General Meeting Notes Sep 15: Fill & Download for Free

BOTH!There’s nothing more I want, than a 2 state solution.Zionism and the state of Israel was originally (and for most, politics aside, still is) about Jews having a homeland. We’ve seen what happens throughout history when, Jews haven't had a homeland. Centuries upon, centuries of persecution and prejudice. Without a right to a homeland, people need to wake up and realise we’d have an entire religion in danger.Ironically, I used to be an Anti zionist. I first found out about the conflict when I was 11, from my dad. I was googled it and found photo’s of destroyed houses and bloodied children and dead bodies. It made me despise Israel, despite me (at the time) not even knowing anything about the country or it’s history.As I grew older, I did more research for myself and realised that, in order to understand the conflict, I needed to understand zionism and Israel. So I did, and came to realise that the “pro Palestine movement” isn’t as liberal and innocent as I thought.There are many Anti Zionists who are only Anti Zionist, not because they care and have the Palestinians best interests at heart but, because they’re genuinely Anti - Semetic and are using the conflict as a shield. Then, there are the Anti zionists like I once was, who weren’t Anti Semetic and just didn’t understand zionism properly. Half of these “Anti - Zionists” couldn’t even tell you what Zionism is, my 11 year old self included.Although, I’m completely aware there’s a difference between Anti zionism and Anti Semetisim and the sooner people establish this, the better.There are things about the whole pro Palestine movement I dislike. Like for example, the treatment of gays and the whole Hamas “organisation”.HOWEVER, (history of who came when aside) the Palestinians ALSO deserve their right to their homeland. These people don't want their identities changed. The UN resolution 194, stating that the Palestinians “refugees” had a right to return to homeland, has been ignored.Palestine is a truly beautiful country, with an indigenous population that can never ever be replaced and I don’t want to see that disappear.I’m not a zionist, neither am I “Anti zionist”. Why must it be a “game” of “choose a side”?UN resolutions that have been violated:NOTE: The links aren’t working for whatever reason but, here is where it’s supposed to take you to: Israeli Violations of U.N. Security Council ResolutionsANOTHER NOTE: I don’t take a stance, I’m neutral in the situation of the conflict, so try not to bite my head off in the comments.Resolution 57 (Sep. 18, 1948) – “Deeply shocked by the tragic death of the United Nations Mediator in Palestine, Count Folke Bernadotte, as the result of a cowardly act which appears to have been committed by a criminal group of [Zionist] terrorists in Jerusalem.”Resolution 89 (Nov. 17, 1950) – Requests that attention be given to the expulsion of “thousands of Palestine Arabs”, noting that Israel announced that it would withdraw to the armistice lines.Resolution 93 (May 18, 1951) – Israeli airstrikes on Syria are “a violation of the ceasefire”, and decides that the Arab civilians who fled or were forcibly expelled from the demilitarised zone by Israel should be allowed to return.Resolution 100 (Oct. 27, 1953) – Gives “special reference to recent acts of violence, and in particular to the incident at Qibya on 14-15 October 1953,” and continued Israeli action in the demilitarised zone.N.B - The Qibya massacre was when Israeli troops under Ariel Sharon attacked the village of Qibya in the West Bank. At least sixty-nine Palestinian villagers were killed, two-thirds of them women and children. Forty-five houses, a school, and a mosque were destroyed.Resolution 101 (Nov. 24, 1953) – Finds Israel’s attack on Qibya (see above), West Bank on October 14-15, 1953 to be a violation of the ceasefire and “Expresses the strongest censure of that action” - stressing the impact of these actions on a potential peaceful resolution.Resolution 106 (Mar. 29, 1955) – Condemns Israel’s attack on Egyptian forces in the Gaza Strip on February 28, 1955, breaking the ceasefire.Resolution 111 (Jan. 19, 1956) – Condemns Israel’s attack on Syria on December 11, 1955 as “a flagrant violation of the ceasefire” and armistice agreement and “according to the report of the Chief of Staff this Israel action was a deliberate violation of the provisions of the General Armistice Agreement between Israel and Syria.”Resolution 119 (Oct. 31, 1956) – States that “a grave situation has been created” by the attack against Egypt by Britain, France, and Israel.Resolution 171 (Apr. 9, 1962) – “Determines that the Israel attack of 16-17 March 1962 constitutes a flagrant violation of that resolution, and calls upon Israel scrupulously to refrain from such action in the future” - reaffirming resolution 111 (Jan. 19, 1956).Resolution 228 (Nov. 25, 1966) – “Deplores the loss of life and heavy damage to property resulting from the action” by Israel in the southern Hebron area on November 13, 1966, and “Censures Israel for this large-scale military action in violation of the United Nations Charter” and the armistice agreement between Israel and Jordan.Resolution 237 (Jun. 14, 1967) – “Calls upon the Government of Israel to ensure the safety, welfare and security of the inhabitants of the areas where military operations have taken place and to facilitate the return of those inhabitants who have fled the areas since the outbreak of hostilities.” referencing the war launched by Israel on June 5, 1967.Resolution 242 (Nov. 22, 1967) – Calls for the “Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict; (ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area.” Emphasises that member states have a commitment to abide by the U.N. Charter.Resolution 248 (Mar. 24, 1968) – Observes that the Israeli attack on Jordan “was of a large-scale and carefully planned nature”, “Deplores the loss of life and heavy damage to property”, “Condemns the military action launched by Israel in flagrant violation of the United Nations Charter and the ceasefire resolutions”, and “Calls upon Israel to desist from” further violations of resolution 237.Resolution 250 (Apr. 27, 1968) – Considers “that the holding of a military parade in Jerusalem will aggravate tensions in the area and have an adverse effect on a peaceful settlement of the problems in the area” and “Calls upon Israel to refrain from holding the military parade in Jerusalem which is contemplated” for May 2, 1968.Resolution 251 (May 2, 1968) – Recalls resolution 250 and “Deeply deplores the holding by Israel of the military parade in Jerusalem” on May 2, 1968 “in disregard of” resolution 250.Resolution 252 (May 21, 1968) – “Deplores the failure of Israel to comply with” General Assembly resolutions 2253 and 2254, considers Israel’s annexation of Jerusalem “invalid”, and calls upon Israel “to rescind all such measures already taken and to desist forthwith from taking any further action which tends to change the status of Jerusalem”.Resolution 256 (Aug. 16, 1968) – “Recalling its previous resolution 248 (1968) condemning the military action launched by Israel in flagrant violation of the United Nations Charter and the ceasefire resolutions and deploring all violent incidents in violation of the ceasefire.” Observes that further Israeli air attacks on Jordan “were of a large scale and carefully planned nature in violation of resolution 248”.Resolution 259 (Sep. 27, 1968) – “Concerned with the safety, welfare and security of the inhabitants of the Arab territories under military occupation by Israel following the hostilities of 5 June 1967.” Deplores “the delay in the implementation of resolution 237 (1967) because of the conditions still being set by Israel for receiving a Special Representative of the Secretary-General”, and requests Israel to receive the Special Representative and facilitate his work.Resolution 262 (Dec. 31, 1968) – Observes “that the military action by the armed forces of Israel against the civil International Airport of Beirut was premeditated and of a large scale and carefully planned nature”, and condemns Israel for the attack.Resolution 265 (Apr. 1, 1969) – Condemns the recent premeditated air attacks launched by Israel on Jordanian villages and populated areas in flagrant violation of the United Nations Charter and the ceasefire resolutions, and warns once again that if such attacks were to be repeated the Security Council would have to meet to consider further and more effective steps as envisaged in the Charter to ensure against repetition of such attacks.”Resolution 267 (Jul. 3, 1969) – Recalls resolution 252 and General Assembly resolutions 2253 and 2254, notes that “since the adoption of the above-mentioned resolutions Israel has taken further measures tending to change the status of the City of Jerusalem”, reaffirms “the established principle that acquisition of territory by military conquest is inadmissible”, “Deplores the failure of Israel to show any regard for the resolutions”, “Censures in the strongest terms all measures taken to change the status of the City of Jerusalem”, “Confirms that all legislative and administrative measures and actions taken by Israel which purport to alter the status of Jerusalem, including expropriation of land and properties thereon, are invalid and cannot change that status”, and urgently calls on Israel to rescind the measures taken to annex Jerusalem.Resolution 270 (Aug. 26, 1969) – Condemns the premeditated air attack by Israel on villages in southern Lebanon in violation of its obligations under the Charter and Security Council resolutions” and “Deplores all violent incidents in violation of the ceasefire.”Resolution 271 (Sep. 15, 1969) – Expresses grief “at the extensive damage caused by arson to the Holy Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem” on August 21, 1969 “under the military occupation of Israel”, reaffirms “the established principle that acquisition of territory by military conquest is inadmissible”, “Determines that the execrable act of desecration and profanation of the Holy Al-Aqsa Mosque emphasises the immediate necessity of Israel’s desisting from acting in violation” previous resolutions and rescinding measures to annex Jerusalem, calls on Israel “to observe the provisions of the Geneva Conventions and international law governing military occupation”, and condemns Israel’s failure to comply with previous resolutions.Resolution 279 (May 12, 1970) – “Demands the immediate withdrawal of all Israeli armed forces from Lebanese territory.” Adopted unanimously by the council.Resolution 280 (May 19, 1970) – “Convinced that the Israeli military attack against Lebanon was premeditated and of a large scale and carefully planned in nature. Recalling its resolution 279 (1970) of 12 May 1970 demanding the immediate withdrawal of all Israeli armed forces from Lebanese