then.
37

P.K,

23/01/2008 08:36:45
#34

Huh, you wrote you had a little exchange with Lynne a couple of months back! But your ID as "FrancesP" is new to me, I have never come across it on the Israeli-Palestinian-Hezboo articles before. What is your old ID?
38

P.K,

23/01/2008 08:45:19
Rewriting of history, twisting historical facts and deliberately failed to mention Hezboo was also targeting the civilians are what the terrorist apologists very good at, littering lies and crap in the forum. Any governments in their respective countries should arrest anyone who plots terrorist activities meant to cause unrest, death and rioting.
39

,

23/01/2008 08:49:54
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
40

P.K,

23/01/2008 13:06:56
Pathetic troll removing posts!!!

So, those who ever dare to question Hezboo's right to slaughter as many Israelis as possible as pleasing to do so automatically become as what then?? Wake up and face the reality! Right, those who died (whether Lebanese or Israelis) in the July war are victims of Hezboo doing! The warmongering Hezboo are the real troublemakers and fault finders who caused and started the July war in the very first place. Therefore, they are fully responsible for the destruction and deaths.

They are greedy for power; making use of Lebanon as rocket launching pad and also plotted to overthrow the Lebanese government of PM Seniora. They also hid in populated residential areas, storing missiles and weapons and operated from there beside using civilians as human shields!

They also used civilian casualties as media weapon to attract world sympathy and bleeding hearts like you. What make you think your Hezboo did not use cluster bombs on civilian population??? The blood of the innocents is on their hands too!
41

P.K,

23/01/2008 13:09:06
So the truth hurts!

http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2006/08/08/death_and_destruction_are_hezbollahs_goals/
Death and destruction are Hezbollah's goals

http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2006/10/18/lebano14412.htm
Hezbollah Hit Israel with Cluster Munitions During Conflict

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/08/12/wmid112.xml&CMP=ILC-mostviewedbox
Hizbollah buys frontier land to attack Israel
42

P.K,

23/01/2008 13:11:07
Nothing of this kind would ever have happened if not for the warmongers and bullies such as Hezboo plotting and starting up with the raid!! The UN was even being used as "shield" and civilians not spared with Hezboo's random shooting of cluster bombs and rockets packed with thousands of ball bearings deliberately intended to cause maximum injuries, death and casualties into Israel.

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=37278180-a261-421d-84a9-7f94d5fc6d50
Hezboo was using UN post as "shield"

http://yalibnan.com/site/archives/2006/09/hezbollah_decla.php
Power hungry Hezboo declares war on Lebanon's government. Quote from the link: Lebanon as a country was the biggest loser in this war and Hezbollah is the only party to blame for this.

The good news is, Hezboo terrorists will think twice kidnapping anymore Israeli soldiers again
43

FrancesP,

23/01/2008 15:16:38
#37. Now I've heard it all. First I'm a supporter of "Hezboo", an "anti-Jew" and a "terrorist apologist". Now, most heinous crime of all, I'm...using multiple identities on the Scotsman message boards.

One slight problem, though - I'm not. I've been posting here since April 2007, and always under the ID of FrancesP. From memory, my exchange with Lynne was in early November. I can hardly be held responsible for the fact you didn't happen to read it (or perhaps have forgotten it), but to bring you up to date it followed a very similar pattern to what you have done on this thread - she accused me of 'not wanting an Israel' on the sole grounds that I had some weird problem with Israel dropping a million cluster bombs on Lebanon.

If you require proof of how long I've been using this ID, use Google to find the Scotland on Sunday article entitled 'Voters who ask a silly question, get a chilling answer', dated 29th April 2007. You'll find me at post #4. Since then, I have posted about Scottish politics (a lot), the Liberal Democrat leadership election, the Israel/Lebanon conflict, the Israel/Palestinian conflict, global warming, nuclear power, nuclear weapons, and last but not least the right of women to bare their breasts at Swedish swimming pools. All under the ID of FrancesP.

