The Israeli Flotilla incident
Israel admit the assault was in international waters. They have no right to assault and arrest them there.
The israeli ambassador in Spain, in a press conference entitled "Pacifist lies. Spanish activists at the service of Hamas' propaganda", said the spanish news about the assault were "anti-semitic" and added that the spanish activists involved weren't pacifists because they chose to sail with "terrorists and mercenaries". The weapons confiscated to the flotilla activists, and showed in that press conference, were knives, penknives, sticks, a saw, slingshots and tools. Do this weapons seem to be the usual "terrorists and mercenaries"'s weapons?
(translations is mine, sorry for the possible mistakes. Source : elPeriódico)
Hamas, as a matter of policy acts to destroy the State of Israel. The government of Israel has every right to blockade goods being shipped to a belligerent.
Here is a piece of history: During the Civil War, the U.S. blockaded commerce into the Confederacy. Israel as the same right to do to its enemy, what the U.S. did back then. Nations have blockaded and laid down mine fields to prevent goods from going to an enemy. Israel is no different in that regard. There is a war going on and Israel has to fight it the best way she knows how. One way is to keep the Hamas Rocketeers from getting weapons from Iran and Syria.
ruveyn
Israel and the Western powers have decreed Gaza to be within Israel's security perimeter, and thus under effective Israeli sovereignty. The Western powers claim that Israel can control the occupied territories as long as there is no peace agreement. The U.S. has made it clear that any peace agreement will create a fake state effectively enveloped within the Israeli security perimeter and has also accepted that Israel can violate the IV Geneva Convention and use the occupied territories in any way it sees fit.
That Israel has pulled out the 8,000 settlers that occupied one third of Gaza from there doesn't change this fact, that they moved soldiers out doesn't change that either. Israel sees Gaza in its perimeter. If it really wants to give up Gaza then it has to say it's no longer in its perimeter and therefore Gaza can import whatever it wants, including weapons.
Hamas, as a matter of policy acts to destroy the State of Israel.
ruveyn
The expression for that is "regime change". South Africa was likewise "destroyed" in 1994.
If you really believe the Confederacy argument then you must admit that Israel continues to claim Gaza for its own just as the Union claimed the Confederate territories as their own. As Gazans remain subject to the regime that governs Israel then it's the right of Gazans to want that regime changed - what you call "the destruction of Israel" - to one more sensitive to the sensibilities of people in Gaza and a regime that includes people from Gaza and its political forces.
As the people controlling Gaza, that is Israel, have decreed that children there must be stunted intellectually and physically, this shows the evil of that regime and why it must be changed.
ASPowerations
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker
Joined: 8 Dec 2006
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 69
Location: Manhattan, NY
Xenon13, you have to be insane to suggest that Israel is wrong to prevent weapons from entering Gaza. The weapons which they are STILL trying to import are for the purpose of firing at Israeli civilians. They are not aimed at military bases, (note that Israel protects its civilians by separating its military bases from its residential areas, while Hamas does not,) or at the homes of military commanders off duty, (they're not civilians any more than Palestinians who store Qassam rockets in their basements are.)
_________________
The geeks shall rise!!
ASPowerations
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker
Joined: 8 Dec 2006
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 69
Location: Manhattan, NY
If thine enemy smite thee on thy cheek, decapitate him and excrete down his severed neck. Do that often enough and people will stop smiting thee on thy cheek.
ruveyn
1. Where, in any scripture, does it say that?
2. That stops working when both sides have those policies.
_________________
The geeks shall rise!!
As this means that Israel claims control of Gaza they are responsible for the well-being of the population there, and that children are being physically and intellectually stunted as a result of the "dietary regime" forced on it by Israeli decree then they must accept responsibility for this very serious crime. Also, as people in Gaza are subject to the Israeli regime it is their right that it be changed to one more sensitive to their concerns.
If thine enemy smite thee on thy cheek, decapitate him and excrete down his severed neck. Do that often enough and people will stop smiting thee on thy cheek.
ruveyn
1. Where, in any scripture, does it say that?
2. That stops working when both sides have those policies.
That sounds more like the Satanic Bible. This is no surprise.