territory.” and “Deplores the failure of Israel to abide by resolutions 262 (1968) and 270 (1969)” and “Condemns Israel for its premeditated military action in violation of its obligations under the Charter of the United Nations” and “Declares that such armed attacks can no longer be tolerated and repeats its solemn warning to Israel.”Resolution 285 (Sep. 5, 1970) – “Demands the complete and immediate withdrawal of all Israeli armed forces from Lebanese territory.”Resolution 298 (Sep. 25, 1971) – Recalls resolutions 252 and 267 and General Assembly resolutions 2253 and 2254 concerning Israel’s measures to annex Jerusalem, reaffirms “the principle that acquisition of territory by military conquest is inadmissible”, notes “the non-compliance by Israel” of the recalled resolutions, deplores Israel’s failure to respect the resolutions, confirms that Israel’s actions “are totally invalid”, and urgently calls on Israel to rescind its measures and take “no further steps in the occupied section of Jerusalem” to change the status of the city.Resolution 313 (Feb. 28, 1972) – “Demands that Israel immediately desist and refrain from any ground and air military action against Lebanon and forthwith withdraw all its military forces from Lebanese territory.”Resolution 316 (Jun. 26, 1972) – Deplores “the tragic loss of life resulting from all acts of violence”, expresses grave concern “at Israel’s failure to comply with Security Council resolutions” 262, 270, 280, 285, and 313 “calling on Israel to desist forthwith from any violation of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Lebanon”, calls on Israel to abide by the resolutions, and condemns “the repeated attacks of Israeli forces on Lebanese territory and population in violation of the principles of the Charter of the United Nations and Israel’s obligations thereunder”.Resolution 317 (Jul. 21, 1972) – Notes resolution 316, deplores the fact that Israel had not yet released “Syrian and Lebanese military and security personnel abducted by Israeli armed forces from Lebanese territory” on June 21, 1972, and calls on Israel to release the prisoners.Resolution 332 (Apr. 21, 1973) – “Condemns the repeated military attacks conducted by Israel against Lebanon and Israel’s violation of Lebanon’s territorial integrity and sovereignty” in violation of the U.N. Charter, the armistice agreement, and ceasefire resolutions.Resolution 337 (Aug. 15, 1973) – Notes “the violation of Lebanon’s sovereignty and territorial integrity” by Israel “and the hijacking, by the Israeli air force, of a Lebanese civilian airliner on lease to Iraqi Airways”, expresses grave concern “that such an act carried out by Israel, a Member of the United Nations, constitutes a serious interference with international civil aviation and a violation of the Charter of the United Nations”, recognises “that such an act could jeopardise the lives and safety of passengers and crew and violates the provisions of international conventions safeguarding civil aviation”, condemns Israel “for violating Lebanon’s sovereignty and territorial integrity and for the forcible diversion and seizure by the Israeli air force of a Lebanese airliner from Lebanon’s air space”, and considers that Israel’s actions constitute a violation of the armistice agreement, ceasefire resolutions, the U.N. Charter, “the international conventions on civil aviation and the principles of international law and morality”.Resolution 347 (Apr. 24, 1974) – “Condemns Israel’s violation of Lebanon’s territorial integrity and sovereignty and calls once more on the Government of Israel to refrain from further military actions and threats against Lebanon”, and calls on Israel “to release and return to Lebanon the abducted Lebanese civilians”.Resolution 425 (Mar. 19, 1978) – “Calls for strict respect for the territorial integrity, sovereignty and political independence of Lebanon within its internationally recognised boundaries”, and “Calls upon Israel immediately to cease its military action against Lebanese territorial integrity and withdraw forthwith its forces from all Lebanese territory”.Resolution 427 (May 3, 1978) – “Calls upon Israel to complete its withdrawal from all Lebanese territory without any further delay”.Resolution 446 (Mar. 22, 1979) – Affirms “once more that the Fourth Geneva Convention… is applicable to the Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem”, “Determines that the policy and practices of Israel in establishing settlements in the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967 have no legal validity and constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East”, “Strongly deplores the failure of Israel to abide by” resolutions 237, 252, and 298, and General Assembly resolutions 2253 and 2254, and calls on Israel “as the occupying Power” to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention, to “rescind its previous measures and to desist from any action which would result in changing the legal status and geographical nature and materially affecting the demographic composition of the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, and, in particular, not to transfer parts of its own civilian population into the occupied Arab territories”.Resolution 450 (Jun. 14, 1979) – “Strongly deplores acts of violence against Lebanon that have led to the displacement of civilians, including Palestinians, and brought about destruction and loss of innocent lives”, and calls on Israel to cease actions against Lebanon, “in particular its incursions into Lebanon and the assistance it continues to lend to irresponsible armed groups”.Resolution 452 (Jul. 20, 1979) – Strongly deplores “the lack of cooperation of Israel” with the Security Council Commission “established under resolution 446 (1979) to examine the situation relating to settlements in the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem”, considers “that the policy of Israel in establishing settlements in the occupied Arab territories has no legal validity and constitutes a violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention”, expresses deep concern at Israel’s policy of constructing settlements “in the occupied Arab territories, including Jerusalem, and its consequences for the local Arab and Palestinian population”, and calls on Israel to cease such activities.Resolution 465 (Mar. 1, 1980) – Strongly deplores Israel’s refusal to co-operate with the Security Council Commission, regrets Israel’s “formal rejection of” resolutions 446 and 452, deplores Israel’s decision “to officially support [illegal] Israeli settlement” in the occupied territories, expresses deep concern over Israel’s settlement policy “and its consequences for the local Arab and Palestinian population”, “Strongly deplores the decision of Israel to prohibit the free travel” of the mayor of Hebron “to appear before the Security Council”, and “Determines that all measures taken by Israel to change the physical character, demographic composition, institutional structure or status of the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, or any part thereof, have no legal validity and that Israel’s policy and practices of settling parts of its population and new immigrants in those territories constitute a flagrant violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention”.Resolution 467 (Apr. 24, 1980) – “Condemns all actions contrary to” resolutions 425, 426, 427, 434, 444, 450, and 459 “and, in particular, strongly deplores” any “violation of Lebanese sovereignty and territorial integrity” and “Israel’s military intervention into Lebanon”.Resolution 468 (May 8, 1980) – Expresses deep concern “at the expulsion by the Israeli military occupation authorities of the Mayors of Hebron and Halhoul and the Sharia Judge of Hebron” and “Calls upon the Government of Israel as occupying Power to rescind these illegal measures and facilitate the immediate return of the expelled Palestinian leaders so that they can resume the functions for which they were elected and appointed”.Resolution 469 (May 20, 1980) – Recalls the Fourth Geneva Convention “and in particular article 1, which reads ‘The High Contracting Parties undertake to respect and to ensure respect for the present Convention in all circumstances,’ and article 49, which reads ‘Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from the occupied territory to the territory of the occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive”, “Strongly deplores the failure of the Government of Israel to implement Security Council resolution 468”, “Calls again upon the Government of Israel, as occupying Power, to rescind the illegal measures taken by the Israeli military occupation authorities in expelling the Mayors of Hebron and Halhoul and the Sharis Judge of Hebron, and to facilitate the immediate return of the expelled Palestinian leaders, so that they can resume their functions for which they were elected and appointed”.Resolution 471 (Jun. 5, 1980) – Recalls “once again” the Fourth Geneva Convention, “and in particular article 27, which reads, ‘ Protected persons are entitled, in all circumstances, to respect for their persons… They shall at all times be humanely treated, and shall be protected especially against all acts of violence or threats thereof…’”, reaffirms the applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention “to the Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem”, expresses deep concern “that the Jewish settlers in the occupied Arab territories are allowed to carry arms, thus enabling them to perpetrate crimes against the civilian Arab population”, “Condemns the assassination attempts against the Mayors of Nablus, Ramallah and Al Bireh and calls for the immediate apprehension and prosecution of the perpetrators of these crimes”, “Expresses deep concern that Israel, as the occupying Power, has failed to provide adequate protection to the civilian population in the occupied territories in conformity with the provisions of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War”, calls on Israel “to provide the victims with adequate compensation for the damage suffered as a result of these crimes”, “Calls again upon the government of Israel to respect and to comply with the provisions of” the Fourth Geneva Convention and “the relevant resolutions of the Security Council”, “Calls once again upon all States not to provide Israel with any assistance to be used specifically in connexion [sic] with settlements in the occupied territories”, “Reaffirms the overriding necessity to end the prolonged occupation of Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem”.Resolution 476 (Jun. 30, 1980) – Reaffirms that “the acquisition of territory by force is inadmissible”, deplores “the persistence of Israel, in changing the physical character, demographic composition, institutional structure and the status of the Holy City of Jerusalem”, expresses