So wrong yet again, P.K.
44

SMG,

Beit Shemesh, Israel 23/01/2008 17:37:24
FrancesP, re 31: "You seem to base much of your argument on why Israel extended citizenship to one group of Palestinians but not another on the international conventions governing occupation..."

Not exactly. Let me put it this way: Since Israel treats East Jerusalem and the Golan as defacto annexed territories, with few or no differences between these areas and what is sometimes called "Israel proper" (i.e., Israel within the pre-1967 lines), it was appropriate/right/fair to offer Israeli citizenship to the residents of these territories, which is what Israel did.

FrancesP: "surely it is then incumbent on you to demonstrate where those international conventions in any way contain provision for the occupying power to unilaterally decide, for its own self-interested reasons, that one particular part of the territory under occupation will be 'transferred to its civil administration', ie. annex it."

1) It isn't incumbent on me to demonstrate anything. This is not a court of law and I am not some official representative of or spokesman for the Israeli government. If you disagree with or don't understand some Israeli policy or find something Israel does to be inconsistent, illogical, etc., that's fine. I can live with that. Believe me, there are plenty of policies of my government and yours with which I disagree, that I don't understand, that I find inconsistent, illogical, etc.

2) International conventions on occupation make no provision for the occupying power to annex anything. That doesn't mean that such annexations don't ever happen, or are necessarily illegal or illegitimate.

The way I see it, a country's borders are determined by a combination of factors, including the country's ability to sustain and enforce those borders and the willingness of others to respect those borders, as well as international and bilateral treaties and other such agreements. Note that only the latter is grounded in law. The former are a matter of, for lack of a better term,
45

SMG,

Beit Shemesh, Israel 23/01/2008 17:38:25
continued...

The former are a matter of, for lack of a better term, power politics and convention (not in the legal/diplomatic sense, but in the sense of accepted or traditional or customary practice).

In other words, borders are determined by what a country can "get away" with and defend; what the rest of the world, and especially its neighbors, are willing to live with and recognize, often based on what they view as a country's legitimate, natural, traditional, historic, or customary borders; and the specific provisions written down in negotiated, mutual agreements, treaties and such.

Sometimes, of course, the non-legal determinants are later reinforced, supported, and formalized in legal treaties. But not always.

Using the example of Israel, some of its borders are formally defined and determined by treaties with Egypt and Jordan. Others are defined by the League of Nations treaties that determined the borders between the British and French Mandates. The Green Line is an armistice line, not a formal international border. Still, it enjoys widespread recognition and legitimacy in the sense that few if any countries that recognize Israel at all challenge its sovereignty within the Green Line. Finally, there are the borders around the Golan and East Jerusalem, which no one but Israel formally recognizes. So, we have some borders determined by formal legal treaty, some by convention and widespread recognition, and some simply by our ability to maintain them, even lacking international recognition.

3) The Geneva Conventions only refer to the occupation of territory belonging to a sovereign state. The assumption is that one cannot annex occupied territory since it already belongs to another country.

But this is not the case with the West Bank and Gaza. They were previously under the illegal occupation of Jordan and Egypt, respectively, and before this were, like the rest of Israel/Palestine, ruled by one foreign empire after another, going all the wa
46

SMG,

Beit Shemesh, Israel 23/01/2008 17:39:18
continued...

They were previously under the illegal occupation of Jordan and Egypt, respectively, and before this were, like the rest of Israel/Palestine, ruled by one foreign empire after another, going all the way back to ancient times. (Note that the last example of local sovereignty in the West Bank was that of the ancient Hasmonean Jewish kingdom.)

The bottom line is that, while the West Bank and Gaza were, and to some extent still are, occupied by Israel, they are also disputed territory to which Israel has legitimate claims.

A peace agreement that settles all conflicting claims through some mutually agreed compromise is the ideal way to solve the conflict, but not the only way. If one side refuses to recognize and negotiate with the other, it may find that the other side simply makes whatever unilateral decisions it can to satisfy its claims in the disputed land.

