the terriost attack and the isreali attack

[Black Red Devil]

and from reading most of the posts what do you see.

Antisemitism of course.

[ExpandMyMind]

as an occuping power isreal has a right to tell ships to go to a specfic port for unloading of aid. isreal further has a right to determine what can get through and what cant. these ships were ordered to a specfic port and refused said order at that point they became targets. isreal had the right at that point to board or sink them.

israel has no right to occupy the gaza in any way. therefore these right which you claim, do not exist.

[Black Red Devil]

most blockaids down through histroy have been condemned by other nations. isreal nor the usa answers to the un nor should they.

Well there you have it. You've just singled out the usa and israel as two nations that are above all international laws or agreements. Funny how you've done this in a thread where you're trying to make a point to everyone that the international community singles out Israel. Hilarious.

[danielost]

israel has no right to occupy the gaza in any way. therefore these right which you claim, do not exist.

no your right but isreal does have the right to annex it. also any nation has the right to tell import ships which ports to use.

Edited July 27, 2010 by danielost

[danielost]

Well there you have it. You've just singled out the usa and israel as two nations that are above all international laws or agreements. Funny how you've done this in a thread where you're trying to make a point to everyone that the international community singles out Israel. Hilarious.

did i forget to mention that england/great britian/the common wealth also does not answer to the un. guess that kind of puts you in our boat doesnt it. no nation answers to the un. unless voted on and not vetoed by the nations that have veto power

Edited July 27, 2010 by danielost

[ExpandMyMind]

no your right but isreal does have the right to annex it.

no, they don't. what a ludicrous claim. 'israel has the right to take the west bank and gaza from the palestinians'. that's what you have just claimed. WTF?

[danielost]

no, they don't. what a ludicrous claim. 'israel has the right to take the west bank and gaza from the palestinians'. that's what you have just claimed. WTF?

they have the right through the right of conquest.

[Corp]

Israel tried running Gaza and it was a mess. That's why they withdrew, hoping that some form of peace would result. No such luck. Don't think they'd want to try and give it another go. Think they'd much rather Gaza get a government that acknowledges their right to exist or for Egypt to annex Gaza. Know they've tried that in the past.

When did Israel annex half of the West Bank? I know they're still building those stupid settlements along the border but I know Irsael destroyed a bunch of West Bank settlements several years ago.

[ExpandMyMind]

they have the right through the right of conquest.

what right of conquest? you're talking of things that don't exist in any place except your mind. international law explicitly prohibits the acquisition of any land through war. with good reason. so in essence, you are claiming the complete opposite of what is true.

[ExpandMyMind]

double post.

Edited July 27, 2010 by expandmymind

[ExpandMyMind]

Israel tried running Gaza and it was a mess. That's why they withdrew, hoping that some form of peace would result. No such luck. Don't think they'd want to try and give it another go. Think they'd much rather Gaza get a government that acknowledges their right to exist or for Egypt to annex Gaza. Know they've tried that in the past.

When did Israel annex half of the West Bank? I know they're still building those stupid settlements along the border but I know Irsael destroyed a bunch of West Bank settlements several years ago.

http://www.btselem.org/English/Publications/Summaries/201007_By_Hook_and_by_Crook.asp

from israel's bt'selem (it's just over 40%). they also control almost all of the water - israel control 4/5 of the water while having 1/5 of the population, while palestinians have 4/5 of the population and 1/5 of the water according to the world bank. try farming when you don't have enough water to wash.

they didn't give gaza a chance. as soon as they left the country was sanctioned heavily, which when hamas came into power went to the extremes. they haven't had a chance. they stopped suicide bombings in 2005, renounced them in 2006 and were heavily sanctioned as a result - truly crippling sanctions, the country has literally no infrastructure... and you speak of hamas refusal to accept israel's right to exist. when have countries had to do this? gandhi refused to accept pakistan's right to exist, but he accepted the realities of them being there as have hamas when they have indicated that they may be willing to start talks based on the 'pre '67 conditions', clearly an acceptance of israel being there - they also have not enforced their charter since coming into power.

but it's insane to even try to demand this 'acceptance of the right to exist' in the case of israel and palestine, because israel have refused to accept the palestinians' right to exist on land they occupied before the european immigrants even arrived. they (and the US) deny the palestinians any right to self determination on a yearly basis, when it's voted on by every country in the world.

Edited July 27, 2010 by expandmymind

[Corp]

In its charter Hamas clearly states that their goal is to destroy Israel. From what I understand they have refused to change that so their motives are very much in question. As for the Palestians as a nation they seems a lot closer now than they were several years ago. So if Israel is trying to stop their right to exist they're doing a poor job of it.

I'm kind of reaching the point of saying let's step back and let them kill each other. Seems neither side gives a damn about peace so let them fight it out. We'll deal with whoever's left standing.

[ExpandMyMind]

In its charter Hamas clearly states that their goal is to destroy Israel. From what I understand they have refused to change that so their motives are very much in question. As for the Palestians as a nation they seems a lot closer now than they were several years ago. So if Israel is trying to stop their right to exist they're doing a poor job of it.