grave concern “over the legislative steps initiated in the Israeli Knesset with the aim of changing the character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem”, reaffirms “the overriding necessity to end the prolonged occupation of Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem”, “Strongly deplores the continued refusal of Israel, the occupying Power, to comply with the relevant resolutions of the Security Council and the General Assembly”, “Reconfirms that all legislative and administrative measures and actions taken by Israel, the occupying Power, which purport to later the character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem have no legal validity and constitute a flagrant violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention”, “Reiterates that all such measures… are null and void and must be rescinded in compliance with the relevant resolutions of the Security Council”, and “Urgently calls on Israel, the occupying Power, to abide by this and previous Security Council resolutions and to desist forthwith from persisting in the policy and measures affecting the character and status of the Holy city of Jerusalem”.Resolution 478 (Aug. 20, 1980) – Reaffirms “again that the acquisition of territory by force is inadmissible”, notes “that Israel has not complied with resolution 476”, “Censures in the strongest terms the enactment by Israel of the ‘basic law’ on Jerusalem and the refusal to comply with relevant Security Council resolutions”, “Affirms that the enactment of the ‘basic law’ by Israel constitutes a violation of international law”, “Determines that all legislative and administrative measures and actions taken by Israel, the occupying Power, which have altered or purport to alter the character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem, and in particular the recent ‘basic law’ on Jerusalem, are null and void and must be rescinded forthwith”.Resolution 484 (Dec. 19, 1980) – Expresses “grave concern at the expulsion by Israel of the Mayor of Hebron and the Mayor of Halhoul”, “Reaffirms the applicability of” the Fourth Geneva Convention “to all the Arab territories occupied by Israel in 1967”, “Calls upon Israel, the occupying Power, to adhere to the provisions of the Convention”, and “Declares it imperative that the Mayor of Hebron and the Mayor of Halhoul be enabled to return to their homes and resume their responsibilities”.Resolution 487 (Jun. 19, 1981) – Expresses full awareness “of the fact that Iraq has been a party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons since it came into force in 1970, that in accordance with that Treaty Iraq has accepted IAEA safeguards on all its nuclear activities, and that the Agency has testified that these safeguards have been satisfactorily applied to date”, notes “furthermore that Israel has not adhered to the non-proliferation Treaty”, expresses deep concern “about the danger to international peace and security created by the premeditated Israeli air attack on Iraqi nuclear installations on 7 June 1981, which could at any time explode the situation in the area, with grave consequences for the vital interests of all States”, “Strongly condemns the military attack by Israel in clear violation of the Charter of the United Nations and the norms of international conduct”, “Further considers that the said attack constitutes a serious threat to the entire IAEA safeguards regime which is the foundation of the non-proliferation Treaty”, “Fully recognises the inalienable sovereign right of Iraq, and all other States, especially the developing countries, to establish programmes of technological and nuclear development to develop their economy and industry for peaceful purposes in accordance with their present and future needs and consistent with the internationally accepted objectives of preventing nuclear-weapons proliferation”, and “Calls upon Israel urgently to place its nuclear facilities under IAEA safeguards”.Resolution 497 (Dec. 17, 1981) – Reaffirms “that the acquisition of territory by force is inadmissible, in accordance with the United Nations Charter, the principles of international law, and relevant Security Council resolutions”, “Decides that the Israeli decision to impose its laws, jurisdiction and administration in the occupied Syrian Golan Heights is null and void and without international legal effect”, “Demands that Israel, the occupying Power, should rescind forthwith its decision”, and “Determines that all the provisions of the” Fourth Geneva Convention “continue to apply to the Syrian territory occupied by Israel since June 1967”.Resolution 501 (Feb. 25, 1982)– Reaffirms resolution 425 calling upon Israel to cease its military action against Lebanon.Resolution 509 (Jun. 6, 1982) – “Demands that Israel withdraw all its military forces forthwith and unconditionally to the internationally recognised boundaries of Lebanon”.Resolution 515 (Jul. 29, 1982) – “Demands that the Government of Israel lift immediately the blockade of the city of Beirut in order to permit the dispatch of supplies to meet the urgent needs of the civilian population and allow the distribution of aid provided by United Nations agencies and by non-governmental organisations, particularly the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC)”.Resolution 517 (Aug. 4, 1982) – Expresses deep shock and alarm “by the deplorable consequences of the Israeli invasion of Beirut on 3 August 1982”, “Confirms once again its demand for an immediate ceasefire and withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanon”, and “Censures Israel for its failure to comply with” resolutions 508, 509, 512, 513, 515, and 516.Resolution 518 (Aug. 12, 1982) – “Demands that Israel and all parties to the conflict observe strictly the terms of Security Council resolutions relevant to the immediate cessation of all military activities within Lebanon and, particularly, in and around Beirut”, “Demands the immediate lifting of all restrictions on the city of Beirut in order to permit the free entry of supplies to meet the urgent needs of the civilian population in Beirut”.Resolution 520 (Sep. 17, 1982) – “Condemns the recent Israeli incursions into Beirut in violation of the ceasefire agreements and of Security Council resolutions”, and “Demands an immediate return to the positions occupied by Israel before” September 15, 1982 “as a first step towards the full implementation of Security Council resolutions”.Resolution 521 (Sep. 19, 1982) – “Condemns the criminal massacre of Palestinian civilians in Beirut” in the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps.Resolution 573 (Oct. 4, 1985) – “Condemns vigorously the act of armed aggression perpetrated by Israel against Tunisian territory in flagrant violation of the Charter of the United Nations, international law and norms of conduct”.Resolution 592 (Dec. 8, 1986) – Reaffirms that the Fourth Geneva Convention “is applicable to the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem”, and “Strongly deplores the opening of fire by the Israeli army resulting in the death and the wounding of defenceless students”.Resolution 605 (Dec. 22, 1987) – “Strongly deplores those policies and practices of Israel, the occupying Power, which violate the human rights of the Palestinian people in the occupied territories, and in particular the opening of fire by the Israeli army, resulting in the killing and wounding of defenceless Palestinian civilians”, and reaffirms the applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention “to the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem”.Resolution 607 (Jan. 5, 1988) – Expresses “grave concern over the situation in the occupied Palestinian territories”, notes “the decision of Israel, the occupying Power, to ‘continue the deportation’ of Palestinian civilians in the occupied territories”, “Reaffirms once again” the applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention “to Palestinian and other Arab territories, occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem”, “Calls upon Israel to refrain from deporting any Palestinian civilians from the occupied territories”, and “Strongly requests Israel, the occupying Power, to abide by its obligations arising from the Convention”.Resolution 608 (Jan. 14, 1988) – Reaffirms resolution 607, expresses “deep regret that Israel, the occupying Power, has, in defiance of that resolution, deported Palestinian civilians”, and “Calls upon Israel to rescind the order to deport Palestinian civilians and to ensure the safe and immediate return to the occupied Palestinian territories of those already deported”.Resolution 611 (Apr. 25, 1988) – Notes “with concern that the aggression perpetrated” by Israelis on April 16, 1988 “in the locality of Sidi Bou Said”, Tunisia, “has caused loss of human life, particularly the assassination of Mr. Khalil El Wazir”, and “Condemns vigorously the aggression perpetrated… against the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Tunisia in flagrant violation of the Charter of the United Nations, international law and norms of conduct”.Resolution 636 (Jul. 6, 1989) – Reaffirms resolutions 607 and 608, notes “that Israel, the occupying Power, has once again, in defiance of those resolutions, deported eight Palestinian civilians on 29 June 1989”, Expresses deep regret of “the continuing deportation by Israel, the occupying Power, of Palestinian civilians”, “Calls upon Israel to ensure the safe and immediate return to the occupied Palestinian territories of those deported and to desist forthwith from deporting any other Palestinian civilians”, and “Reaffirms that” the Fourth Geneva Convention “is applicable to the Palestinian territories, occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem, and to other occupied Arab territories”.Resolution 641 (Aug. 30, 1989) – Reaffirms resolutions 607, 608, and 636, notes that Israel “has once again, in defiance of those resolutions, deported five Palestinian civilians on 27 August 1989”, and “Deplores the continuing deportation by Israel, the occupying power, of Palestinian civilians”.Resolution 672 (Oct. 12, 1990) – “Expresses alarm at the violence which took place” on October 8, 1990, “at the Al Haram al Shareef and other Holy Places of Jerusalem resulting in over twenty Palestinian deaths and to the injury of more than one hundred and fifty people, including Palestinian civilians and innocent worshippers”, “Condemns especially the acts of violence committed by the Israeli forces resulting in injuries and loss of human life”, and “Requests, in connection with the decision of the Secretary-General to send a mission to the region, which the Council welcomes, that he submit a report to it before the end of October 1990 containing his findings and conclusions and that he use as appropriate all the resources of the United Nations in the region in carrying out the