FrancesP: "Even on the assumption that this is only being done on a provisional basis pending final status negotiations"

According to the Oslo Accords, the final status of all of Jerusalem (east and west) is subject to a negotiated agreement. Likewise, from 1992, every Israeli government has participated in open and clandestine peace negotiations with Syria which include proposals for an Israeli withdrawal from much or all of the Golan Heights. In other words, defacto annexation has not prevented Israel from considering these territories to be negotiable. So yes, it sure looks like things are being done on a "provisional basis pending final status negotiations".

FrancesP: "I would be amazed if any such provision exists."

As I said, agreements such as the Geneva Conventions make no provision for the annexation of occupied territory.

FrancesP: "Therefore, I remain confident that my point about Palestinians being granted or denied Israeli citizenship on an arbitrary basis holds true."

And I still dispute your use of the term "arbitrary". East Jerusalem and the Golan are def
47

SMG,

Beit Shemesh, Israel 23/01/2008 17:40:06
continued...

And I still dispute your use of the term "arbitrary". East Jerusalem and the Golan are defacto Israeli territory, and Israel offered citizenship to their residents. The West Bank and Gaza are not defacto Israeli territory, and there, citizenship was not offered. How is that arbitrary?

FrancesP: "The credibility of your response to my more general claim about Israel denying Palestinians their democratic rights rests entirely on the assumption that Israel is committed to Palestinian statehood as part of a negotiated package."

Strictly speaking, I disagree. As it happens, yes, Israel is committed to Palestinian statehood as part of a negotiated package. But really, statehood is only one of many legitimate democratic options. And despite what you wrote to Lynne in #34, it isn't clear that the Palestinians themselves are so "committed to Palestinian statehood as part of a negotiated package". It is hard to square this with their record of turning down statehood multiple times, including in 2000/2001, when the package included statehood in 100% of Gaza and something like 95% of the West Bank. True, it was their right to turn this down, but the fact that they didn't make any offers of their own could indicate that statehood alongside Israel isn't their goal.

FrancesP: "I accept that, theoretically, this commitment has been made. But I also note the endless stream of conditions Israel lay down before they will allow meaningful negotiations to even commence."

I don't know what that means. Israel "laid down" two very basic conditions before it would recognize and negotiate with the PLO -- recognize Israel and renounce terrorism. Arafat did this in the name of the PLO in September 1993, and meaningful negotiations began immediately. At the same time, Arafat began giving speeches in which he explained how this was basically a trick and the first step toward destroying Israel; terrorism not only didn't end but skyrocketed; and the PLO dragged its fe
48

SMG,

Beit Shemesh, Israel 23/01/2008 17:41:03
continued...

At the same time, Arafat began giving speeches in which he explained how this was basically a trick and the first step toward destroying Israel; terrorism not only didn't end but skyrocketed; and the PLO dragged its feet incessantly on changing those parts of its Charter which called for Israel's destruction, ultimately failing to take the steps that Arafat promised in his September 1993 letter to Rabin.

So this and plenty of other things complicated the Oslo peace process -- both negotiation of the interim agreements, and the final status negotiations. Of course you know what happened at Camp David in 2000, with the launching of the Second Intifada, and the last ditch efforts to negotiate at Taba in 2001. The possibility of "meaningful negotiations" was severely compromised by the Second Intifada, but the only conditions set by Barak and later Sharon were for the violence to end or at least be significantly curtailed. If Fatah and the Palestinian Authority could show that they were at least taking meaningful steps to stop the terrorism rather than actually encouraging and participating in it, that probably would have been "good enough".

Of course you know about the efforts by the Quartet to end the stalemate and restart a meaningful peace process, including a long string of plans -- Sharm El Sheikh, Tenet, the Roadmap, blah blah blah. If this is what you describe as an "endless stream of conditions Israel lay down", we understand reality quite differently. Anyway, now we have Annapolis and a new round of negotiations. For a variety of reasons, no one is especially optimistic, and we'll see what happens.