It's true that there are extremists on both sides, Israelis who would like to obliterate the Palestinians, and Palestinians who would like the state of Israel obliterated, and both have engaged in terrible violence, There are people on both sides who are in the wrong, but extremists do not frame the issues, they are only the most noticeable contingents.
The notion of creating a Jewish state was noble. If the Jews had had a homeland to flee to during WWII, many could have escaped the horrors of the holocaust. But as it was implemented, the state of Israel doesn't have a leg to stand on politically and morally. It was created through the colonial power of Britain, which had conquered then-Palestine by violent means and had no legitimate claim to the land and no right to turn it over to create of the state of Israel. Israel then went to war to claim even more territory and has retained control of the West Bank and Gaza through sheer military force. (There are many UN resolutions demanding that Israel abandon its claims to the occupied territories, but with the backing of the US Israel can thumb its nose at the UN.)
Israel has an army, modern warfare armaments and the support of the US. The Palestinians are essentially powerless, so they resort to reprehensible tactics like terrorist attacks, or they would just disappear under Israel's far greater power. Israel is not satisfied to kill four times the number of Palestinians than the Palestinians have killed Israelis, nor is it satisfied to fight with tanks against people throwing rocks, it also insists on blockading aid and civilian supplies to the Gaza strip. The activists had the moral high ground in challenging the blockade, and Israel's violent reaction was appalling, killing people who were essentially unarmed except for sticks.
But the Palestinians have placed themselves in the wrong politically by responding to violence with violence (even though their violence has been far less than that perpetrated by Israel). In my opinion, if the Palestinians had adopted nonviolence, the world would be solidly on their side, because I believe they are in the right in demanding their own sovereignty. But as it stands, there are two wrongs, one on either side of the conflict,and the violence will continue because the anger from both sides can do nothing but escalate as long as both sides are attacking each other. It's up to Israel, who has almost all of the power in this dispute, to offer an honest resolution, but so far it has not chosen to do so.
If thine enemy smite thee on thy cheek, decapitate him and excrete down his severed neck. Do that often enough and people will stop smiting thee on thy cheek.
ruveyn
1. Where, in any scripture, does it say that?
2. That stops working when both sides have those policies.
1.. The Book of Street Smarts.
2. No it doesn't. The last one standing is the Winner.
ruveyn
Actually the Palestine area was taken as part of the WW1 campaign against the Ottoman Empire, allies of the Central Powers. It was not "a colony" and the British forces were not at war with any indigenous peoples, but with the Turks, who had ruled the area as a group of Vilayets (districts) from the 1500s, having effectively taken it off the Mongols. The short period of time where it wasn't under Turkish control (due to a rebellious Egyptian ruler) was ended with the assistance of the British, who returned the area to Turkish control. The area was never "conquered" as such. It became Occupied Territory in much the same way as Germany did in WW2. Claiming that Britain attacked and conquered the area as part of a colonisation process is inaccurate and unfair.
Looking at the long and complex history of the area it can clearly be stated that almost all of the various groups that have laid claim to the land have very little "legitimate" claim other than armed force and occupation, and no right to administer it. However, a study of world history shows that likewise almost the whole world has been administered by people without a "legitimate" claim to the area they are in.
Edited PS: Nobody seems to care that Israel manages to board and search plenty of other ships without conflict. They did one the other day. It was in the News and everything, but nobody seems to care when they get things right...
_________________
"There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart,
that you can't take part" [Mario Savo, 1964]
Actually the Palestine area was taken as part of the WW1 campaign against the Ottoman Empire, allies of the Central Powers. It was not "a colony" and the British forces were not at war with any indigenous peoples, but with the Turks, who had ruled the area as a group of Vilayets (districts) from the 1500s, having effectively taken it off the Mongols. The short period of time where it wasn't under Turkish control (due to a rebellious Egyptian ruler) was ended with the assistance of the British, who returned the area to Turkish control. The area was never "conquered" as such. It became Occupied Territory in much the same way as Germany did in WW2. Claiming that Britain attacked and conquered the area as part of a colonisation process is inaccurate and unfair.
Looking at the long and complex history of the area it can clearly be stated that almost all of the various groups that have laid claim to the land have very little "legitimate" claim other than armed force and occupation, and no right to administer it. However, a study of world history shows that likewise almost the whole world has been administered by people without a "legitimate" claim to the area they are in.