mission.”Resolution 673 (Oct. 24, 1990) – “Deplores the refusal of the Israeli Government to receive the mission of the Secretary-General to the region”, and “Urges the Israeli Government to reconsider its decision and insists that it comply fully with resolution 672 (1990) and to permit the mission of the Secretary-General to proceed in keeping with its purpose”.Resolution 681 (Dec. 20, 1990) – Reaffirms “the obligations of Member States under the United Nations Charter”, reaffirms “also the principle of the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war”, expresses alarm “by the decision of the Government of Israel to deport four Palestinians from the occupied territories in contravention of its obligations under the Fourth Geneva Convention” in contravention to resolutions 607, 608, 636, and 641, “Expresses its grave concern over the rejection by Israel of Security Council resolutions” 672 and 673, and “Deplores the decision by the Government of Israel, the occupying Power, to resume deportations of Palestinian civilians in the occupied territories”.Resolution 694 (May 24, 1991) – Reaffirms resolution 681 calling on Israel to respect the Fourth Geneva Convention, notes “with deep concern and consternation that Israel has, in violation of its obligations under the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, and acting in opposition to relevant Security Council resolutions, and to the detriment of efforts to achieve a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East, deported four Palestinian civilians” on May 18, 1991, “Declares that the action of the Israeli authorities of deporting four Palestinians… is in violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention…, which is applicable to all the Palestinian territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem”, and “Deplores this action and reiterates that Israel, the occupying Power, refrain from deporting any Palestinian civilian from the occupied territories and ensure the safe and immediate return of all those deported”.Resolution 726 (Jan. 6, 1992) – Recalls resolutions 607, 608, 636, 641, and 694 calling on Israel to respect the Fourth Geneva Convention, “Strongly condemns the decision of Israel, the occupying Power, to resume deportations of Palestinian civilians”, “Reaffirms the applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention… to all the Palestinian territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem”, and “requests Israel, the occupying Power, to ensure the safe and immediate return to the occupied territories of all those deported”.Resolution 799 (Dec. 18, 1992) – Reaffirms resolutions 607, 608, 636, 641, 681, 694, and 726 calling on Israel to respect the Fourth Geneva Convention, notes “with deep concern that Israel, the occupying Power, in contravention of its obligations under the Fourth Geneva Convention…, deported to Lebanon” on December 17, 1992 “hundreds of Palestinian civilians from the territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem”, “Strongly condemns the action taken by Israel, the occupying Power, to deport hundreds of Palestinian civilians, and expresses its firm opposition to any such deportation by Israel”, “Reaffirms the applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention… to all the Palestinian territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem, and affirms that deportation of civilians constitutes a contravention of its obligations under the Convention”, and “Demands that Israel, the occupying Power, ensure the safe and immediate return to the occupied territories of all those deported”.Resolution 904 (Mar. 18, 1994) – Expresses shock at “the appalling massacre committed against Palestinian worshippers in the Mosque of Ibrahim in Hebron” on February 25, 1994 by Jewish settler Baruch Goldstein “during the holy month of Ramadan”, expresses grave concern with “the consequent Palestinian casualties in the occupied Palestinian territory as a result of the massacre, which underlines the need to provide protection and security for the Palestinian people”, notes “the condemnation of this massacre by the entire international community”, “Strongly condemns the massacre in Hebron and its aftermath which took the lives of more than fifty Palestinian civilians and injured several hundred others”, and “Calls upon Israel, the occupying Power, to continue to take and implement measures, including, inter alia, confiscation of arms, with the aim of preventing illegal acts of violence by Israeli settlers”.Resolution 1073 (Sep. 28, 1996) – Expresses “deep concern about the tragic events in Jerusalem and the areas of Nablus, Ramallah, Bethlehem and the Gaza Strip, which resulted in a high number of deaths and injuries among the Palestinian civilians, and concerned also about the clashes between the Israeli army and the Palestinian police and the casualties on both sides”, and “Calls for the safety and protection for Palestinian civilians to be ensured”.Resolution 1322 (Oct. 7, 2000) – Expresses deep concern “by the tragic events that have taken place” since September 28, 2000 “that have led to numerous deaths and injuries, mostly among Palestinians”, “Deplores the provocation carried out at Al-Haram Al-Sharif in Jerusalem” on September 28, 2000 “and the subsequent violence there and at other Holy Places, as well as in other areas throughout the territories occupied by Israel since 1967, resulting in over 80 Palestinian deaths and many other casualties”, “Condemns acts of violence, especially the excessive use of force against Palestinians, resulting in injury and loss of human life”, and “Calls upon Israel, the occupying Power, to abide scrupulously by its legal obligations and its responsibilities under the Fourth Geneva Convention”.Resolution 1402 (Mar. 30, 2002) – Expresses grave concern “at the further deterioration of the situation, including the recent suicide bombings in Israel and the military attack against the headquarters of the president of the Palestinian Authority”, “Calls upon both parties to move immediately to a meaningful ceasefire” and “calls for the withdrawal of Israeli troops from Palestinian cities, including Ramallah”.Resolution 1403 (Apr. 4, 2002) – Expresses grave concern “at the further deterioration of the situation on the ground” and “Demands the implementation of its resolution 1402 (2002) without delay”.Resolution 1405 (Apr. 19, 2002) – Expresses concern for “the dire humanitarian situation of the Palestinian civilian population, in particular reports from the Jenin refugee camp of an unknown number of deaths and destruction”, calls for “the lifting of restrictions imposed, in particular in Jenin, on the operations of humanitarian organisations, including the International Committee of the Red Cross and United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East”, and “Emphasises the urgency of access of medical and humanitarian organisations to the Palestinian civilian population”.Resolution 1435 (Sep. 24, 2002) – Expresses grave concern “at the reoccupation of the headquarters of the President of the Palestinian Authority in the City of Ramallah that took place” on September 19, 2002, demands “its immediate end”, expresses alarm “at the reoccupation of Palestinian cities as well as the severe restrictions imposed on the freedom of movement of persons and goods, and gravely concerned at the humanitarian crisis being faced by the Palestinian people”, reiterates “the need for respect in all circumstances of international humanitarian law, including the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War”, “Demands that Israel immediately cease measures in and around Ramallah including the destruction of Palestinian civilian and security infrastructure”, and “Demands also the expeditious withdrawal of the Israeli occupying forces from Palestinian cities towards the return to the positions held prior to September 2000”.Resolution 1544 (May 19, 2004) – Reaffirms resolutions 242, 338, 446, 1322, 1397, 1402, 1405, 1435, and 1515, reiterates “the obligation of Israel, the occupying Power, to abide scrupulously by its legal obligations and responsibilities under the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War”, calls “on Israel to address its security needs within the boundaries of international law”, expresses “grave concern at the continued deterioration of the situation on the ground in the territory occupied by Israel since 1967”, condemns “the killing of Palestinian civilians that took place in the Rafah area”, expresses grave concern “by the recent demolition of homes committed by Israel, the occupying Power, in the Rafah refugee camp”, reaffirms “its support for the Road Map, endorsed in resolution 1515”, “Calls on Israel to respect its obligations under international humanitarian law, and insists, in particular, on its obligation not to undertake demolition of homes contrary to that law”, and “Calls on both parties to immediately implement their obligations under the Road Map”.Resolution 1701 (Aug. 11, 2006) – Expresses “its utmost concern at the continuing escalation of hostilities in Lebanon and in Israel” that “has already caused hundreds of deaths and injuries” and “extensive damage to civilian infrastructure and hundreds of thousands of internally displaced persons”, and “Calls for a full cessation of hostilities” including “the immediate cessation by Israel of all offensive military operations”.Resolution 1860 (Jan. 8, 2009) – Expresses “grave concern at the escalation of violence and the deterioration of the situation, in particular the resulting heavy civilian casualties since the refusal to extend the period of calm”, expresses “grave concern also at the deepening humanitarian crisis in Gaza”, “calls for an immediate, durable and fully respected ceasefire, leading to the full withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza”, “Calls for the unimpeded provision and distribution throughout Gaza of humanitarian assistance, including of food, fuel and medical treatment”, and “Condemns all violence and hostilities directed against civilians and all acts of terrorism”.Resolution 2334 (Dec. 23, 2016) - states that Israel's settlement activity constitutes a "flagrant violation" of international law and has "no legal validity". It demands that Israel stop such activity and fulfill its obligations as an occupying power under the Fourth Geneva ConventionPeace x