FrancesP: "If these pre-conditions have the practical effect of denying Palestian statehood for an indefinite period, any theoretical commitment to such a goal is rendered utterly meaningless."

Again, I don't really know what you're talking about. But one could likewise say that, while the Palestinian leadership -- that is, the more mo
49

SMG,

Beit Shemesh, Israel 23/01/2008 17:41:44
continued...

But one could likewise say that, while the Palestinian leadership -- that is, the more moderate leadership, not Hamas, the Islamic Jihad, etc. -- is ostensibly committed to achieving independence in a state of their own alongside and in peaceful coexistence with Israel, if the conditions that they insist upon have the practical effect of making this impossible for an indefinite period, any theoretical commitment to such a goal is rendered utterly meaningless.
50

FrancesP,

23/01/2008 17:53:34
SMG, I'm pushed for time and can't respond in detail (perhaps I will later), but since you seem to have been particularly irritated by my suggestion that it was "incumbent on you to demonstrate" something, I would just point out that I was only saying this because you seemed to me to have relied on international conventions to support part of your own argument. I was simply making the point it was a little convenient to rely on these conventions when it suits your argument, and ignore them completely when they don't.

By the way, I also disagree with a lot of things the UK government have done (don't get me started on Iraq) - in fact I don't think there should even be a UK government!
51

SMG,

Beit Shemesh, Israel 23/01/2008 19:56:35
FrancesP, sorry if I sounded irritated. I also apologize in advance for the following rant, which I realize you personally do not deserve. It isn't aimed at you or directly prompted by what you wrote, but may help you understand my thought processes.

I was trying to express somewhat strongly that, regardless of my answers and positions, no, it is not incumbent on me to demonstrate anything. I'm not on trial here, and, believe it or not, neither is the State of Israel. The point being, and what if I don't demonstrate this or that? Is the sky going to fall? One concludes that Israel (gasp) makes policy for what you call its own "convenience" (this is usually called pursuing one's own national interests, and is perfectly legitimate) and suddenly it's justified to treat it as a pariah state and work for its destruction?

I'm probably touchy about this because, so often, these sorts of discussions end up as a debate about whether or not Israel has a "right to exist", a point that will be debated tomorrow at the Oxford Union, much to the shame of that institution. Maybe other countries also have their "right to exist" questioned regularly, but if so, I've missed it. Israel exists, and does so with as much "right" as any country (and, I would add, far more legitimacy than most).

I'm reminded, as well, of those notorious no-win Christian-Jewish theological disputations that Jews were forced into participating in during the Middle Ages (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disputation ). A few recent threads have started sounding a lot like those disputations, even to the point of including falsified Talmudic quotes and serious references to "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" type conspiracy theories. We're a free people now, and no, we don't have to defend our every move to your satisfaction.

OK, rant over.

I understand your point about being consistent re international conventions. If you thought that I justify annexation of territory by reference to the Geneva
52

SMG,

Beit Shemesh, Israel 23/01/2008 19:57:22
continued...

If you thought that I justify annexation of territory by reference to the Geneva Conventions and such, I don't. The Geneva Convention most often quoted with regard to the Palestinians is the Fourth, on "the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War". This convention makes says nothing one way or another about the legality of annexation, and only relates to the issue at all once, in Article 47, which says "Protected persons who are in occupied territory shall not be deprived, in any case or in any manner whatsoever, of the benefits of the present Convention by any change introduced, as the result of the occupation of a territory, into the institutions or government of the said territory, nor by any agreement concluded between the authorities of the occupied territories and the Occupying Power, nor by any annexation by the latter of the whole or part of the occupied territory."

FrancesP: "in fact I don't think there should even be a UK government!"