I'm kind of reaching the point of saying let's step back and let them kill each other. Seems neither side gives a damn about peace so let them fight it out. We'll deal with whoever's left standing.

how are they closer to getting what's theirs? that's an absurd claim. they're nowhere. israel are doing a bad job of stopping their right to exist? not sure how you can come to that conclusion when israel are the only ones standing in the way of it...

[acidhead]

In its charter Hamas clearly states that their goal is to destroy Israel. From what I understand they have refused to change that so their motives are very much in question. As for the Palestians as a nation they seems a lot closer now than they were several years ago. So if Israel is trying to stop their right to exist they're doing a poor job of it.

I'm kind of reaching the point of saying let's step back and let them kill each other. Seems neither side gives a damn about peace so let them fight it out. We'll deal with whoever's left standing.

I agree... let them sort out their business without any interference from my tax dollars.

-no aid money for the palestinians and no military funding for israel.

Its their business... not mine and certainly nobody elses except the people who are there.

[danielost]

I agree... let them sort out their business without any interference from my tax dollars.

-no aid money for the palestinians and no military funding for israel.

Its their business... not mine and certainly nobody elses except the people who are there.

that might be a good idea if none of the other muslim or arab countries were helping the palastinians.

and the majority of the usa wasnt the brothers of the jews.

[Dan'O]

Your accusation is offensive, Dan, but not surprising.

As has been said...it's not anti-semitism, it's about Israel's obligations and adherence to international law which they continuously defy....that makes people angry and frustrated.

A law unto themselves.

I respect your decision even if I vehemently disagree with it and I am sorry you were offended. You see something and I see something else, ultimately...that is all. I am concerned with all innocents, on all sides.

Edited July 28, 2010 by Dan'O

[Black Red Devil]

did i forget to mention that england/great britian/the common wealth also does not answer to the un. guess that kind of puts you in our boat doesnt it. no nation answers to the un. unless voted on and not vetoed by the nations that have veto power

What are you on about? There are 192 nations in the world who are members of the UN, including the UK and Australia. Member nations sign up individually not through an organisation like the Commonwealth. These nations agree to follow whats set out in the UN Charter to ensure Peace, Human Rights Affairs, Humanitarian issues and International Laws are instigated. The Security Council is a body of the UN that has the power to make decisions (if voted accordingly by the 15 members of the Security Council including 5 permanent members with a Right to veto) if member nations contravene principles in the UN Charter.

Now, the UN has setup an independent inquiry into the Israeli raid matter.

My link

As we all know one of the permanent members of the Security Council is the US who, with all probability IMO, veto any resolutions against Israel, despite the fact 47 countries voted to set up an independent inquiry. The way I see it,

1. If the independent inquiry finds the Govt of Israel responsible for the deaths of 9 people and in violation to the UN Charter, AND, the US vetos any resolution, this, IMO, would prove that Israel is by no means a victim or a country singled out, but a protected species that is basically above all international law and agreements.
2. On the other hand if the inquiry finds them responsible and the US doesn't use their power to veto, you know Obama has had a gutful of Israel and it's aggressive and belligerent actions. Or,
3. If the inquiry finds Israel's actions in the raid legitimate, then hats off to them and nothing more should be said about the matter.

Neither "1", "2" or "3" would prove that Israel is a singled out victim but, "1" would prove that they're protected and capable of getting away with murder despite laws and agreements that 191 other nations abide by.

Edited July 28, 2010 by BlackRedLittleDevil

[MichaelW]

no aid money for the palestinians and no military funding for israel.

Well obviously that isn't going to work. Firstly, Palestinians will still recieve aid from Arab countries no matter what the western world thinks (think of 1973) plus all those idiotic protesters would kick up a storm if their precious Palestine was bankrupt. Secondly, Israel sells a lot of arms to overseas countries and deals with some surprising Muslim customers like Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan. Plus, there are a lot of influential Jews controlling a hell of a lot of money, so even if countries like the US stopped official military aid to Israel, those influential Jews would provide the country with all the funding it wants. Also, almost all of the weapons in the IDF's current inventory were developed in Israel, so military sanctions would do little.

[ExpandMyMind]

palestinians receive a substantial amount of money and aid from russia (and elsewhere), as well as arab countries. and why the reference to '73?

do they build their own nuclear subs? what about their own fighter jets? according to human rights organisations, the majority of shells and shrapnel, etc, discovered during the investigations of the gaza massacre was found to be USA made (as is the case with almost every israeli attack).

israel have a lot of sophisticated equipment, for sure, but they rely on outside technology for many defensive necessities and there can be no denying that pressure from western countries, though mainly the US, would be an extremely useful tool in the goal of forcing israel to comply with international law. if the US were serious about peace in the region, that is. this leverage has been used before by US presidents and it does work, so even with the financial support you assume they would easily make up, in reality any support wouldn't make much of a difference if the US had already stopped sending vital technology.

Edited July 30, 2010 by expandmymind