Rahul Gandhi has resorted to that same brand of orthodox style of Congress politics. Saddled with that very optimism that every Opposition Politics is bound to fail with the passage of Years and the NEHRU GANDHI FAMILY is always blessed with a slowly and steadily roar, to pull back in a great style.It happened during every time in the immediate Past.We saw the very manner, the various Janata Party experiments fizzling out tamely. On every occasions, despite possessing the required mandate to form the Government , and giving no less than Six Prime Minister's to the Nation, at this hour there are no any takers for the Party.Atal Behari Vajpayee earnestly tried to fill that gap.The veteran Statesman, became the longest serving Non Congress Prime Minister in the Country.However, a thorough Gentleman to the core, Atalji became a victim of the paid Media.Every Secularist, Psuedo Liberal, Communist, Muslim Clergy and its Hardliners along with our our infamous Intellectuals : They all combined vigorously in denouncing Atalji’s slogan of “SHINING INDIA”.They went on vociferously to maintain their own lines,“With a huge backlog of Poverty in our Country, how can we believe ourselves to be shining as a Country”.But then nobody from these categories questioned what happened to Smt Indira Gandhi’s slogan of “ GARIBI HATAO”. The one she gave in the early Seventies.They all denounced the gentle Atalji. Hammering his slogans with fictitous facts and doctored claims. Government expenditures were extracted and Atalji’s Ministry made to look as a villain.That True Soldier of Journalism, Rajdeep Sardesai, even managed to extract an interview where he manipulated wistfully, Atalji’s words. The incident in Lucknow was blown out of proportions and the slogan, “ SHINING INDIA”, succumbed to an untimely death, bringing much disaster for the NDA as it slipped miserably as the Voting stages neared. From to a near Confident Victory, Atalji became a victim of the paid Media manipulation and the NDA reverted back to where it belonged.To be folded back to the Opposition Benches in the Parliament, which it earlier occupied.Every Secular, Psuedo Liberals, Communists and Muslim Hardliners congratulated themselves. They all became a part and parcel of the UPA, under the Trusted leadership of Sonia Gandhi.And guess what our infamous Rajdeep Sardesai got. ( No any personal dispute. I happened to be a great admirer of his father, Dileep Sardesai in my school days . Still remembered how I used to remain awake in the middle of the night to switch on the Radio and hear the Running Commentary on All India Radio, to listen to Dileep Sardesai scoring Centuries and Double Centuries against the formidable West Indies pace battery)RAHUL GANDHI could have used UPA Years to strengthen his own ambitions and cement his claims as the SCION of the NEHRU GANDHI FAMILY.BUT then the Nehru Gandhi Scion failed miserably. He just couldn't properly signal out his political strategies. His political priorities too appeared dubious. Further, his miseries too continued, as his ploys of highlighting acute Social disparities, and then subtly putting their blame squarely on the shoulders of opposition, too badly backfired.RAHUL GANDHI in order to bolster his own Image and recreate the, “ MESSIAH OF POOR” Image's, started making foray into non Congress Ruled State's. He made a habit of willfully barging into thatched huts of the Scheduled Caste people with short notices and put a Night’s stay in their humble dwellings. A photo session would then be created, how the Scion of the Nehru Gandhi Family felt himself at perfect ease, while he ate the Roti’s cooked in the Dalit home.TOP NEWSPoor UP Dalit family had to borrow flour, vegetables to decently feed Rahul GandhiA Dalit family from Mau, Uttar Pradesh, which hosted Rahul Gandhi and Ghulam Nabi Azad on Sunday for a meal , is actually too poor to have afforded it.By Shailaja Neelakantan & Ganesh Kumar Radha Udayakumar, TNN | Updated:Sep 15, 2016, 07.13 PM ISTDalit family had to borrow flour to serve lunch to Rahul GandhiNEW DELHI: Politicians often use photo opportunities, like a meal with the poor, to highlight how caring they are. Similarly, politicians’ minions often round up – in advance - large crowds to make sure the their bosses’ public rallies appear well attended. Do they, though, spare a thought for the poor people involved in these photo-ops?A politician’s recent meal with a Dalit family brought to light the plight of some of these people.A Dalit family from Mau, Uttar Pradesh, which hosted Rahul Gandhi and Congress UP President Ghulam Nabi Azad on Sunday for a meal, is actually too poor to have afforded it. So it borrowed flour, vegetables and the like to be able to decently feed Rahul and Azad.Rahul is touring Uttar Pradesh and addressing rallies ahead of the 2017 state polls. On Sunday, he and Azad were treated to rotis and potato chokha at Swaminath's home."Rahul ji enquired about our living and the problems we are facing. I told him that we hardly manage to meet our basic needs," Swaminth said. However, in his chat with Rahul, Swaminath left out the part about having to borrow food.BUT THEN RAHUL GANDHI, a Super Elitist was nowhere seen when the same DALIT suffered and needed him most.Rahul Gandhi's Dalit visit exposed as photo-op by local womanBy Piyush Srivastava19:22 BST 20 Mar 2012 , updated 19:22 BST 20 Mar 2012The superficiality of Congress general secretary Rahul Gandhi's photo-op moments in Dalit households were exposed on Tuesday by none other than Sunita Kori, a Dalit woman in whose Gauriganj house he had stayed for a night.The occasion was the laying of foundation of a pucca house for the 30-year-old woman by Gayatri Prasad Prajapati, the Samajwadi Party's (SP) newly elected legislator from Gauriganj in Amethi.Prajapati had offered help to Sunita after her house was burnt down by alleged SP goons during the party's victory celebrations on March 6.Gandhi visited Dalit for the laying of foundation of a pucca house for Sunita KoriOn the campaign trail of the last Lok Sabha polls, Rahul had spent a night at the 30-year-old woman's house to show that the Congress identified itself with the Dalit cause.But he was nowhere to be seen when the woman lost her house, proving that Rahul's bonhomie was just a poll gimmick. Prajapati sought to take political mileage out of her disillusionment with the Congress.Sunita Kori, a Dalit, had to seek help from SP MLA Gayatri Prasd Prajapti to rebuild her house after it was set on fire by goonsThe village in Gauriganj forms part of the Amethi Lok Sabha constituency represented by Rahul.Rahul had spent the night of January 26, 2008 in her mud house and later mentioned her plight in many of his public meetings to highlight the plight of Dalits during Mayawati's rule.Sunita virtually was made the mascot of Congress' anti- Mayawati campaign.Highlighting her status as the oppressed in a meeting in Gauriganj on December 22, 2008, Rahul had said Aman, Sunita's seven-year-old child, was scared of the police because they used to beat Madanlal, his father, every now and then.The hapless Sunita, however, was disillusioned by her MP's lip service.Rahul Gandhi had made much-hyped stopover to the house of Sunita KoriDescribing Rahul's concerns for her family as superficial, she said on Tuesday: 'I tried to contact our MP after my house was set on fire by some criminals. I also went to almost every Congress leader in the constituency to help me out because we had no place to sleep and cook. But neither Rahul was available nor other Congress leaders showed any sympathy for me. The SP MLA is helping me and so I will only vote for the SP in the future.'Sunita has been working with a self-help group floated on Rahul's direction.'But it doesn't help us much. Rahul even got Aman's gender wrong. He is my son and not daughter as Rahul had said in his public meeting,' she said.Such is her transformation that Sunita said there was no need for Prajapati to apologise for the act of his party's vandals.RAHUL GANDHI, it appeared has been merely masquerading with politics and trying to replicate it with the game of KABBADI, in which the player ventures into the opposition circle with the aim of touching as many as rival player's he can manage to and hoodwink the opposition camp without being caught and encircled by the rival team.Because of this particular strategy, RAHUL GANDHI saw himself venturing into the Opposition Camps, crying at the top of his lungs, “ KABBADI, KABBADI”, and before his rivals took time to react and lunge forward to encircle him : the Nehru Gandhi Scion retreated back, to be safe behind his own line's. Without touching anyone from the rival camp, scoring no any point and in the process, hardly bothering his rivals.BUT THEN to be truthful , the Nehru Gandhi Scion did enjoy his share of Success in the Narendra Modi regime. Particularly in the last month's of the previous Five years.DURING the Assembly Elections campaigns for Rajasthan, Rahul Gandhi in some unusual moments learned the usefulnes of HINDU Religion. In those sombre moments, he realised what it means to be presented as a HINDU to the larger majoritorian Community in this Country.Out of utter frustration , in an attempt in aiming to bring himself on par with Narendra Modi , as a genuine well wisher of the HINDUS : RAHUL GANDHI declared his own Gotra during Assembly Election Campaign in Rajasthan.Rahul Gandhi a Dattatreya Brahmin? Decoding the Gandhi gotraIt all started when Rahul Gandhi went to pray at the famous Pushkar temple in Rajasthan during his campaigning on Monday and said that he belongs to the Dattatreya gotra.New DelhiNovember 27, 2018UPDATED: November 28, 2018 20:33 ISTRahul Gandhi at the Brahma temple in Pushkar. (Image: INCIndia/Twitter)HIGHLIGHTSRahul Gandhi claimed that his gotra is Dattatreya, triggering potshots by the BJPBJP leader Giriraj Singh tweeted a clip from a Bollywood film to pull up GandhiIndia Today TV traces the bloodline of the Nehru-Gandhi family to decode Gandhi's gotraSilly as it may sound, Congress president Rahul Gandhi's gotra has taken centrestage in the political discourse amid assembly elections in five states.It all started when Rahul Gandhi went to pray at the famous Pushkar temple in Rajasthan during his campaigning on Monday. The priest who performed the rituals, said, "Rahul Gandhi said that his gotra is Dattatreya. Dattatreya are Kauls and Kauls are Kashmiri Brahmins."Soon after this revelation, BJP leaders and supporters began to take potshots at the Congress president questioning his gotra.Union minister Giriraj Singh tweeted a clipping from the Bollywood film 'Jolly LLB', where a Muslim faking as a Brahmin priest is caught lying when asked about his gotra. Thousands of people shared and reacted to this tweet.Several BJP supporters targeted Rahul Gandhi to ask, "How can Rahul Gandhi be from the Dattatreya gotra when his grandfather was not a Hindu? In Hindu tradition, one inherits his gotra from his father."The controversy over Feroze Gandhi’s religion did not die even after his death. His last rites were performed according to both Hindu and Parsi traditions. Feroze Gandhi's body was first cremated in Delhi and later his ashes were placed in the grave in a Parsi cemetery in Allahabad.In these dying hour's of SECULARISM in the Country : RAHUL GANDHI , to bring a possible change could have made himself