That is an intriguing position which I'd be happy to hear more about. Do you think that the UK government lacks legitimacy? Does it not roughly reflect the popular will of the people that it governs?
53

FrancesP,

24/01/2008 01:03:53
#52. "Does it not roughly reflect the popular will of the people that it governs?" Now you come to mention it, I don't think it does, because under our crazy voting system the current Labour government was 'elected' on the basis of 35% of the popular vote, which is a pitiful parody of the democratic process. However, I was mainly referring to the fact that I'm a supporter of Scottish independence, which would obviously entail the dissolution of the UK as currently constituted. The irony of all this of course is that, whatever certain others on this thread might think, I'm considerably more enthusiastic about defending the territorial integrity of Israel than I would be about the nation state I actually live in!
54

P.K,

24/01/2008 06:49:31
#43

What is your problem? Take a look at my post again. There's nothing in there accusing you of using multiple identities! I would like to be honest with you that I have never once come across the ID you're using. Due to the nature of my job and position held, I travel out by air very often. I am not in the same place all the times and so, I have no time to read Scotsman and follow up readers' comment daily.

Out of curiosity after reading your post at #34 , it prompted me to request for your old ID but not knowing "FrancesP" is the only ID you have. As you well know, some posters lost their old IDs and because of this, create another new one.
55

FrancesP,

24/01/2008 14:30:24
#54. What is my problem? Well, at a rough guess, it might be that all of your previous responses to me have been along the lines of "Hezboo lover" and "terrorist apologist", and it is thus very difficult to spot when anything you say is not intended to be taken in the same spirit. You also seemed to be telling me for a fact that I must have had my dispute with Lynne under a different name, which I obviously knew was not the case, so it was difficult not to be slightly miffed.

Nevertheless, I'm grateful for the clarification, and I certainly agree with you that there's nothing wrong with creating a new ID.
56

P.K,

24/01/2008 15:16:50
#55

I'm glad we have reached an understanding with regards to ID matter. Let's end up here.
57

Rabhairt,

Cannons Creek AUSTRALIA 26/01/2008 02:16:49
FOR THE INNOCENT VICTIMS OF WARMONGERS.

MASTERS OF WAR
(Words and Music by Bob Dylan)
1963 Warner Bros. Inc
Renewed 1991 Special Rider Musica

Come you masters of war
You that build all the guns
You that build the death planes
You that build the big bombs
You that hide behind walls
You that hide behind desks
I just want you to know
I can see through your masks

You that never done nothin'
But build to destroy
You play with my world
Like it's your little toy
You put a gun in my hand
And you hide from my eyes
And you turn and run farther
When the fast bullets fly

Like Judas of old
You lie and deceive
A world war can be won
You want me to believe
But I see through your eyes
And I see through your brain
Like I see through the water
That runs down my drain

You fasten the triggers
For the others to fire
Then you set back and watch
When the death count gets higher
You hide in your mansion
As young people's blood
Flows out of their bodies
And is buried in the mud

You've thrown the worst fear
That can ever be hurled
Fear to bring children
Into the world
For threatening my baby
Unborn and unnamed
You ain't worth the blood
That runs in your veins

How much do I know
To talk out of turn
You might say that I'm young
You might say I'm unlearned
But there's one thing I know
Though I'm younger than you
Even Jesus would never
Forgive what you do

Let me ask you one question
Is your money that good
Will it buy you forgiveness
Do you think that it could
I think you will find
When your death takes its toll
All the money you made
Will never buy back your soul

And I hope that you die
And your death'll come soon
I will follow your casket
In the pale afternoon
And I'll watch while you're lowered
Down to your deathbed
And I'll stand o'er your grave
'Til I'm sure that you're dead

58

Roberta Burns,

18/02/2008 00:55:28
43 FrancesP: I've enjoyed reading your calm, intelligent, and pointed comments. Your reply to PK could easily inlcude Lynne, SMG, Tikum, Deathy et al.

It is zionist jew tactics. The repeitition is to wear down dissent. That, and copying and pasting previous comemnts continuously. The next step is deleting your comments and blaming you for doing so.


 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.