Edited PS: Nobody seems to care that Israel manages to board and search plenty of other ships without conflict. They did one the other day. It was in the News and everything, but nobody seems to care when they get things right...
Some people laud Israel for being so nationalistic and think it somehow bespeaks of "democracy," while denouncing the Palestinians who prior to the Israeli occupation didn't seem to have much national ambition, although they were still deeply tied to the land. I think the Palestinian attitude was more mature and nationalism is most of the time all kinds of f****d up and delusional. They're nationalistic now but that sort of the terms they have to be on. This all relates to the saying "One state, two state, no state," The most ideal situation is a no state solution with a place for both parties.
Your idealism is touching, but naïve. How, in a world full of tribalism and factionalism, does one function in a "no state" solution in which two antagonistic parties are enmeshed?
So long as Iran continues to fund a war of aggression against Israel, and so long as Israel continues to encroach on the West Bank what are the prospects for peaceful coexistence?
Simply telling Israel to stop its current strategy and draw borders for a two state solution is an invitation to a full scale civil war. The Palestinian Authority does not have control over its territory or its people. The best case scenario is a new founded Palestine sliding into civil unrest, with a loss of any effective government. The worst case scenario is Iran using the newly sovereign Palestine as a staging ground for a new war of aggression against Israel. Why are Syria, Egypt, Lebanon and Jordan playing quiet during all of this? Because they know full well that their own peace and stability will be profoundly threatened by the presence of an unstable Palestine.
There is more to establishing a nation state than simply erecting borders and electing a leadership. Both the leaders and the populace must have the capacity to be self-governing. If Palestine were cut lose today, it would simply be another failed state, ripe for the predation of the first charismatic tyrant to come along.
The true humanitarians supporting the Palestinians are the ones who are working quietly to bring up a generation of Palestinian youth who are prepared to exercise self-government. Grabbing headlines by provoking a predictable response from Israel garners the activist 15 minutes of fame, but does not one thing to improve the lives of the Palestinian people.
_________________
--James
I'm not taking sides in this issue, because both parties have major issues to deal with. Hamas has disregarded human rights with blatant rocket fire on Israeli soil. Israel has disregarded Palestinian rights through previous offensives and their current blockade. Activists ignored the orders of a nation concerning it's own territorial waters.
It would be nice if someone in this mess wasn't a total idiot, but that's politics for you. Nobody wants to give ground, and everybody wants all of it to themselves. Aside from the quality of life, I honestly don't see much difference between Israel and Hamas at this point. They've both got some serious problems to sort out.
_________________
"Imagination is more important than knowledge."
~ Albert Einstein
I didn't say it was the realistic option, but the ideal one. A more realistic one would be a two state solution maybe working towards one. And the two state solution is the one deemed legit by international law. The Palestinian and Iranian, as was the Shah, leadership is bad, but then again leadership generally is. Israel has shown itself to be extremely rash, and this is not good considering they actually have nukes.
It would be nice if someone in this mess wasn't a total idiot, but that's politics for you. Nobody wants to give ground, and everybody wants all of it to themselves. Aside from the quality of life, I honestly don't see much difference between Israel and Hamas at this point. They've both got some serious problems to sort out.
Yes, both states are blinded by fear but they aren't in an equal situation. And, btw, Israel attacked the flotilla in international waters, and that's something that really annoys me, because it's illegal. And I don't think (like someone write in this thread) that any state have right to do so, laws are meant to be obeyed, to don't let order and justice be drowned by fear and blood-thirst. And Fear is a bad adviser, so nobody should use it as an excuse for any violent act (no matter the side).
Similar Topics | |
---|---|
Israeli settlers publish map of s.Lebanon with Hebrew names |
30 Sep 2024, 11:26 am |
Israeli troops fire at 3 UNIFIL positions in Lebanon |
13 Oct 2024, 2:51 am |
Palestinian Doctor Raped To Death By Israeli Soldiers |
24 Nov 2024, 2:52 am |
Israeli researchers discover gene mutation in Ashkenazi Jews |
06 Dec 2024, 3:49 pm |