turned into a GOODWILL AMBASSADOR of all the Religion’s in the Country by simply invoking his Grand Father.A Parsi but with a deep gratitude towards the majoritarian Hindu Religion. It could have been Rahul’s Philosophy and his way of life in dealing with the most perennial problem our Nation has faced through its own year’s of existence.Rahul Gandhi could have been an Aetheist.But his own craftiness came in his ways. That familiar trait of inheritence, which both, Rahul and Priyanka could not ignore.In every Election Campaign, both the Brother and Sister underwent : They first went to every famous Masjid and Shrine that came in the path of their Campaign. Wore Green pattas and offerred their obsceiances in great style.Then Rahul Gandhi dutyfully packed off his Skull Cap and started venturing into Hindu Temple’s. By his own admission, Rahul Gandhi was now a SHIV BHAKT.PRIYANKA GANDHI VADRA, too appeared as a dutifully Hindu housewife. Sitting reverently in the Temples.She even wore multiple bangles on her arm. All during the Campaigns.This is what PRIYANKA GANDHI VADRA is. No Elections, no heat of Campaigns.No bangles. No bindiya.Rahul Gandhi has used most of his political skills against Narendra Modi. The problem is he could not make a progress when it comes to the decisive War as the one which he witnessed in the last General Elections.Rahul Gandhi, then used every skill he possessed.He invoked the RAFALE Deal. Misrepresented its Financial clauses. He made every conceivable effort to blame Narendra Modi.He claimed voceferously in every meeting he addressed, “ DESH KA CHOWKIDAAR CHOR HAI”.Rahul Gandhi scrupulously brought Anil Ambani in between his political rivalry with Narendra Modi and reminding Indians that both were Gujarati’s, he unabashedly claimed that the Industrialist benefitted to the tune of Thirty Thousand Crores because of the RAFALE DEALS.EVERY skill, Rahul Gandhi had at his disposal, he used it to defame and place Narendra Modi in suspicion.But none of them materialised. In the HINDI heartland, Congress performed more miserably than any previous Election in its entire Electoral History. Even Rahul Gandhi lost from the family feifdom of AMETHI.RAHUL GANDHI in the last Parliamentary Elections, resorted to all that he had in his arsenal. But nothing brought cheer for him and his Congress Party.WHY.This question too asks for the very reasons why Rahul Gandhi was unable to utilise his own skills.The answers are very simple.Rahul Gandhi never subscribed to the basic principles of Indian philosophy.TRUTH ALONE SURVIVES.But then Rahul Gandhi is heavily dependent in moving away from Truth.His politics is filled with all kinds of negativity.On occasions he is never short of instigating one Community against the other.“Mera naam Savarkar nahi hai”.Personal integrity of Rahul’s own family has always been questionable.Sonia Gandhi had always been in suspicion for her alleged links with middlemen. Everybody knows her connections with the late Ottavio Quattrochhi.The NEHRU GANDHI VADRA FAMILY is already under suspicion for the various Defence deals made during the UPA Years.Robert Vadra, the DAMADJI is already under the probe of ED, for his alleged business link's with shady middlemen and allegations of stashing money abroad and purchasing property abroad in gross violation of our Law's.Bussiness TodaySPONSERED ADSWhat are the allegations against Robert Vadra?The Enforcement Directorate has summoned Robert Vadra in money laundering case relating to alleged possession of foreign assets. He has already been granted anticipatory bail in this case.Latest Stock Market and Economy News India | New Delhi, Wednesday, February 6, 2019 | 18:13 ISTThe Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) on Wednesday attacked the Congress over the Enforcement Directorate's (ED) summons to Rahul Gandhi's brother-in-law Robert Vadra in a case related to undisclosed properties and investments abroad. Priyanka Gandhi Vadra's husband Robert Vadra, who has been granted anticipatory bail in this case, has to appear before the probe agency today in connection with the money laundering case relating to alleged possession of foreign assets.Addressing a press conference in New Delhi, BJP spokesperson Sambit Patra raked up the allegations against Vadra and questioned how a 'road-pati' like him became 'crorepati'.Here's all you need to know about allegations against Robert Vadra.United Kingdom assets caseThe ED had filed a case of money laundering in the purchase of a property worth 1.9 million pounds (over Rs 17.77 crore) located at 12, Bryanston Square, London, which allegedly belongs to Robert Vadra.Apart from the Bryanston Square mansion, two more properties worth 4 million pounds (around Rs 37.42 crore) and 5 million pounds (more than Rs 46.77 crore), as well as 6 other flats are also suspected to be owned by Vadra, as per ED sources. The total worth of these properties is 12 million pounds.Bikaner land deal money laundering caseIn September 2015, the ED registered a money laundering case alleging that Robert Vadra-owned Sky Light Hospitality had acquired land in Kolayat, Bikaner, which was meant for rehabilitation of poor villagers. It was alleged that Sonia Gandhi's son-in-law Vadra bought 69.55 hectares of land at a cheaper rate and sold to Allegenery Finlease for Rs 5.15 crore through illegal transactions. As per ED investigation, the buying company Allengenery had no real business and shareholders were also found to be fake.2009 petroleum deal case under UPA eraAccording to Enforcement Directorate, Robert Vadra and his associates received 'Kickbacks' in the petroleum deal signed in 2009 during the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) regime. BJP alleged that Vadra benefited from petroleum and defence deal which took place under UPA government and used the money to buy posh properties worth several crore rupees in London.Sources from ED also claim that these London-based assets are part of kickbacks Vadra received in a petroleum deal, as per a report by India Today. The money was allegedly transferred to Santech International, FZC, a company based in UAE and controlled. Santech then purchased the 12 Bryanstone Square mansion from Vortex, a private holding, and later Vortex shares were transferred to Skylight Investment, FZE, which is led by NRI businessman C Thampi.Compare all these with Narendra Modi.He maintains no immediate family contact, except with his Mother.Read what his own brother says :NewsMagazineNEWS MAKERSThe other ModisMeet Prime Minister Narendra Modi's extended family that lives in quiet obscurity, far removed from the circles of power and influence.Uday MahurkarDecember 29, 2016ISSUE DATE: January 9, 2017UPDATED: December 31, 2016 08:05 ISTA 2003 photo when Modi, as Gujarat CM, hosted the family at his official residence in GandhinagarSombhai Modi, 75, was on the dais at a function organised by an NGO in Pune in 2015 when the compere let slip that he was Prime Minister Narendra Modi's eldest brother. There was some excitement in the audience until Sombhai, who runs an eldercare facility in Modi's ancestral town Vadnagar, stepped up to clarify. "There is a screen between me and Prime Minister Modi," he said. "I can see that screen, but to you it is invisible. I am the brother of Narendra Modi, and not the prime minister. For Prime Minister Modi, I am only one of the 125 crore people of India who are his brothers and sisters."The PM's eldest brother Sombhai, 75, with residents of the old-age home he runs in VadnagarThis wasn't mere hyperbole. Sombhai hasn't met his younger brother in the past two-and-a-half years. The brothers have only spoken on the phone. His younger sibling, Pankaj, an officer in the Gujarat information department, has been luckier. He got to meet his famous brother because their mother, Heeraben, stays with him at his modest three-room house in Gandhinagar. (The prime minister met his mother Heeraben twice in the state capital in the past six months and hosted her at his Delhi residence for a week this May.)India's prime ministers have traditionally been family men. Nehru lived with Indira, his successor Lal Bahadur Shastri moved into 1 Motilal Nehru Place with the extended Shastri clan, including children and grandchildren. Indira Gandhi's children Sanjay and Rajiv and their families stayed with her. Even bachelor prime minister A.B. Vajpayee had company. When he moved into 7 Race Course Road in 1998, his adopted foster family, Namita Bhattacharya and her husband Ranjan, moved in with him.Prime Minister Modi, the third of six children, born to a tea stall owner, Damodardas Mulchand Modi, and his homemaker wife Heeraben, wears his familial detachment on his sleeve. It's a useful foil to remind people of his 'selfless' image. As recently as November 14, barely a week after announcing the demonestisation move, Modi hit an emotional note at a public function in Goa. "I was not born to assume a chair of high office. Whatever I had, my family, my home...I left it for the nation..." he said, holding back tears. Arguably, Modi's detachment has helped to blunt any personal allegations against him in the debate on demonetisation.Just how far behind he has left his family is evident from a visit to Gujarat. The Modi clan continues to live the life of middle-class obscurity they did when their famous family member first became chief minister in 2001. Another of the PM's elder brothers, Amrutbhai, 72, retired as fitter for a private company, drawing a salary of less than Rs 10,000 a month in 2005. He leads a quiet, retired life in his four-room middle class dwelling in Ahmedabad's Ghatlodia locality with son, Sanjay, 47, a small entrepreneur, and his wife and two children. Sanjay's son Nirav and daughter Nirali are both engineering students. An ITI certificate holder, Sanjay fashions small engineering spare parts at his lathe machine shop and makes a modest living. The family car, bought in 2009, is parked outside the house, covered. It is sparingly used as the family mostly travels by two-wheeler.Elder brother Amrut Modi, 72, with the iron used by the PM while staying with him in Ahmedabad from 1969-1971Sanjay's family, who confess they are yet to see the inside of a passenger plane, have met Modi only twice-once in 2003 when, as CM, he hosted a family gathering at his Gandhinagar home, and then on May 16, 2014, the day the BJP fashioned that historic Lok Sabha victory (again at his Gandhinagar residence ). Everyone in the Sattadhar tenement society where they stay knows Amrutbhai is the prime minister's brother. But as a local anecdote goes, officials at the bank where Sanjay has an account, don't know this. His son Priyank was recently spotted in a long queue to withdraw money.Sanjay's most cherished possession is a memento that recalls his uncle's early obsession with wearing well-ironed clothes. Modi apparently used the iron while he lived with Amrutbhai in Ahmedabad between 1969 and 1971. Sanjay says he stopped his parents from selling it for scrap in 1984 (indeed, he seems to be one of the earliest believers in his uncle's greatness). "If Kaka ( Modi ) sees this iron today, he might feel the same way a Titanic survivor would...after seeing the personal effects retrieved from the sunken vessel." The house also has another exhibit which might serve well for a future museum for their famous uncle: a Cinni brand table fan that Modi used to beat Ahmedabad's summers.In keeping with the RSS ideal, which requires a pracharak to maintain a distance from family members, Narendra Modi started cutting himself off in 1971, focussing more on his work with the Sangh and leading a celibate life. And over the years, this is how things remained as he began his ascent up the political ladder. His relatives, nevertheless, regard him with some pride. The sentiment is reciprocated by the prime minister, evidently relieved as he is at not being besieged by relatives seeking favours. "It is indeed to the credit of my brothers and cousins that they have continued to live a simple life and never pestered me for anything. In today's world, it is an extremely difficult thing," Prime Minister Modi says.There are people who believe the prime minister is too harsh on his relatives. "Narendrabhai should have had a family gathering after becoming PM like he did when he was CM in 2003," says a political analyst who has known him for many years. But the PM clearly believes that any truck with power would only corrupt their innocence. There's also the matter of his own projection as an incorruptible, nepotism-free leader. Perhaps another reason he believes the family must be kept at a distance.Now evidently the question arises, in the minds of more than a Billion people in our Country, what kind of personal skills, RAHUL GANDHI can ever dream to hone by himself to counter Narendra Modi, his principal betenoire.Personally I believe that Rahul Gandhi stands almost nothing or a very little chance : In his ongoing Political battle with Narendra Modi.Modi has elevated himself. Never saw a more popular Prime Minister in the last Four decades of my adult life.The Nation’s response to his Calls : Though many criticised his calls to clap and then to switch the Lights off for nine minutes : Yet it became pretty evident that the Nation, cutting across State boundaries and setting aside petty Political differences, lighted DIYAS and Candles, and for those, in no position to be present at their homes, they flashed their Torches and Mobiles.RAHUL GANDHI’S biggest mistake at this hour seems to be his own inability in reading the Nation’s mind.The NEHRU GANDHI SCION, needs to drastically alter his own line of thinking.What was termed as progressive thinking before the COVID - 19 , is now reduced to symptoms of hatred and mere preaching of Fundamentalist Religious dogmas.This TABLIGHI saga is evidently going to cast a long spell on the National definition of SECULARISM.Mere pandering to the Minorities, won't work in the near future. The TABLIGHI’S by their actions, and their Chief, Maulana Saad by his statements, has antagonised large sections of the majority Hindu Community. People who hitherto believed in maintaining brotherly relationship with the Muslim community in the Country are indeed very very angry.The age old adage of the Congress Party : that Minorities are going to vote en bloc for us and the Hindu Community , because of its numerous divisions and dissents would never unify : and a large section of Hindus voting on Secular and also due to their affinity for the NEHRU GANDHI FAMILY would be voting in favour of the Congress Party. A healthy mix up of the two ( en bloc of Muslim voting and a large percentage of Secular votes) would eventually see the Congress Party through in Electoral battles.Rahul Gandhi , needs to woke up and realise the futility of these redundant theories.If Narendra Modi is to be defeated : his opponents need something very special in their arsenals.Nobody from the Opposition Camp can ever match Narendra Modi in his personal integrity.Outrightly honest and with no any blemishes.In contrast, the Congress First Family is saddled with allegations. While they could never shook over the BOFORS allegations : subsequent allegations of involvement in murkier Defence deals , has only added disreputation to the Family. Its thirst for Money could be gauged from the recent relevations made by the maverick banker Rana Kaoor. Forced to pay Rs Two Crores to Priyanka Gandhi Vadra as a payment for the purchase of a MF Hussain paiting gifted to the late Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi by the painter himself.To bring himself on par with Modi, Rahul Gandhi needs to cast away his own family baggage: which at this hour is certainly dragging his political surge.He needs to advise his Mother to go into VAANPRASTHA.The ancient Indian advice for those who had seen much of their lives and have no any intent to pass the responsibilities on the shoulders of the younger generation.ALSO both Sonia Gandhi and Priyanka and her husband Robert Vadra have accumulated much more money that they canot spend in their own lifetime.Rahul Gandhi, if he is serious in fighting Narendra Modi than should maintain minimum relationship with his own but tarnished family members.Can Rahul Gandhi do that. For that will be his first step forward in posing a challenge to Narendra Modi.Other issues such as Secularism , it seems are applicable to the Muslim Community only. Majority of Indians, particularly , after the Nation wide spate of demonostrations against the CAA, NRC and the NPR : and also after what the TABLIGHIS did : are in no any moods to hear lectures on the virtues of the Secularism , we Indians were forced to practice since the last Seven decades.No true Indian wishes to remember what the Students demonostrating in JAMIA MILIA shouted at the top of their voices:“ HAME CHAHIYE ZINNAH WALI AZAADI”“ HAME CHAHIYE PAKISTAN WALI AZAADI”.RAHUL GANDHI’S Party has called it as a DISSENT of the Students.AND this ironically seems to be the exact platform from where Rahul Gandhi needs to hone his untested skills.Will he carry along with the same path his Mother has chosen earlier, extolling for a “Aar paar ki Ladaai”, to the Minorities in Delhi which resulted in the Delhi Riots only some months back.Or Rahul Gandhi will tread a path that leads to the one, always stressed by Narendra Modi, “ Sabkaa saath Sabka Vikaas”.But before that Rahul Gandhi needs for an urgent, “Sabka Vishwaas”.WHICH IRONICALLY THE CONGRESS PARTY HAS LOST.Its time to change. The big question is, will Rahul Gandhi change . A much needed change to allow for the sharpening of his own skills.FOR the second part of the question : Does he need a Coach.Rahul Gandhi had coaches in the past.One of them happened to be our own Digvijay Singh. Blamed for Jyotir Rao Scindia’s flight to the BJP and consquently bringing down the Kamal Nath Govt. along with it.But now the duel is with Narendra Modi which will be further extended by Amit Shah the no nonsense Union Home Minister we have.Narendra Modi is a veteran in politics. With decades of politics behind him. A master communicator and an administrator above par. As we have all seen in the ongoing COVID-19 CRISIS. With less than Five hundred India was first Nation to understand the impact and clamp a Lockdown in the Country.Narendra Modi saved our lives. He is on the path of saving the Nation.What type of a person Rahul Gandhi needs, to teach him basics so that he may equal the stature of Narendra Modi.This all reminds me about Robin Sharma. The Self Motivator Guru.I am particularly fond of his works on self motivation. I would like to present a part of his motivational speech I often hear ;One day Picasso was in a Marketplace and a Woman saw him.She rushed to him, “ Oh Mr. Picasso, great to see you. Iam a huge fan.” She pulled out a piece of paper and a pencil from her bag, “ Can you make a little piece of art. Can you make a little drawing”.“ Absolutely”, replied Picasso and he took the piece of paper and the pencil and made a beautiful drawing and handed it for the Lady to see it.“ Oh fantastic, Mr Picasso” ,screamed the Lady and started to walk with the painting.“ Oh my dear Lady”, Picasso called her, “ You owe me a Million Dollars”.“A Million Dollars”. The Lady was shocked. “ It took you thirty seconds to do that Mr Picasso”.“My dear Lady,” Picasso reminded her, “It took me Thirty Years to do that in thirty seconds”.NARENDRA MODI ar this hour is the “ PICASSO” of INDIAN POLITICS.NO ANY COACH CAN REPLICATE HIS SKILLS IN ANOTHER POLITICIAN.RAHUL GANDHI NEEDS THIS TO UNDERSTAND FULLY.

Opium War joke:“Did you hear about the Qing general who thought tactics were a kind of mint?”In the 1839–42 “Opium War”, Qing were much less effective at dealing with British imperialist aggression than the Zulus in 1879, despite the enormously greater Chinese resources.During the Opium War the Qing were limited in scope because British naval dominance enabled the attacking forces to pick and choose the points of attack and because ships could move faster than troops. This gave the British a clear tactical edge that offset the Chinese home advantage. See my answers:Ian Holloway's answer to Why were the Chinese ‘Junk’ ships so weak compared to English Frigates?AndIan Holloway's answer to The British only deployed 19,000 troops in the opium war, and far less in any single battle. Why could the Chinese not overwhelm them with vastly superior numbers?As a result, the Qing largely relied on fortifications and sea defences such as stakes in river beds and booms across rivers to impair the British. Local Chinese helped the British removed these, as in the early stages of the war the British “invaders” were popular, partly as they paid well and partly because the Qing were seen as corrupt overlords. This popularity ran out during the war and after it the Chinese didn’t want to buy British goods apart from opium, leading to a war “to promote trade” reducing trade. [1]The fortifications, though powerful on paper, were about as useful as paper as the British were past masters at dealing with this sort of thing. Their warships bombarded the forts using their better aim and higher rate of fire, and whilst the Chinese gunners peered through the smoke, the British put Marines and landing parties ashore in a spot not covered by the guns and stormed the forts. The Qing had no idea whatsoever of the British military capability, having written then off as a load of uncouth barbarian pirates. How could such pipsqueaks defeat the Celestial Empire? [2 &3]A classic case was at Amoy (modern Xiamen) where the Qing had 6 months to prepare defences and had about 600 artillery pieces, many set behind granite fortifications that were almost impregnable to gunfire from the sea. Many of these guns were larger than those carried by the British fleet. However, the lack of traversable carriages and narrow firing ports meant that few guns could bear on any ship for very long. Anyone who has studied Napoleonic era naval warfare is aware that wooden ships of the period were capable of taking a surprising amount of punishment, however the Qing were almost delusional in their belief that a hit or two from large guns would knock out British ships. In fact, the guns achieved little and were captured at trivial cost by a land attack.Chinese accounts support problems with gun siting the 8000 catty [5 ton] guns newly cast at Fatshan were much dreaded by the foreigners, but unfortunately no suitable place could be found for aiming them [4]The Qing also made extensive use of fireships carrying out several attacks on the British fleet. The British were familiar with this wheeze. Fearing the grapeshot of the British ships, Chinese “water braves” launched their fire ships too early, so the British had plenty of warning and dragged them ashore. Several Chinese houses but no British ships were destroyed. As usual, Chinese accounts take a different view a certain amount of damage was done to two ships and several hundred foreign soldiers were drowned [5] and the fires ashore blamed on British steamships and Chinese traitors. Near Chapu the Chinese sources mention a successful fire ship attack Meanwhile Cheng Ting-Ch’en with his fire boats managed to burn or sink four men of war, about a dozen boats, during which operations 500 to 600 foreign sailors drowned [6] but this is not in accordance with any British records. The only British Opium War ship sunk by enemy action was sunk by the Luftwaffe in 1940! [7]In addition to these conventional tactics, the Qing also resorted to the bizarre! These includedSending women’s chamber pots full of urine - this was based on hexing rather than hygiene as I understand[8]divers drilling holes in the British ships [9] andmonkeys armed with firecrackers [10] sent to climb into the rigging of British shipsAll these tactics worked about as well as one might expectWhen the British occupied cities such as Ningbo, the Chinese used insurgent tactics-guerrilla fighters disguised as travellers kidnapped British soldiers. This was not very successful: Fu Kien’s idea was to hire as many braves, robbers and scoundrels of all descriptions as could be got together from the provinces; to keep up a harassing guerrilla warfare for rendering assistance when a suitable time would come [11]The insurgents also gathered intelligence. Much of this was worthless if not absurd- such as the British secret weapon- a magic potion that turned Chinese prisoners of war into black devils, controlled at the whim of a British general who was a warlock. There are easier ways to explain the presence of large numbers of dark-skinned soldiers who fought determinedly for the British [12]During the war, the Chinese did use ambushes on any isolated British troops, but after this has been recognized, the British took more care.The British were very short of troops throughout the war and suffered a lot from malaria and dysentery, so occupied towns were often given up to be retaken later in the conflict.In the middle phase of the Opium War, the Chinese launched a series of counter attacks against the cities that the British had captured [13]. These were ineptly planned and chaotically executed. The British General Gough “killed the Chinese with ruthless efficiency” [14] in a series of battles. The British lost about 50 men, the Chinese a few thousand in these encounters, which produced the only classic ‘pitched land battle’ of the war, at the Battle of Chapu in May 1842, where the British lost 15 killed and 32 wounded. Qing losses were considerably greater. Quite why the Qing chose to fight this kind of battle is unknown.The Arrow War 1856–60In the Arrow War [15] of 1856-60, the beginning is similar to the Opium War. There was then a break in proceedings as both sides dealt with large scale and brutal rebellions- the Taiping and the “Indian Mutiny”. The British dealt with their problem rather quicker than the Qing! [16].Some Chinese defences were weak -referring to one fortification model of a modern major general Wolseley stated a spirited attack by old women armed with pokers and dustpans would meet with successThe Qing forts at Taku (Dagu) were captured. The Qing signed the Treaty of Tientsin but were seen to renege on it, so the Anglo-French forces were determined that the treaty by ratified in Beijing and started to put military pressure in the Qing.Complacency led to a humiliating defeat for the British at the second battle of the Taku forts. The British and French retook the forts at the third attempt, but this was a major fight with many decorations being awarded- and the Chinese coolies, so steadfast under fire, earning an extra month’s pay in lieu of medals.Below, the attackers had to get through the nest of spikes to assault the walls of the forts.Below the gallant slain defenders. Note matchlock muskets, crossbow and 32 pounder gun.In the final phase of the Arrow War we see mass battles between Chinese and European armies. The Qing try to trap the Anglo- French Army, but their subterfuge was not hard to figure out.They expected Colonel Walker to meet them on the camping ground agreed by the Chinese. But they too saw ominous signs. For the first couple of miles, the march lay through standing corn. After that, everything had been cut down creating open fields of fire. Moreover, the advanced guard had come across a Tartar[i.e. Mongol] cavalry patrol that fled on approach….Clearly the allies were not just in the process of being surrounded by enemy cavalry, they were being invited onto ground commanded by enemy guns. In fact, Prince Sang had brought over 20,000 troops, vowing that the allies would never return to Tianjin alive. Sang’s preferred tactic of surrounding an enemy with cavalry was a tradition harking back to Genghis Khan [17]Subsequently he Chinese attacked with their elite Mongol cavalry- but these are hopeless against infantry armed with rifles and bayonets (had the Chinese bothered to read European history, they would have read of the defeat of the Mamluks at the Battle of the Pyramids.[18] That was against troops armed with smoothbore muskets! Although the courage and horsemanship of the Mongols cavalry was admired, they were no match for the British and Sikh cavalry: Everywhere the big cavalry horses of the King’s Dragoon Guards and the Sikhs [Fanes’ Horse] went through them, bowling the much smaller Tartar horses like ninepins [19].Anglo-French forces sustained 51 casualties, the Mongols lost about 2000 in the battle.It should be noted that in the Opium War the British lost about 70 men to the Qing and 1400 to cholera, malaria and dysentery in the three year campaign [20]. Losses in the Arrow War were lower, partly as a result of improved medical care after the reorganizations post the Crimean debacle. [21]I have written about Chinese weapons at [22].So that about covers it, I hope!FootnotesThis popularity ran out once the British landed and carried out acts of looting and drunken hooliganism against the Chinese populace- desecrating graves and hitting Chinese for not raising their hats to British officers stung particularly. Another problem was the war collapsed law and order, so bandits had a free reign to terrorise the locals. The Manchu may have been overlords, but at least bandits didn’t rob you when you went to see your mum when they were in control!Commissioner Lin Zexu was less than perspicacious when he opined Although the yi soldiers have guns and cannon they are weaker in swordsmanship, footwork and marching. Moreover their legs are tightly bound with cloth, which restricts their movement and makes it difficult to stretch, much a less ascend riverbanks and seashores. Hence despite their strength they can be held in check: Lin Zexu ”ji zougao zhong”p136 Translated by Joseph LawsonLin’s assessment can be compared with a comment of a British sailor on the way to fight the Qing.-eighteen-year-old Able Seaman William Petty Ashcroft We had plenty of gun drill, small arms and cutlass drill, landing parties, stretcher parties, scaling parties with ladders, field piece crews and the boats fitted with paddles for going up narrow creeks cited in Humble R (1976) Before the Dreadnought MacDonald and Janes p95Yuan Wei (1888) A Chinese Account of the Opium War p33ibid p31ibid p58–59HMS Wellesley, sunk on 24 Sep 1940 in a bombing raid, HMS Wellesley (1815) - Wikipedia. There are multiple independent first hand British accounts of the Opium War and these are in broad agreement. Like many primary sources, there is clear evidence of bias, however the Chinese claims of killing many British servicemen cannot be reconciled with any records and make little sense as the Qing forces were routed.General Yang Fang’s idea of attacking the British fleet with chamber pots full of women’s urine which would bring bad luck on the barbarians (I am not taking the urine here, Yang Fang was!)Divers from near Canton, described in Waley A (1955) The Opium War Through Chinese Eyes George Allen and Unwin p115. The divers were unable to hold their breath for anywhere like long enough. Commissioner Lin didn’t hold his breath waiting for their success either!The attack with the monkeys was aborted and the Qing retreated- the poor monkeys were left to starve! See Waley A (1955) The Opium War Through Chinese Eyes George Allen and Unwin p 170Yuan Wei (1888) A Chinese Account of the Opium War p52–53Ian Holloway's answer to What role did sepoys play in the First and Second Opium Wars?Simner M (2019) The Lion and the Dragon Fonthill Chapter 6Lovell J (2011) The Opium War Picador. I don’t know why Prof Lovell takes this tone, it was General Gough’s job to kill the enemy efficiency, surely!The Arrow War is a better name as the war was about wider issues than opium see Wong J Y (1998) Deadly Dreams, opium, Imperialism and the Arrow War 1855–1860 Cambridge.Despite being outnumbered by more than six to one, forces loyal to to the East India Company smashed the rebels leaving the British free to redeploy troops to China. The loyalist forces then carried out brutal retaliations for earlier atrocities against the women and children of Europeans, which, as Indian writers are apt to point out, remind one of Nazi reprisals.Gerber H (2016) The Battle for Beijing p145–146Battle of the Pyramids - WikipediaWolseley G 1904 The Story of a Soldier’s Life Vol 2 New York p68-69McLean D (2006) Surgeons of the Opium War : The Navy in China Coast 1840-42 The English Historical Review 491 487-564Courtney CC (2013) Surgeon in the China Seas Hong KongIan Holloway's answer to What percentage of the Chinese Army had firearms at the First Opium War and how did their firearms compare to western firearms?